ChangePOINT :: Resistors – Involve or Isolate?

It’s a common scenario when changes is announced – you announce a change and some people are onboard and some resist. And those who are against can be passive, quiet resistors or active, verbal resistors. So how do you deal with the resistors, especially those who are more vocal in their resistance? Do you isolate them some how to minimize their influence and the disruption they are causing? Or is there another way? And when you isolate them, do you really disrupt their influence or does it still occur, just behind your back?

Generally speaking those who are the most verbal resistors are often the ones with the most charisma and influence. So even if you isolate them, they are still influencing behind your back in the lunch rooms, on breaks, around the water filter, via emails and private messages with other colleagues. Only trouble is, they are now underground, so you have no idea what they are saying and who they are influencing.  Even if they are removed from project teams or positions of influence in an organisational chart, they are still at work influencing others. And all you have done is get them even more off side and widen the gap between where they are at and where you need them to be in order to bring about successful change. 

It’s crucial to first understand why they are resisting. Do they perceive that they will lose something as a result of the change (such as loss of control, promotion opportunities, financial gain or significance)? Do they believe the implementation will be poor or result in issues or problems? Have they experienced poorly implemented change previously and think the current change will end up the same way? Or are they in a change saturated environment whereby the are overwhelmed with changes or never ending changes or are they simply comfortable as they are in a role that has experienced minimal change for a long period of time?

Once you understand the basis of the resistance it’s important then to get them involved somehow. This doesn’t mean you cancel the change or completely change its scope. Nor does it mean they become heavily involved in designing the change or leading it. However it’s important to give them a voice and to ensure they believe they have been heard. By understanding firstly why they are resisting, will help you understand the motivation around what they are communicating and also what they aren’t communicating. For example they may complain about the loss of jobs (what they do communicate) and overlook the creation of  new roles (what they don’t communicate) if they perceive their job is at risk.  By giving them a voice you have an opportunity to understand their objections so you can communicate and address them directly. This helps you understand their perception of the change which may be due to  disconnect between what was said and what was perceived. And if that one person misunderstood, how many others in the organisation also have the same misunderstanding?

Sometimes you can’t get every resistor involved, such as an entire team who is against a change. In these instances try to get a representative or someone they trust and respect such as their team leader involved. This person is now the go between the wider group of resistors and the project or change team. And believe it or not, the largest resistors are often the best people to be the go betweens. The reason is they are the biggest influencers so assuming you can get them on board and embrace the change they will now influence positively not negatively. And by being closer to the project group you have more opportunities to communicate, address concerns and get them on board. It’s said people need to be communicated to between 5-7 times before they embrace the change so the closer the strongest resistors are to those driving and leading the change, the more touch points and opportunities they will get to be swayed to embrace not resist the change.

Q: How can you involve the strongest change resistors in your change initiative?