Introducing Something New: Part I

Readiness and Resistance

Every systematic approach to making large-scale change usually talks about these two factors.

Readiness refers to whether or not the people who will be involved are prepared for the changes that are coming.

Resistance refers to the assumption that many people will balk at doing the "new" thing because it is different.

I'm no longer sure that the word "change" has any real impact. Everyone knows that life is filled with changes. Many of the programmed approaches have been designed in a way that creates an "us and them" dynamic, not unlike "employee" engagement. In other words: "I want something different than I'm getting now so you have to change." (That approach is content for a future article).

Making changes for the better, whether at work or in your personal life, both have some common elements. Here are some real-life, practical tips accompanied by some semi-deep thoughts:

If you, as a leader, have done a thorough job of explaining your organization's situation and why it is critical to do specific things differently, you will enable readiness and reduce resistance before it even starts.

Why? Because the human condition demands a reason for doing something differently. Until you answer the "Why?" question satisfactorily, forget about trying to get to the "What." (See, I just did it).

Readiness is all about understanding and acceptance. Yes, both of those. You can understand something intellectually but you need a certain amount of acceptance to want to act on your understanding.

What to do: When a change is needed, start talking about the situation and what you think needs to happen differently. Engage other people in the discussion. Tell them what you think ought to happen. Ask them what they think could be done. Tell managers to talk with their people about the situation.

Why? (See, I am trying to model this thing). When the decision to make the change finally happens, it's not a surprise. Save surprises for a significant birthday.

How not to "survey for readiness"

One of my Utility clients hired a firm that specialized in Change Management to come in and honcho the process. The system made sense on paper. It made no sense when it was applied. The first step in the process was a company-wide, pencil and paper assessment of individuals' "readiness for change." Yeah, think about this. A gazillion people answered questions--with obvious organizational and psychological underpinnings--about how they "felt" about changes. But they didn't know of any impending changes. Well, not until they were asked to do the questionnaire and asked themselves the "why?" question.

Then the results were tabulated  and "fed back" to the top levels of management. (The entire employee population knew their managers were at a meeting looking at whatever it was that they had generated in the survey. So,they began developing a "resistant" attitude before anything ever happened.)

I watched as a profile of readiness and resistance was displayed on the PowerPoint slides. Then came the somewhat unbelievable: the presenter noted that everyone not sitting in the room would be referred to as a Target for change. It was suddenly an "us" and "them" situation. "We" will be known as the change agents--"they" will be our targets.

Resistance is all about not having enough information to decide that making a change would be in one's best interest.

As you've already guessed, the "Readiness" exercise created "Resistance" that wasn't there to begin with.

BTW: If you are trying to do something differently at a personal level--but struggling--try your own, candid, readiness/resistance diagnostic.

Stop back for the inside scoop on how this was dealt with and how it can be done more effectively the first time around.

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

There is a Dutch expression: After the calf has drowned, the well is filled up - or something like that.

In your example the change management company appears to have guided the calf to the well ;-) I'm amazed - should I really? - that company was even selected for the 'works'. Or was the management that hired them to do their 'dirty' work afraid or hesitant of the change themselves? Makes you wonder.

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[Jo]

Well said. I've always been a believer that resistance just means we are out of touch.

Equally, sometimes we are . . . watching Lehman's, moving money, noting which fax machines aren't answered, etc. We seemed to have sleep-walked into a mess.

[Si Conroy]

Thanks Steve. Invaluable for a major change that I'm working on with my team. Interestingly I've spent the last three weeks wandering around talking to people and scribbling thoughts down on big sheets of A3

Looking at what I've been doing in light of your post, I realise I've been gathering views on readiness and potential resistance whilst sharing my view of 'why' the change is required.

I'm really interested in the anatomy of change past the 'consultant-speak' and right into the heart of human nature. I posted a few thoughts here and would love your take (and that of your readers): http://justseventhings.com/2008/08/06/the-personality-of-change/

[Maria]

Wow. Great example of what NOT to do, Steve. I have never been able to understand how top execs can gather together in a secret meeting, come up with a plan for change, and expect line employees to just follow it without any issues. Yet, this seems to be what happened in the case you described.

Maybe if "change" wasn't used as a euphemism for "lots of people are going to lose their jobs" people wouldn't be "resistant" to it!

[peter vajda]

nicely done, Steve

Managers+trustworthiness+transparency=others' readiness to lisen and openness to change and engagement.
management-trustworthiness-transparency=others' close-mindedness, resistance and fear.

[Steve Roesler]

Karin,

It was one of those cases where the president of the company had authored a book, it became a "buzzword," and the consultants were called in on that basis.

That's the power of a popular book and media buzz. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

In some of those cases, resistance would be a good thing!

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Si,

Your sequential scenario certainly rings true. I enjoyed how sorted out the steps and used real language instead of common buzzwords. For me, that's usually an indicator that a person has genuinely pondered the issue and has come out the other side with a unique way of stating things.

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

[Steve Roesler]

Maria,

Fortunately, in the case mentioned there was no impending loss of jobs. It was literally a massive effort to do business differently.

But your comment highlights an important point. The senior management acknowledged that they weren't quite sure how to best proceed and brought in an "a highly published expert firm" to help them. They were trying to do the right thing then quickly realized it wasn't going the way it should. Which is how I got involved. My role was to come in, sort things out, and help implement it properly.

I would guess that about 30% of our work has been cleaning up after the large consulting firms. That's something I've never written about but perhaps it would be a worthwhile post sometime.

BTW: There was a time when "change" meant "doing things differently" and didn't automatically imply job loss. Now, the two are synonymous more often than not.

[Steve Roesler]

Nice, simple, mathematical approach, Peter. That could be a pocket card that managers carry around as a reminder.

[Chris Young]

"Us" versus "Them" never bodes well for implementing change... Thanks for reminding us of this important management lesson!

I featured your post as one of my weekly 'Fab Five' blog picks for the past week which can be found here: http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2008/09/the-rainmaker-3.html

Be Well!

[Steve Roesler]

Than you, Chris. Always a treat to make the Fab Five.