How do you manage resistance to innovation?

For me, the focus has nearly always been educating and persuading others to adopt and adapt to innovation, quite a self-absorbed way of behaving. I believe that I must first reflect on what I’m resistant to. My default definition of innovation is new technology as a disrupter. Recently I have been asking myself what are: - social innovations/changes - new ways of fiscal management - how colleges / universities are morphing - changing entrepreneurship - the roles and expectation of volunteers - the list goes on… The question for myself is “What are some of the 2024 constructs that make me resistant?” There definitely are a few! I’m now doing my best to define innovation more akin to innovative thinking and change and not new technologies.

Firstly, demonstrating what is gained, not what is lost, that ease or simplicity is an ally for tasks that occur when it is used regularly. Primarily involving the person in the step-by-step co-creation of value in the tools. Showing how useful AI is and the indispensability of the human element.

Managing resistance to change, requires leadership to first manage their own resistance. Creating an environment of curiosity and possibility rather than having the expectation that everyone has a similar response to change. Creating such an environment requires: 1) Preparing the team for change far in advance of implementing the change. 2) Encourage transparency, by being transparent about your various responses to change, with examples. This sets a tone of openness and ease with asking questions, addressing resistance and share honest thoughts about the change. 3) Asking those that are most impacted by the change, what their needs are around change. There thoughts about effective onboarding and the support needed at each stage of change.

Sometimes resistance can be purely rational. It may well be that the change you are going to introduce is detrimental to the organisation success, and resistance is well founded and rational. Yes, not all management decisions are good, humans make mistakes. That kind of resistance is selfless and allows an organisation to correct errors, and should be encouraged. Cfr: Hamel and Prahlad "Leading the revolution" about "loyal opposition". In other instances, resistance is still rational, but grounded in parochial self interest. That is agency theory and turf wars material. Being able to distinguish among these two polar opposites is crucial.

Involve them, start the process, but don't call it innovation. People can be resistance to change and to words they don't fully understand the implications of. Instead, ask for their advice. In my experience, advice is always more honestly given than any response asking for feedback provides. Then generate ideas 'together alone' to stop the worry of people not speaking up in case their ideas are considered 'stupid' by others. This also stops the loudest/most senior voices in the room from dominating. Once you come together to vote/discuss ideas you've already ensured everyone is heard. But remember, ideas alone are not innovation.

Applied improv activities are very applicable here. Applied Improv is a practice that combines improv games with facilitated discussion about the experience of the game. This is a safe and effective way to explore issues of change-discomfort, risk-awareness and looking at negative self-talk

I just gave a podcast interview entitled "How Training Programs Can Be The Launch of Innovation." My goal in talking about learning-led leadership is to encourage managers to create a culture of calculated experimentation. Managers must be willing to admit when they do not know something and need to listen and learn from others to solve a problem in the best way possible. In a fast-changing business world, company executives should walk the walk by continually improving their knowledge and then sharing the latest thinking with their colleagues. Enlightened managers should also facilitate professional development of their team members by giving them time and encouragement to learn new skills and/or improve existing skills.

Just remember that when invoking change, the most emotional people in the process maybe having the core of their knowledge structures challenged, which is extremely challenging to their identity, it's important to remember, their knowledge structure got them to where they are today and it makes up who they are to themselves. Two way learning is a great way to understand the learner and give you clues as to the introduction of new scaffolding to the assimilation process allowing them to 'come along' and adopted changes.

La "resistencia" ?en realidad puede ser se?al de otro fenómeno. Por ejemplo, sentir que no se dispone de las condiciones básicas para llevar a cabo la innovación. Es decir, no sentirse suficientemente preparado para actuar? competentemente. En ese caso, sería?útil?evaluar el nivel de presteza para el cambio de la persona, y desde ahí?apoyarle?en coherencia con el nivel actual. Una buena herramienta de referencia es el Modelo de Etapas del Cambio, de Prochaska y Diclemente.

SOMETIMES THINGS AREN'T WHAT THEY SEEM One day I was hired by a large organization to conduct a D.I.S.C. team-building event. However, the resistance I felt during the seminar was baffling. I’ve done this fun, light-hearted workshop hundreds of times, if not a thousand. So, I knew something was awry. Normally my attendees, even with conflict, thoroughly enjoy this training because they're exploring their favorite subject, THEMSELVES. For the rest of the story go to my articles.