What Kinds of Change Do Individuals Resist?

[It's been a while since the last edition, meaning that business at First Domino Consulting has been good. This edition is part of the Infectious Change Design program, and I will post more in the coming weeks.]

Resistance is the most frequently discussed aspect of change and the most misunderstood. No, individuals do not always resist change. Rather, they resist changes that they do not control and changes that they cannot predict. So, it is important to distinguish motivated change (led by the targeted individuals themselves) from coerced change (led by someone other than the targeted individual).

Motivated Change: They Want To.

When you think about it, individuals happily change their behavior all the time. They try new flavors and new products – some love anything “new” and will wait in long lines to get it. They get married, they have kids, they relocate their homes. ?When individuals decide that they want to change their behavior, they get to make choices about how the change will take place. They also tend to follow through on their decision, especially when they declare their decision to change in a public manner. When you decide that you want to lose some weight or quit smoking, the best thing you can do to meet your goal is to share that goal with those people who are important in your life. While you might slip back into your old habits (midnight snacks, morning smokes, etc.), you tend to regret your slips and often try to get back to the new program. The change may still be very difficult, and sometimes individuals do not maintain the effort to make that change, but that does not mean that they are consciously resisting.

Research shows that deciding to change is just the first in a series of steps that leads to an actual behavioral change. What prevents willing individuals from following through may be uncertainty about how to change or lack of time and resources necessary to make proper preparations. I am not saying that individuals never lie about their true intention to change, but I am saying that when individuals truly have decided to change, any failure to progress is more the result of the commitment necessary to overcome the obstacles preventing success – still quite problematic, but not accurately labeled as resistance. No, people do not resist changes that they want to make; they resist being changed by others.

Coerced Change: They Have To.

Consider a different type of change situation, when an individual is forced to change. Dictators restrict their people’s freedom. Armies victimize people to gain power. Laws are passed that require some behaviors and ban others. Management forces employees to comply with new rules by threatening to withhold their bonuses. The school restricts clothing options that students previously had the freedom to wear. A doctor tells a patient that her eating habits will cause her to die a premature death. Clearly, coerced individuals do not have as much control over the situation as they would like, and so they often look for ways to resist. Their resentment over being coerced into change drives behaviors that are often undesirable, but this is not always the case. Consider how increasing gas prices paved the way for the development of hybrid and electric cars. Consider how outlawing music file sharing sites like Napster[i] paved the way for legal mp3 sales and streaming music services. Resistance, as a form of dissatisfaction with the status quo, can lead to innovation. Sometimes that innovation is deemed productive by society (as in Apple Music), and other times the innovation is deemed counterproductive (as in organized crime associated with bootlegging during the US Prohibition). Nevertheless, resistance is the logical reaction to an environment that forces an individual to behave in a certain way. Even when individuals do change under coercion, they seldom attribute their different behavior to their own desire. Consider the story of citizens from Estonia, who for decades were not allowed to fly their blue, black, and white national flag by order of their Soviet backed communist government. In 1988 Estonians cleverly began buying separate banners of blue, black, and white, so that when raised together, a symbol of national pride was formed even though no law was officially broken. Similarly, when a Serbian radio station was forbidden to broadcast news of a violent government attack on demonstrators in 1991, the station complied by broadcasting songs such as The Clash’s “White Riot” and Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power.[ii]

Even though coercion does not really produce a changed individual, it is frequently used in efforts to prevent certain behaviors. Some parents and teachers rely on coercion, and some bosses do, too. When leaders use coercion without justification (whether benevolently or sadistically), they end up creating resistance in the form of passive-aggression, incivility, theft, sabotage, or violence.

Is this resistance or reciprocity? The answer depends on your point of view. What seems like resistance to the “coercer” may seem like a logical response to the “coercee.” So if you believe that people always resist change, it could be that you are only considering changes that were forced upon individuals.

How Do I Lead Change that Really Is Required?

Unfortunately, I see that leaders sometimes coerce change without even intending to do so. Consider, for example, the company president who is announcing layoffs, an acquisition by another firm, or some other unpleasant event to employees. In an effort to communicate why changes are necessary, the president may use phrases like “We had no choice” or “Our survival depends on doing things differently” or “Get used to changes like this.” The message that employees hear is more like “You have no choice but to change if you want to keep your job.” That sense of having no control triggers what the president will see as resistance. It is true that situations like these really do offer little control to those who are being targeted for change, but sending out messages that underscore the coercion will not help.

Rather than emphasizing the lack of control, you would do better to help individuals predict upcoming events. Being open about poor profit figures and sluggish sales makes a layoff or acquisition more logical and less shocking. Laying out a series of next steps for employees during such a stressful situation will help reset expectations and at least make things more predictable. Often times companies withhold bad news for fear of losing their best employees, but research suggests that leaders can reduce the loss of top talent (dysfunctional turnover) if they can anticipate “shocks” to the system.[iii] One retired NHL hockey player who played before helmets were mandatory was asked how players judged a dirty (unfair) hit from a clean (acceptable) hit. He explained that getting hit hard by an opposing player was okay as long as the player let you know that the check was coming; a shout or a scream made the hit fair, but without the warning, it would be a cheap shot that could get you hurt. Leaders can learn from this observation. If you have to deliver a blow to people, at least let them know it is coming. People resist changes that are forced upon them, but it helps when they can predict what will happen.

I'm Paul Mastrangelo, Owner of First Domino Consulting. That's First Domino Consulting on LinkedIn, and https://FirstDominoConsulting.com on the web. Comments and DMs welcomed. e-mails encouraged. Cave drawings... woah... that's old school, buddy, and I am okay with it.

For more information about designing workplace change, check out this page at First Domino Consulting.

Some additional reading:

[i] If you are not familiar with Napster, you can read about its history and impact on the music industry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster

[ii] These and other true stories of quiet uprisings are found in Crawshaw, S. & Jackson, J. (2010). Small Acts of Resistance: How Courage, tenacity, and ingenuity can change the world. New York: Sterling Publishing Company, Inc.

[iii] Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Inderrieden, E. J. (2005). Shocks as causes of turnover: What they are and how organizations can manage them. Human Resource Management, 44, 337–352.