Thomas Kerscher Capacity Building Specialist

1. They are sensitive to indications that change seekers fail to understand the core values of the system they seek to influence;
2. They see consequences of the change that are unanticipated by the initiators and that may threaten the well being of the system;
3. They are especially apt to react to the importance of maintaining self-esteem, competence and autonomy;
4. All resistance is mobilisation of energy, not a lack thereof.

The fact that resistance is mostly seen as an expression of emotion rather than through a cognitive lens adds further confusion. What is really happening when resistance occurs is a processing of information exchange. Another critical point is that resistance is generally associated with power differentials. Managers or consultants who see it as one of their main roles to initiate change and overcome resulting resistance will not normally accept that their subordinates initiate change. The more likely managers and consultants fail to see that authority is distributed in all parts of a system, the more likely they are to overinvest in specific outcomes of an influence process. They do not see that at any time a direction is chosen by one part of the authority system, it invites both joining and opposing forces from other parts. Pushing for the outcome will only solidify the resistance by not allowing room for opposing forces to be balanced with joining forces. Failure of others to join in will then be seen as disruptive and negative. The accountability driven, results oriented manager will have a hard time accepting this notion – but there is not other way to avoid the enlargement of resistance that will follow from continued assaults on the integrity of the targets of change. The following sections show ways of how to deal with resistance more effectively, mainly through making both sides aware of the positive sides of the other party’s position.

Change Resisters and Change Seekers

Some views hold that people generally are adventurous and seize opportunities for improving the conditions in which they live as they arise. Others presume that most people are afraid of change and will resist it with all possible means. Polarity charting^[1] can help client system leaders to understand and manage the conflict between these two extremes.

Change seekers (Crusaders) and change resisters (Tradition Bearers) hold extreme views of each other. Change seekers consider change resisters as fossils who are complacent and unable to respond to changes in the environment. Change resisters consider change seekers as “loose cannons” which will destroy what made an organisation great. The tension and conflicts resulting from these opposing views waste energy and are themselves an obstacle to change.

The job of the development agency or consultant in such situations is to engage both parties in an effort to plan and implement change jointly. The polarity map shows the benefits and advantages, and the risks and disadvantages of each polarity. Participants can be asked to develop indicators to monitor whether one polarity gains dominance over the other, thereby creating negative effects. The main goal of the chart is to move both tradition bearers and crusaders from the bottom of the chart, in which they acknowledge only the downside of the others’ views, to the upper part of the chart.

Dealing with Resistance

Change seekers consider resistance as negative behaviour. They can choose from one of the following strategies to deal with it:

• Breaking resistance by threatening, coercing, or aggressive reasoning;
• Inducing compliance through guilt or shame;
• Labeling resistance as irrelevant, or appealing to the resisters to comply.

These strategies may work to a certain extent, but they will rarely lead to sustained support of the change effort. A positive approach to resistance is based on two fundamental assumptions: (i) resistance is natural, and (ii) resistance must be honoured.

A first step in dealing with resistance is therefore to surface it. Managers or consultants must make it safe for people to express their resistance. The second step involves honouring the resistance. Leaders or consultants need to acknowledge that resistance is not a negative, but a vital source of information on potential flaws in the design of the change plan. The third step is about exploring the causes of resistance. The reasons given by members of the organisation are likely not the real reasons for their behaviour. Fourth, all those involved in the change effort should agree on actions to take to lessen or eliminate the root causes underlying the resistance. Lastly all should agree to monitor the level of resistance against the commitments made.