This article first appeared in the April, 2003 edition of the Jacksonville Business Journal
Leaders must guide change toward their desired vision or they leave themselves and their organizations vulnerable to the actions of others in the world around them.
As I work with leaders to help guide organizational change I am repeatedly asked two questions. Why do people resist change so much? And how should we respond to this resistance?
First, resistance to change is natural. In society and in organizations group resistance often stems from the influence of culture. Resistance in individuals manifests itself in behaviors such as stubbornness or inflexibility.
Resistance to change cannot be avoided. The challenge is how to manage it. It is not surprising that we often do exactly the opposite of what is required to achieve the best result.
Several years ago I developed a model that explains resistance to change. It has become quite popular and is known as the "rule of thirds." Here's how it works.
When major change is presented the people required to implement that change can divided into three roughly equal groups. The first third are the advocates for change. They respond with phrases such as "It's about time." "I could have told you years ago that we needed to do that." "Count me in". "When do we get started?"
On the opposite end are those in the negative third who oppose change. They respond with phrases like "We tried that once before and it didn't work." Who came up with that idea?" "No way." "Not in my lifetime." Some hard core resisters take such a firm stand they become known as the "we be's." They confront us directly with: "We be here before you and we be here after you."
Then there is the middle third. These people take the neutral ground. They don't react openly or say anything. They just listen and watch. They may not be sure. They may be playing it safe. In the end, they will swing with whichever third they think is winning.
We all have limited time and resources. Which third should get most of our attention? How do we best create the alignment we need and move toward the desired change?
A case can be made for each of these groups. Some advocate for the negative third. The argument is that if we can win them over the middle comes along as well and everyone is aligned. Others argue for the middle third. They are easier to convince and will either drag the bottom third along or leave them isolated. Some are proponents of working with the top third. They are already on board and will give us the most mileage, bringing the middle third along with them.
The answer is pretty clear with a simple football analogy. If we want to score a touchdown do we want to start on our own twenty yard line or our opponent's twenty yard line? And will we pass to our strongest receiver or our weakest?
The obvious answer is to go with our strongest supporters. And we often think that we are doing just that. But we can often be fooled. When we make a presentation who makes the most noise? The resistors. Who do we try to convince? The resistors. Who grabs the bully pulpit? The resistors. When we try to implement change where are the most problems? From the resistors. So, who actually gets most of our time and attention? The resistors. And we don't even realize what's happening!
Try this instead. Start with the positive, most enthusiastic supportive third. Give them the time, attention, and resources. The message will be clear to the middle third. They will shift because they will see that the supportive side is winning.
The resistors will make noise. In the early stages, simply ignore them. Don't take them on or try to convince them. Leave them alone and put the energy on the positive third.
After we have created the momentum toward change we will be ready to take on the resistors. Once we are clearly moving into implementation about half of the resistors will take the position, "If you can't beat them, join them." That brings the resistors down about fifteen percent. Now it's time for "meaningful individual conversations." That cuts the resistors in half again. This leaves about five to eight percent of the organization that remains resistant and will not shift their positions. Some of these individuals retire, others resign, others are re-assigned, and others may be forced to leave.
Change is not easy. But starting with the hard core opposition almost guarantees failure. Work with the supporters and most others will follow along. Guiding our organizations through change in volatile times is a critical requirement for success. The rule of thirds helps us decide where and how to focus our energy and resources.
|
