It’s time to stop thinking of resistance as a force opposing the change you want to see
Lewin’s force field analysis is behind much of the work on organisational change, sometimes in a taken-for-granted way. Lewin, a major thinker in organisational development and organisational change in the 50s, borrowed from physics in thinking of resistance as a restraining force in the direction of the status quo.
This view has led managers to see their intentions as one force, opposed by the intentions of others in the organisation, especially those who are less powerful.
While this view originally represented a significant movement in thinking about change, it has reinforced a focus on the ‘forces’ that lead managers and employees away from supporting the change desired by the senior managers.
Watson points out that senior managers often perceive resistance as negative since they see employees who resist as disobedient.
Managers end up treating their subordinates as obstacles to change because of this way of thinking about change as taking place in this field of opposing forces, as Piderit says.
The label of resistance is then used to dismiss valid employee concerns about proposed changes. Instead of seeing negative responses to change proposals simply as negative, it pays to look behind what you interpret as the resistance, to see what the valid concerns are behind the negative response.
I have found that it helps to assume that the concerns of those in the organisation are valid, and to work to incorporate them into the change proposal.
What do you think?
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Kate
http://educationonline-101.com
Comment by Kate — January 5, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
Hi Stephen,
I share your view on the need to “look behind” so-called resistance to change. When I challenge managers to identify the benefits that the ORGANIZATION gets from people’s ‘resistance’, they surprise themselves by identifying a range of factors along the lines that you suggest. Besides identifying practical flaws in the proposals or important values that would be undermined by the planned changes, they also recognise that active resistance suggests energy and passion that can be worked WITH, if this can be redirected or otherwise accommodated.
Interestingly too, if I ask them to reflect on how they would feel if there was no resistance to proposed changes, they suggest that they would not be happy at all with that response. Their gut reaction is that resistance would still exist but that it would be happening below the surface. In contrast, when resistance manifests itself openly in its various forms, and is dealt with effectively through the relevant conversations, it is more likely that genuine change is taking place and that progress is being made which is meaningful to all of the parties
Comment by Chris Rodgers — January 6, 2009 @ 6:28 am
[...] management consultant Stephen Billings wrote recently, "It’s time to stop thinking of resistance as a force opposing the change [...]
Pingback by The Mindjet Blog » Understand Change and Uncover Hidden Opportunities with Force Field Maps — January 14, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the post, it inspired my latest blog post and MindManager map on the Mindjet blog:
http://blog.mindjet.com/2009/01/understand-change-and-uncover-hidden-opportunities-with-force-field-maps
Thanks again, I look forward to more of your posts in the future.
Michael Deutch
Follow me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/MichaelDeutch
Follow me on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Deutch/1024505496
Comment by Michael Deutch — January 14, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
I think, when all parties are involved in designing the change, resistance is minimised. I think it was Peter Drucker who said “significant change is a failure of management”. I have often wondered why the development of strategy and change only involves senior management. Could there be an ongoing conversation with the whole organisation about the direction and shape of the organisation? When everyone arrives at the same conclusion, where’s the resistance?
Comment by Bernie White — July 23, 2009 @ 10:43 am