A Secret to Amplifying Your Impact (Building Support for Change)

If you can master how to deal with resistance to change in the workplace, you're impact can be amplified. And this can mean greater career advancement for you.

This is the first of three articles I'm writing on resistance to change.

This article explores the nature and the role resistance plays in obstructing individual value creation, and by extension, positive business change. This is illustrated through an entirely plausible scenario with C-suite executives.

The second article will present guidance on how to deal with the different levels of resistance (these are outlined below). In the third and last article in the series, I'll apply this guidance to a few different scenarios so you have a better idea of how to apply it.

CREATING SPACE FOR NEW IDEAS

Academics and business leaders recognize creativity and innovation as driving forces of organizational success. Fortunately, individuals love to employ their creative talents and amplify their impact. When organizations build cultures that encourage and recognize creativity and innovation, everybody benefits. So there’s a natural alignment of organizational and employee interests—an obvious win-win.

Unfortunately, that’s now how things often play out in the workplace: many cultures and individuals stifle creativity and innovation. Often, the cause of these unproductive behaviors is a resistance to change. And you may be surprised to hear that, from the point of view of the resistor, this is an entirely healthy response.

Most people find themselves on both sides of this resistance dynamic: promoters of change and resistors of change.

Imagine the impact if individuals were more effective at building support for new, value creating ideas?

This might mean:

• Valuable innovation would surface more frequently in the workplace.
• Individuals would feel more fulfilled and committed.
• A more productive culture would emerge where individuals feel safer to bring their whole selves to work, dare to take more calculated risks, and assume more accountability.

ILLUSTRATING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Let’s start with a hypothetical scenario. About a month ago, you were shuffling through some reports and noticed an unusual decline in customer satisfaction. After looking at the granular monthly data, you realize this trend began with the roll out of a new onboarding program. Then you dug even deeper and discovered a significant rise in new customer attrition. Based on your calculations, this was costing the company million of dollars a month.

At the next ELT meeting, you share your insight on customer satisfaction and suggest a plan of action to resolve the issue. You present your projection of what this is costing the business and the evidence that the timing coincides with the new onboarding program.

You’re surprised by the reaction in the room: based on body language and a few sarcastic comments, others on the executive team do not share your sense of urgency. Before the issue to adequately discussed, the CEO moves the conversation to the sales update. You’re surprised by the team’s indifference.

What occurred in this scenario is some form of resistance. According to Rick Maurer’s seminal book “Beyond the Wall of Resistance,” there are three possible explanations for your colleagues behavior:

1. They don’t get your idea and they oppose it for a variety of reasons.
2. There are deeper issues causing them to resist your idea. It has nothing to do with the idea itself; rather, it has to with other, unacknowledged issues e.g. losing face, losing a job, losing a bonus.
3. The resistance reflects deeply embedded issue, including viewing you as the “enemy” or the organization your represent.

So while your blood pressure rises and you’re thinking about next steps, start by considering which type of resistance you’re dealing. When you begin planning your next steps, consider which of these three explains the resistance. Otherwise, your plan may miss the mark.

A NEUROSCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE

So you’ve identified a significant risk for the company that’s already costing it millions of dollars each month. You’ve proposed an idea on how to fix the problem, and nobody seems to care. Even more confusing, you feel hostility from the VP of Marketing, who, you now recall, designed the onboarding program (to much acclaim) and the VP of Operations, who implemented and now manages the program.

Let’s take a peak inside the brain of these two resistors. As the creator of the new onboarding program, the VP of Marketing immediately fears losing face. If what’s being said is true, this means an embarrassing failure. Since this is an unpleasant feeling and outcome, the easiest response is to “kill it” before it goes public.

As part of “operation destroy” the VP of Marketing forges an alliance with the VP of Operations who also feels in harms way. Everybody else around the table acquiesces and remains silent—at this point, nobody in the room feels safe because nobody trusts anybody. Besides, the others are not quite sure they understand the issue at this point and therefore are not ready to support your idea.

A COLLISION OF RESISTANCE

As you observe the room, you’re flabbergasted and you refuse to give up. As the meeting nears the end, you raise the issue again. You re-present the data, you seek an alliance with the VP of Engineering, and ask the CEO what she’s going to do about this. She says “I need to get to my next meeting” and dismisses the topic.

You leave the meeting confused and feeling a little humiliated. Your first thought is to get even with the VP of Marketing. You see too much social risk to continue, so you decide to drop it.

A week later, you realize your approach to building support for your idea was flawed. You understand now how you put the VP of Marketing and VP Operations in very awkward positions. Moreover, your response to their apathy hardened their resistance. In other words, your resistance to their resistance made a constructive conversation nearly impossible.

TRUST

Most resistance to change reflects deeper issues, having little to do with the idea itself. Low levels of trust in the workplace complicate the situation. When individuals with a stake in the status quo lack trust in you (and others with power), their natural behavior is to resist. In their view, the change carries great personal risk and their habitual response is likely to stay our of harms way.

In work environments with low levels of trust, more planning is required before an idea is shared with stakeholders. In the case outlined above, blind-siding the VPs of Marketing and Operations in an the ELT meeting heightened pre-existing distrust, hardening the level of resistance, and perhaps causing both to view you as “the enemy.”

In Part 2 of this series, I’ll present guidance on how to deal with the different levels of resistance so you can start off on the right foot for your next promising new idea.

ABOUT DAVID EHRENTHAL

After a 25+ year career as a marketing executive and CEO, in the US and Europe, David now coaches many clients interested in growing their leadership effectiveness and advancing their careers.

Please email David at [email protected] or give him a ring at 617-529-8795 if you want to talk.