Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker,
Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change,
technology and the future.
In addition to speaking at conferences
worldwide, he also writes monthly columns for CIO Magazine and
His goal is always to question what we
think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities.
If you'd like permission to reprint any
of Peter's articles, please contact him directly.
You can contact him at
Or sign the Guest
Book and he'll get back to you.
In response to my column, "People don't Resist Change" we received a number of letters to the editor, mostly agreeing with the concepts I put forward, but there were requests for more specifics. In particular, Robert Stumbur posed the following situation.
"My question is how do you then deal with resistance from people who do not agree with the changes simply because the changes were not the ones they wanted? These people were involved in both the communication and feedback process, yet because they do not like the change, they are going to resist. These people can drain hours of productive time from an entire organization by dragging their feet, back biting, and generally producing a negative attitude that others have to work with."
Before I attempt to address this reasonably common situation I'll start with a statement of belief. The best Change Management practices in the world will never reduce the difficulty of implementing unwanted change to zero. Management's task is to position an organization so that Change is obviously necessary and desirable. When we fail in this, and sometimes there is no way to make a Change palatable, then the problem gets difficult.
There are two issues here. The first is there is no gimmick guaranteed to create 100% agreement with all our decisions or beliefs. Regardless of the fervent desires of management, the right to disagree (resist) is irrevocable. If you think it shouldn't be this way, then would you want, a government perhaps, to have an infallible method of forcing you to agree with all their decisions?
Paradoxically… if you're in disagreement with the above paragraph, and insist I'm wrong… you're demonstrating that your right to disagree is irrevocable.
There is a useful post-change Machiavellian strategy; some describe it as unethical, known as "self Persuasion". Place the person most against the Change on the team with the responsibility of convincing others to embrace the Change. This is surprisingly effective in getting people to change their minds. (For more on 'Self-Persuasion' see "The Age of Propaganda" Anthony Pratkanis & Elliot Aronson, Freeman, 1992 pg. 124)
The second issue raised by Robert's scenario is not just someone disagreeing with a change, but that they are actively working to sabotage the implementation process. It is worth noting again, that this is not necessarily evil behaviour. If the City decides, after consultation, to build a nuclear waste dump in my backyard, I will resist, protest and attempt to sabotage the process… But 'sabotage' is not a behaviour that any organization, city or company, can tolerate once they've decided to move forward in a particular direction.
Here are some additional post-change strategies which can bring a few more laggards on board; none of them come with a guarantee.
We know not everyone agrees, but…
In any significant Change there are those who disagree. If this difference of opinion isn't respectfully acknowledged, then we create a strong win/lose situation. In an attempt to shift this to at least compromise/compromise, emphasize that even though they didn't get their solution implemented, their input shaped the final decision. This strategy is even more effective, if it contains at least a small germ of truth.
Publicly acknowledging key dissidents for their constructive input, (even if it wasn't that constructive), and stating that you're looking forward to their cooperation and a rapid implementation, serves two functions. It communicates that all opinions were factored into the decision and that cooperation from those dissenters is expected.
Call their bluff (if you can afford the cost.)
If you are certain the solution (change) chosen was the correct one, and that other approaches would fail to solve the problem, then let them try it their way. Once they've failed, they may be more open to reason. Especially since they've now proved to themselves their way of doing things wasn't effective.
The last resort.
All organizations consist of people working together to achieve common goals. Those who totally disagree with a proposed change, to the extent they are sabotaging, by action or inaction, the completion of those common goals, have decided, and demonstrated, that they'd rather leave the team.
Management has the responsibility of ensuring that these individuals understand the consequences of both overt and covert sabotage. Deliberate sabotage should be a one-way ticket to an exit interview.
© 2005, Peter de Jager –
Peter is passionate about change, how it affects both individuals and
organizations and allows them to grow and prosper. To contact him, and
host internal seminars on Change Management visit www.technobility.com
reprint permissions click here.