Digging a little deeper, we find that many change management processes are decidedly bias toward getting rid of resistance. Looking at resistance from a managers viewpoint you can understand why. Moreover, managers often take resistance personally. They see resistance as disruptive.
However, looking at resistance from the resister's point of view you can begin to see why there are legitimate reasons for it. D. Klein re-names resisters, calling them "defenders" - those who represent the traditions and values of the current state. They defend because:
- they believe those seeking to produce change fail to understand the core values of the system
- they see consequences of the change that managers don't see and changes that may threaten the well-being of the system
- they react to changes as the reduction of their own integrity; in other words they are sensitive to the importance of maintaining competence, self-esteem, and automony of themselves and others in the system
And so, according to E.C. Nevis, defenders see defending (resisting) as a healthy dose of self-control and a protective response to any damange to their integrity. So a new definition of resistance becomes "an expression of opposition to something as a statement of the integrity of the person expressing it". With that definition power struggles, conflicts, passive aggression, and sabotage can be viewed as an expression of differences. Defending is a sign that you have uncovered somthing important or valuable.
Here are some tactics, at a conversational level, that defenders use. Remember, a defender's integrity is at stake. (P. Block includes these in his book, Flawless Consulting).
- Avoid responsibility for the problem - they don't see themselves as part of the problem
- Flooding managers with detail - in an attempt to confuse the issues
- One-word answers - in an attempt to shorten the discussion hoping it will go away
- Changing the subject - the subject keeps shifting to talk about other things
- Compliance - seeming to do anything that is suggested - real conversation is non-existant
- Silence - making it hard on the manager to interpret the silence
- Presses the manager for solutions too soon - just get on with it
- Attack the manager, the problem, or the solution - questioning, anger
- Questions of methodology - attempt to hold off implementation
- Intellectualizing or theorizing - making the problem more complex
- Low energy and lack of attention - can't seem to stay focused on the discussion
Here are some ways, at an organizational level, to respond to defenders (some are recommended by R. Mauer):
- Keep both short and long term view
- Persevere - maintain a clear focus
- Move towards resistance - the voice of resistance tells you what's in-between you and your goal - once you know where people are concerned, you can move toward common ground
- Respect the defenders (resisters)
- Respect vs. trust - just because you don't trust someone doesn't mean that you should treat them with disrespect - respect is a behavior, not a belief
- Listen with interest
- Tell the truth
- Relax - stay calm to stay engaged
- Know other's intentions
- Join with the resistence - begin the change together in an attempt to create something new
- Change the rules right from the beginning - move towards rules in which all gain
- Look for themes and possibilities
- Take the flip side
- Team up - with those who understand and accept the change
- Seek counsel - from others who have successfully managed resistance
- Recall the higher purpose of what you are doing
- Ignore the temptation to get even
- Give up expectations - expectations block your development and limit your horizons
- Get a critical mass on board
- Seek out key players or influential players
- Acknowledge the old (past history/way of doing things)
- Support your supporters
- Keep moving
No comments:
Post a Comment