Resistance Isn't Futile

There's a short sighted belief brewing in some upper management boardrooms. The belief is 
this, "Those who resist change are the problem." The "proper" way to behave, is to always go 
with the flow and don't complain, don't resist, just shut up, toe the line and get with the program.

This type of reasoning is not uncommon. For example, if you dislike snakes, you might decide 
the answer to your problem is to get rid of all the snakes. It's only after you've solved your first 
problem, that you come face to face with an even larger problem, a plague of rats. It's only then 
you begin to understand that snakes were the solution to a problem you didn't even know had 
been solved. That a certain number of snakes are necessary to manage the rat population. 

If we strive to eradicate all resistance to change, then we are ignoring the legitimate function of 
'resistance'. Resistance, like snakes, has had a lot of bad press, this article will attempt to correct 
the coverage.

To understand Change, one of the first tasks is to understand why we resist it.

If your response is "I don't care why they're resisting, I just want them to change!" Then you 
might as well stop reading and start building rat traps. There's nothing here for you. On the other 
hand, if you suspect that resistance has a legitimate function because you yourself sometimes 
resist Change, even if you only resist what you consider to be stupid Changes, then read on, 
you're halfway there.

Resistance is simply, a very effective, very powerful, very useful, survival mechanism. 

Imagine a hunter in the distant past who hunted saber toothed kitty cats with a very long, heavy, 
very sharp spear. Imagine you present your imaginary hunter with a bow and arrow. I think 
you'd agree the hunter would be well advised to get some strong proof that this flimsy strip of 
wood, strung with a bit of twisted hair and a teeny tiny little spear with feathers on the end, was 
more effective than his large, heavy, sturdy, dangerous and well tested spear. 

It does not matter that YOU know the bow and arrow will work, the hunter must know that, it's 
his life on the line, not yours. The hunter must also endure the learning period necessary to 
become proficient with the bow. During this learning period his ability to hunt will diminish and 
the threat to his life will increase.

"But!" you mutter, "That's a silly example! We're not asking people to change the way they hunt 
nor are we putting their lives in danger! We're only asking them to change the way they work!" 
Really? There's a difference? Consider the following:

For the past five years you've done business in a particular manner and made money and grown 
globally, expanding into new markets. When someone suggests a new way of doing business, 
you are our imaginary hunter in the only way that's important. 

You're being asked to stop doing something that worked well in the past. You're being offered a 
new, untested method of doing something you've never seen before. You have the right, even a 
responsibility to your management and to your stakeholders to ask... Why? Why should you stop 
doing something you've proven works, and start doing something you've never done before?

You should even go a bit further and demand that the person proposing the Change prove that 
what they are proposing is best for the company. Not protecting past successes is irresponsible. 
Not protecting past investments is a symptom of someone who doesn't care about the future.

Here's a fact relating to the process of Change. Your biggest obstacle to change is past success.

Asking 'why' is a rational and reasonable way to respond to Change. Any organization, or best 
selling book, suggesting the question, 'Why should I change?' is proof of a 'bad behavior 
pattern', is 100% categorically wrong.

It's not wrong just because it discounts past achievements, it's wrong because it makes us 
vulnerable to indiscriminate and ill-advised change.

The problem today, is not just that we have to change, but that there is so much change 
attempting to blow us in conflicting directions. Pick up any magazine and you could, if you really 
believed in adopting all change without resistance, create enough change projects to last you a 
decade. And next month, when the next issue of that magazine arrives, you could add another 
decade's worth of changes to your overflowing plate.

'Resistance' in the form of the question, 'Why should we adopt this change?' is the only hope 
your organization has to prioritize your workload. Resistance is the only tool you have to guide 
your organization through the onslaught of change. If you ban resistance, if you outlaw it and fire 
those who practice it, then you lay your organization open to never-ending, ill considered 
mayhem. Like getting rid of those misunderstood snakes, you open your organization to a plague 
of rats.

The erroneous belief that 'resistance is bad', arises out of how we perceive resistance. We tend to 
see resistance as an anchor tying us to the safety of a protected harbor, when it's really a rudder 
steering us through the rising winds and tides of change.

On the other hand... 

The above ode to resistance refers to 'rational resistance.' It is specifically designed to defend the 
function of resistance which seeks an honest answer to the question 'Why should I adopt this 
change?' The understanding being, that if the reasons to Change are persuasive enough, then the 
resistor will willingly adopt the change.

There are other forms of resistance.

There are those for whom no amount of evidence, proof, demonstrations or persuasion will 
suffice to get them to willingly adopt the change. We will assume for the sake of argument, that 
all issues of uncertainty about the future were sufficiently addressed by our efforts to describe the 
need and the benefits of the change.

What we're left with is simply the person doesn't want to Change. Why?

There are several possible reasons. 

The most common, is simply that the change is being forced upon them and they've had no 
involvement with the process. It is amazing how deeply people can dig in their heels and refuse 
to budge when they decide they don't want to do something. It becomes nothing more than a 
contest of wills. It's also an example of what happens when one of the basic rules of change is 
ignored... ie. Involve people in the Change. 

Another reason people persist in resisting, is when they truly have this problem with this thing 
called change. This, in my experience, is extremely rare. Most people, when something is 
properly explained to them, or when they are involved in the process, are open to Change. 

There are others who resist for yet other reasons. It's not that they disagree with the benefits of a 
new and improved Status Quo... that doesn't factor into their thought process. Nor is it that they 
value where they are, over and above what the future might bring, to do that they'd have to 
consider the value of the future. To them it's simply a matter of "I don't want to Change."

Sometimes this translates to 'I'm afraid of learning something new, in case I find out I can't!" If 
this is true, then there are ways to assist them overcome their objection. Creating an environment 
where learning is the norm, where the early failures of any learning endeavor are not frowned 
upon, or punished, where they are even rewarded because failure is honored as evidence of 
effort. 

If management really does want to implement change they can create such a learning 
environment, it just takes commitment and leadership. 

But sometimes... no matter how many things you do.... sometimes, on very rare occasions, you're 
left with an individual or two, who's only argument against change is simply "I don't wanna." 
Then and only then, after everything else has been done to the best of management's ability, then 
and only then, is the correct solution to act like a Borg... "Resistance is Futile... "

(c) 2000, Peter de Jager
www.technobility.com