Using formal and informal feedback methods to create motivation for change is common in organizational life. In skill training, for example, when we are practicing our public presentation skills, videorecording practice sessions can be useful in enhancing trainees’ understanding of the potential gaps between where they see themselves on the recording and where they want to be as a presenter. Another practice in many organizational contexts is the use of multirater feedback to an individual in order to generate a level of productive tension by revealing a discrepancy between the idealized self and the way others see the individual.
Looking at unfreezing from the status quo of long-standing, seemingly intractable conflicts, Coleman (2011) has explored the utility of triggering instability in stable intractable conflicts to destabilizing them and create opportunities for movement. Such instability can come about in a variety of ways, some planned, others by happenstance. Nonetheless, capitalizing on such destabilizing events can also create motivational energy for change.
Movement and Resistance
I stated earlier that resistance serves a protective function in any change. At the same time, resistance is a key factor working against successful change. This presents a curious paradox: resistance is a necessary part of change yet can be its undoing. Our interest is in looking at two aspects of resistance: how to identify and diagnose resistance when it emerges and how to find ways to weaken it rather than strengthen it. Is change possible without resistance? Is the goal of a successful change effort to prevent forces of resistance from emerging? What factors weaken or strengthen resistance to change?
Many common practices surrounding planned change efforts view resistance similarly to conflict. That is, it is something to get rid of, stamp out, push down, and in any other manner treat as an undesirable force that needs to be eradicated. Or it may be seen merely as a nuisance that one must get past. If the resistant forces are linked to specific people or groups (with such language as “troublemakers,” “naysayers,” or “malcontents”), a common tactic used by the larger part of the system is to try to weaken or get rid of those people and, by implication, any resistance.
This orientation may sometimes lead to successful change, but it overlooks the potentially constructive role that resistance plays in the change process. In other words, resistance is a naturally emerging part of the change process or any movement away from the status quo (Connor, 1992). As Klein notes, “A necessary prerequisite of successful change is the mobilization of forces against it” (1966, p. 502). Change without resistance is akin to premature conflict resolution; the parties involved manage to avoid the necessary parts of the process that lead to real change (or real resolution).
It is likely that the conflict expressed by individuals or groups labeled as “resisters” is a type of misattributed conflict in which the true conflict is about the planned change. In other words, conflict that emerges as an expression of resistance is between the wrong parties and over the wrong issues. Such conflicts can be viewed as a manifestation of the central conflict in any change—between what we want to be (a desired future) and what we are (the current state). Thus, in using Beckhard’s model, we uncover this central conflict early on, when we highlight the gaps between where we are and where we want to be.
It is useful to consider the observation that resistance to change may be manifested in an infinite number of creative ways (Kenneth Sole, personal communication). Often, though, it is difficult to understand how particular behaviors or actions manifest resistance.
As an example, consider a patient’s decision to change therapists just as she is about to make significant progress in her therapeutic situation. This can be understood as a legitimate desire for the patient to seek better therapy. Another possibility is to view this as a form of resistance to the patient’s movement toward greater psychological health. The therapist can handle this situation in a variety of ways. The most constructive might be for the therapist to support the patient at this stage. This may involve reminding her that therapeutic progress is sometimes very difficult. Or it may mean suggesting to the patient that she is here by her own choice, and if she feels she would be better served by another therapist, she should seek a new one. Properly diagnosing and taking subsequent actions takes great skill on the part of the therapist and contributes to the strength of the patient.
Resistance and Conflict.
A system cannot change without experiencing conflict. How it is handled profoundly determines the success of the effort to change. Furthermore, there is a strong similarity between the process involved in successful change efforts and that involved in constructive conflict resolution.
The goal of planned change efforts is not necessarily to prevent forces of resistance from emerging but rather to manage them productively, to weaken rather than strengthen them (Ford and Ford, 2009), to harness their energy rather than displace it: a complex and fascinating challenge. Furthermore, there is a reciprocal relationship between handling resistance appropriately (in ways that weaken it) and the process of constructive conflict resolution. The same process used to weaken forces of resistance may also promote constructive conflict resolution. Conversely, if inappropriate strategies are used in meeting the resistance, it is likely that destructive processes will be used to deal with the emerging conflicts.
With this in mind, what factors might serve to strengthen or weaken resistance? Though little empirical work exists in this area, some common theoretical notions are available. One of the key variables influencing the strength of resistance occurs among those most affected by change. It concerns increasing this group’s understanding of the need for change and participation in its planning. To the extent that there is little understanding of the need for change and little participation in planning among those affected by it, the stronger the forces of resistance are likely to be (Zander, 1950). Conversely, if there is a high degree of understanding of and participation in the planned change, the resisting forces become weaker (Coch and French, 1948).
It can be hypothesized that the strongest forces of resistance are expressed by those with the greatest interest in preserving the status quo. Furthermore, resistance is aggravated and hence strengthened as more energy is directed to eradicating it. The more we try to push against the forces of resistance (through persuasion, logic, or coercion) in an attempt to weaken or abolish them, the stronger they become and the more likely they are to manifest themselves in a multitude of ways. Zander (1950) and Deutsch (1973) identify several other factors likely to increase resistance:
Basing the logic for the change on personal reasons rather than objective ones
Disregarding already established group or organizational norms
Lack of uniformity or agreement in the rationale for the change
Using illegitimate techniques that fall outside the boundaries and norms of interaction
Negative sanctions such as punishments and threats
Sanctions that are inappropriate in kind, such as reward of money for agreeing to support a group’s strategic direction
Influence that is excessive in magnitude
Efforts to diminish resistant forces through coercion or other means of force may lead to temporary compliance rather than lasting change (Deci, 1995).
Consider a decision to close down a plant manufacturing a product that is no longer profitable. This action has varying impact depending on how the resistance is handled. A common way of handling this type of change is to anticipate the resistant reactions of those most affected and respond to them with persuasive, convincing, well-thought-out, rehearsed, logical statements about such things as the financial need to take the action. Another approach occurs when those responsible for the decisions make every attempt to avoid the employees most affected—to lay low, disappear, or hide after the announcement is made. If those affected are denied the opportunity to express their feelings and thoughts (especially feelings of loss), strong negative attitudes are likely to emerge, along with
the potential to sabotage the best interests of the organization. In other words, these actions often strengthen the forces of resistance.
Constructively Handling Resistance.
We identify several factors that may strengthen resistance. What, though, are some of the conditions that may weaken resistance and foster a constructive resolution process? Some of them are a smaller change: keeping parts of the system stable, giving all parties a chance to mourn the loss that any change entails, making abundant resources available during change, and involvement by those most affected in planning their own fate. Let us consider each of these in some detail.
The first condition is a smaller change or amount of deviation from the status quo. It is not necessary, though, to assume that only small conflicts can be resolved productively and thereby yield small change. It is useful to apply Roger Fisher’s notions on fractionating conflict (1964). His methodology suggests that we first look at any conflict and break it down into manageable pieces. Although he applied these notions to large international conflicts, they can be applied to conflicts of even the smallest magnitude. Once they are fractionated, or broken down, Fisher suggests working on resolving the smaller pieces first. This allows parties to experience constructive resolution albeit on a small matter. Nonetheless, such success can boost the parties’ confidence as they progress to working on resolving larger issues, which thereby may produce greater change. This notion of fractionating has been applied to organization change as well. In the work of Schaffer and Siegel (2005), the creation of smaller change goals and subsequent efforts to meet those goals were more likely to produce desired change than attempting to focus primarily on a larger (more distant, amorphous) change goal whose outcomes were more difficult to see and feel by those expected to bring them about.
Another condition for weakening resistance involves keeping parts of the system stable. This is related to issues concerning the size of the change. Here, though, it is important to pay attention to the balance between stability and change. If there is too much change going on (simultaneously moving to a new house, becoming a parent, and switching jobs), this may generate a level of tension that is too high for change to be productive. Keeping parts of the system stable can reduce the level of stress and tension the parties experience and therefore foster constructive resolution.
Giving parties the chance to mourn the loss that any change entails is another critical influence that may serve to weaken forces of resistance. As Levinson (1972) and Bridges (1986) have written, in any change, there is loss. If parties are able to recognize and express feelings of loss associated with change, they can move forward in the change process. Many cultures, including our own, have elaborate rituals for mourning the death of a person. Such rituals enable the mourners to accept the loss and move on. Similarly, in any change process, opportunities to mourn the loss of the past play a valuable role in helping people move toward a desired future. An example that I often think about is from a company that was being acquired by a larger institution and before doing so had given employees a “tribute package,” which included a kind of yearbook with pictures and artifacts from the history of the organization. Included in this yearbook were spaces for employees to have colleagues sign and write in their notes and reflections and include their own memorabilia about their years with the organization (Brooks, 1998).
Moreover, these opportunities may allow the parties to move on in more productive ways than when such opportunities are denied. One difficulty in this concerns our natural tendency to avoid thinking about the past as we move toward a desired future. This is often apparent in many planned organization change efforts. There is often a taboo against speaking about or holding on to symbols of the past. A primitive assumption implies that the past is bad, negative, to be forgotten, and all of the hopes and dreams become bound up in the desired future. Thus, it is important to examine our assumptions about the past in order to move successfully toward the future. I am reminded here of an executive, relatively new to a recently merged financial institution, walking into the office of an employee who had been with the institution over several mergers. Upon seeing mementos of past events and celebrations containing old company logos, she casually and rather lightheartedly mentioned to him that he ought to remove them from his shelf. While she did not mean to be demeaning or insulting in any way, I heard this as symbolic of these notions that what no longer exists should be erased from our identity so that a new collective identity can more easily emerge.
It appears that one ingredient that might lower resistance is abundant availability of resources (time, money, people) to support change. However, there is a paradox here as well: under some conditions, abundant resources may serve to undermine the change by lowering the necessary degree of tension and therefore weaken the motivation needed to change. (For further relevant discussion, see chapter 20).
One last factor, written about extensively in the field of organization development, is to involve those most affected by change in its planning and implementation (see Burke, 1987, 2011). Participation in planning one’s future can have beneficial effects on one’s future. Involving people affected by change in planning and implementation serves to increase their commitment to any change.
With reference to handling a plant closing, I suggest that one alternative strategy is a stronger presence by the leaders of the change effort among those most affected by it. The leaders of the operation could meet with employees and encourage them to express their reactions and concerns. This type of action, though understandably difficult, may serve to weaken the resistant forces productively. Furthermore, having a chance to candidly express attitudes, conflicts, concerns, and biases in a setting where they can be heard by those with power to change the situation (regardless of whether they do change it) often serves to weaken those forces. There are many possibilities other than simply closing the plant and making immediate mass layoffs. However, although participation may lower resistance, it does not ensure a cooperative process of resolving the inevitable conflicts that emerge in such a situation. In many ways, it increases the likelihood that conflicts will emerge and be brought to the table. This can be a sign of healthy movement to yield lasting change.
An alternative perspective on these notions of resistance comes from Gladwell’s ideas from his book The Tipping Point (2002). He likens change (no matter how well planned) to the spread of a virus, or “rage,” that sweeps across and engrosses the majority of a social system. This does not happen from a “big bang” or by overwhelming the system, but rather through three characteristics:
Contagiousness, or word-of-mouth spreading of an idea, product, event, or desired future
Stickiness, or the idea that small incidents or messages can have big effects and eventually tip the balance in a particular direction, which becomes almost impossible to reverse
The idea that change happens suddenly once a critical mass is reached
He argues that this type of change happens due to three kinds of people who have strong influence in a social system: salespeople who persuade, relate well, and empathize with those they are trying to influence; connectors, who are part of the relevant social networks and have strong influence in those networks; and mavens—the individuals or groups who are collectors of information, driven to know much about a particular issue or phenomenon or product. Ultimately these ideas have as their basis the assumption that peer pressure has more power to create change than those in formal authority. The dynamics of motivation, resistance, and commitment are bound up in Gladwell’s notions.
Gaining Commitment
Commitment by a critical mass of people is the sufficient condition needed to sustain any change. It is the force that refreezes a system to its new, changed state. There are methods that may serve to increase the level of commitment to a new, changed state. Several strategies are similar to methods useful for weakening forces of resistance. As just discussed, it is widely accepted that meaningful participation and involvem
ent enable those affected to commit to the change; participation leads to commitment.
In a conflict situation, several types of action may lead to increased commitment to bring about constructive changes: recognizing that both parties are engaged by choice, acknowledging that either can walk away at any time, making unilateral statements of one’s own commitment to a mutually productive resolution, and placing oneself in a situation where avoidance of the conflict is less likely.
We can influence our own and others’ level of commitment by telling the party we are in conflict about our commitment to constructive resolution during the early stages of the conflict: “I’m determined to work this out in a way that we can both be satisfied with,” or, “I’ll persist until we’re both comfortable.” Such statements are public, cannot be taken back, and intend to give both parties an opportunity to commit to engaging in constructive conflict-handling skills.
Another type of action is to place oneself in a situation where avoidance of the conflict is less likely. By voluntarily doing so, we force ourselves to take action that we might not otherwise take. If I am angry at a colleague for some action he took but concerned about letting him know I am angry, I might avoid contact with him and therefore the prospect of telling him about my feelings. If, though, I voluntarily place myself in closer proximity to him, I increase the likelihood that we will work on the conflict and present a greater possibility for productive benefit than continued avoidance.
It is important to further differentiate processes that might increase commitment from those that increase compliance. From the preceding discussion, we can understand that it is difficult to discern when a group or individual is complying with someone else’s wishes and when the behavior reflects true change. In any system where there is a power hierarchy, gaining commitment to change becomes especially tricky. Although the outcome (committing to change versus complying with another’s wishes) looks the same on the surface, understanding the methods used is one way to see which outcome we are headed for. That is, when those higher in the authority structure use methods of coercion (methods likely to feed forces of resistance) in a context where two-way communication between the hierarchy levels is not supported, the desired behaviors are surely meant to comply with the wishes of those in higher authority. Furthermore, the long-term effect of compliance is that behaviors revert to the prechange state whenever the people above are not around. As an example, consider the efforts of parents to change a particular behavior of a child (burping, for example) that is often considered socially unacceptable among many adults. If those with greater power use methods that diminish forces of resistance (such as relying on high participation and involvement among those lower in the hierarchy—engaging the child in active discussion, active listening, providing opportunities to mourn the loss of what people are giving up), they may see greater commitment to the changes being sought. This is visible as the behaviors stick even when no one in higher authority is around to notice them.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 78
