Resistance to change does not arise because people fundamentally reject change, but because the change process itself creates chaos and a loss of identity. Those who lead change must address the emotional side: Acknowledge losses, actively involve skeptics and ask questions instead of providing information. This is the only way to create genuine participation.
Key Takeaways
- People do not reject change itself, but the process of transition from the old to the new, which creates chaos and shatters identities.
- Skeptics see risks that change drivers overlook because they are too close to the issue. If you regularly question skeptics, you gain valuable blind spots and take away their incentive to resist.
- The “Imagine That” technique uses two questions instead of blocks of information: first let them name problems, then let them imagine possibilities. This creates an emotional bond that the mere delivery of facts does not achieve.
- Openly acknowledging the losses of a change instead of just emphasizing the benefits builds more trust than any well-prepared list of benefits.
People don’t reject change, they reject the process
The preconception that people don’t like change doesn’t stand up to reality. Everyone makes decisions in their own lives that change things, and they do so consciously and willingly. What triggers resistance is not the goal, but the way to get there.
The transition from the old to the new creates chaos. Even if you have voluntarily decided to make a change, problems arise during this phase. In organizations, there is a second problem: those affected often had no choice. They have to go through a process that is exhausting anyway, and without having made a decision themselves.
Mary Lynn Manns puts it in a nutshell, which shifts the perspective:
It’s not that people don’t like change, it’s that they don’t like the process of change.
- Mary Lynn Manns
For teams, this means that those who want to introduce a new method or a new tool rarely fight against the idea itself. The friction lies in the transition.
Why change triggers fear
The human mind is constantly searching for balance. Anything that throws you off balance is difficult, even a good change.
Change often affects identity. If you fill a certain role in an organization and define yourself by it, you lose part of that role with the change. Even something like Agile software development, with all its promises, changes people’s behavior, and changing behavior is uncomfortable.
Another reason: people cling to the old approach and think it is perfect. Many things don’t run smoothly during the transition because the new is still developing. This comparison between the supposedly perfect old world and the unfinished new one provides material for complaints.
Behind most reactions is fear, especially fear of the unknown. Manns’ book title “Fearless Change” therefore does not mean freedom from fear, but less fear. A manager must deal with this fear and help people to reduce it.
Change is a people issue, not a technology issue
At its core, change is not about new processes or technologies, but about people. It’s about leading them, understanding them and helping them to take an interest in the new.
The first mistake many organizations make: They explain how the change will help the organization. This is logical, but it misses the point for those affected. People ask themselves how the change will affect them personally.
With 10,000 employees, not everyone can be addressed individually. Nevertheless, managers can talk much more about the change at an individual level rather than just about the benefits for the organization as a whole.
Skeptics see what you are overlooking
Skeptics are not an obstacle, but a source of information. Anyone leading a change is convinced of the benefits and overlooks things in the process. It is precisely these things that skeptics see.
There is a reciprocal cycle of fear between change-makers and skeptics. You fear that people will oppose you and tell you problems straight to your face. They fear the new things you bring. This back and forth often ends in stagnation.
The usual reflex is to spend a lot of time trying to convince skeptics. This can take a long time and sometimes it never works. It makes more sense to bring the skeptics into the team and regularly ask them what they see and what is being overlooked.
This has two effects. The skeptics feel heard and are less likely to lay an ambush. And you treat them with respect, which can reduce the number of complaints. If someone is officially assigned the role of critical observer, simply complaining often loses its appeal.
Information alone does not create movement
Change is usually treated as a purely cognitive matter: You give information, then more information, then still more. This is exactly where it often fails.
People reject information if it contradicts what they think should happen. In the end, they resign themselves to the fact that the others are stubborn or simply don’t understand. The truth is often different: The information has been delivered cleanly, but the next step is missing, namely helping people to take an interest in the information.
Change is emotional, and people take it personally. If you only serve the cognitive side, you leave the emotional connection untapped, which determines whether people are drawn in.
The “Imagine That” technique: first feel problems, then possibilities
“Imagine That” establishes an emotional connection via two questions, without presenting any arguments.
You come into the room and ask the first question: How are things going, what do you see out there? If necessary, you narrow it down to a specific area. People start talking about their problems and in doing so, they realize what’s not working. They feel the fear.
Then comes the second question: What would happen if we did X? X is the change you want to bring about. Now people imagine possibilities, they think about what would be better.
The leverage lies in the fact that you don’t explain, but ask. The first question opens up awareness of the problem, the second opens up the idea that something can be improved. Both are felt, not just thought.
Stories have a similar effect. A story does not have to be true as long as it is clear. It works because you can feel it, repeat it and remember it, unlike a series of bullet points on a slide.
The “shoulder to cry on”: acknowledging the loss
With every change, you gain something and lose something. Most people who cite change overlook this loss.
Usually, leaders only talk about the benefits to the organization. The more insightful ones also talk about the personal benefits. What almost no one does is recognize what people lose.
Often nothing can be done about the loss. But recognition alone changes a lot. A sentence like “I realize that this is a new challenge for you, that you need a lot of time to learn and have other things to do, we appreciate that” is often enough.
You don’t have to get yourself into anything that makes you uncomfortable. It’s enough to admit that someone is struggling with real difficulties. This treats employees as people with feelings, not as robots.
What to do if you’re the skeptic yourself
If you’re the skeptic, it’s too easy to get stuck in the problem area. You constantly name challenges and problems and expect your counterpart to build solutions from them.
This is exactly what overwhelms the listener. If you are constantly confronted with new problems without being given a solution, you will eventually become irritable and less approachable. You will be labeled a pessimist and communication will become almost impossible.
The way out is to come up with a concrete or at least reasonably concrete solution. Instead of just saying “Here’s the problem”, say: “I know I’ve complained and here’s a way to solve it. What do you think?” This turns the constant critic into an interlocutor.
Change comes from below, not just from above
Influence on change does not depend on formal power. A 19-year-old intern who realizes on the first day that something needs to be changed can often move the minds of others just as much as a Chief Information Officer.
Manns calls the concept of “powerless leaders”. This refers to people who have not been given official authority to order change, but simply have good ideas. They can use the same strategies as any manager.
Those with power sometimes simply order change. Then dissatisfaction hovers in the air because nobody feels seen. Change that comes from the grassroots is more effective. The tools from “Fearless Change” are designed precisely for this, but they also work from the top down.
