HR leaders and managers assume that in a world of rapid change, the workforce will resist any changes. Leandro Herero argues that starting at this point is counterproductive.
The idea that people resist change is a common and often misguided claim in traditional management. We’ve heard this phrase so many times that we assume it is true. But is it true?
Since then, I have argued against it in my speeches, articles, books, and consulting work. I still think that this statement is deeply flawed. It’s sad. It’s actually one of the worst things a leader or manager could do.
What makes this statement problematic, when we know that individuals or teams have resisted change initiatives in the past?
The problem is not that people resist change, but the danger inherent in the generalisation ‘people are resistant’. The key issue is the word ‘are’.
It implies a quality that is intrinsic and cannot be changed, as if people are inherently resistant to change. It’s going to be a constant struggle. It’s a masochistic way to start a change initiative.
Constant change
Look around. We are witnessing rapid changes in our societies – social and political norms are shifting, technology is transforming the way we live, and generational shifts are changing workplace dynamics.
It’s not a mistake if it sounds like an old song. We are all constantly changing biologically, even on a personal basis. Adaptability is one our most important survival traits as human beings.
In this context, it seems odd to say the least that people resist change. How could we survive and thrive if we were resistant to change?
Human beings are change. It defines our physical, mental, and emotional lives. Our lives are not finished when we’re born. We can adapt in a variety of ways throughout our lifetime.
We are always reshaping ourselves, from the acquisition of new skills and attitudes to the shift in our perspectives and attitude. In fact, our “unfinished” state is the key to our resilience. We can adapt and change with the world.
Why do people seem to resist change in some situations, if they are not resistant by nature?
Sources of Resistance
It’s not the change that is the problem; it may be the context, approach and meaning we give to it. It is not an existing human state. It’s a result.
When change is perceived as threatening, unjustified, or imposed on people, resistance may occur. People resist change when they feel they’re losing control, or they don’t understand why they need to.
There are many reasons people resist.
Lacking control: People are more likely resist when they feel like change is being forced on them, without their input. When autonomy is threatened, people are more likely to resist.
Lacking purpose: When people do not see the reason behind a change, if they aren’t told the “why”, then it is likely that they will question the necessity of the change. This is so easily overlooked.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous quote “He who has an why to live for, can bear almost anything how” has many interpretations but has always reminded me to ‘explain as much as I can’.
I have found that many people’s attitudes change when they are given a reason. It’s context, whether you like it or dislike it.
‘We don’t do X’ can be interpreted as blaming, because it is non-contextual, blunt and unambiguous. ‘We’re not doing X. Instead, we’re doing Y.’ changes the whole picture.
Perceived Threats: Change is often perceived as a danger, regardless of whether it affects job security, identity, or status. In such cases, resistance to change is not a natural opposition, but a defensive mechanism. It’s similar to producing antibodies before a danger is present.
Preference for the status-quo is an emotional preference. The known, however imperfect, can feel safer than the unknown. When the alternative is uncertain or dangerous, resistance can be an emotional or rational preference to keep things as they are.
Breach in trust: When people believe they have been misled, or their trust broken, then their resistance to change is not to the change itself, but the way it has been handled.
This is an interpretive list and not a scientific one. It is possible that there are many combinations, and nobody knows what the relative weights of each one of them are. It could be all or some of these. The list could be endless.
If we examine these factors closely, we can see that “resistance”, as we call it, is not a condition, but a reaction. It could be a poor management of change. You and I don’t oppose change. We resist the perceived threats and the lack of communication.
Starting off wrong
Many change management strategies fail in this area. Many change management approaches start with the assumption that people will resist changes, creating an adversarial environment from the get-go.
As if you were to approach a mountain, and decide, before even starting the climb, that it would be impossible.
When the expectation is that there will be resistance, the entire focus is on overcoming this perceived resistance. The actual causes, such as miscommunication, a lack of trust or uncertainty, are not considered.
“I have found that many people’s attitudes change when they are given a reason.”
What if, instead of seeing resistance as the default position, we began from a completely different premise. Why not start with the idea that people do not have to resist changes, and when they are, it is worth investigating why?
What about this change is causing pushback? What is needed to be clarified or reconsidered, addressed? It is not that I believe the answers are immediately obvious, but without questioning the answers, it’s certain: ‘universal opposition’ will take over the space.
Trust is cultivated
We find that a session on preconceived notions (as long or short as necessary, but almost never just one) is the most effective intervention we can use with our clients.
In a brainstorming session, we bring a group with all preconceived notions to the table to expose them.
People are often very open about their opinions: the change will be difficult, long or impossible, middle management won’t accept it, this won’t take place in this company etc.
It only takes one person to say “Actually, this is not how I see it” to change the collective mindset. It is not a good idea to leave things unsaid or ignore the collective belief system.
Stop reinforcing that people are resistant towards change. Let’s instead focus on creating conditions that make change feel like an opportunity, rather than a danger.
We can make the path to change and transformation much easier by moving from expecting resistance to cultivating clarity and trust.
Here’s a fresh starting point for leaders: The people don’t need to resist the change. It’s not a requirement. It’s not an obligation. Let’s investigate what happened if they do. This is a much better place to start.
