Resistance to change is a natural response. There is a loss of control for both individuals and organizations, which is met by a wide variety of responses.
Once it is decided that disruptive change of an organization is needed, it is important to consider how both individuals and organizations will respond. Through both interviews, asking people about change, and observations of how people behave, the context of change can be described.
I start with the observation that within the organization there will be those who promote change, those who resist, and those willing to be convinced. Therefore, the organization is of a mixed mind. Individuals within the organization will, also, be of mixed mindsets, both wanting change and fearing or resisting change.
From conversations with individuals, there is an innate fear of change, which is the subject of much grist in management and popular psychology. Even with those who promote change, there is individual uncertainty. There is often the feeling that they are doing what is right for the organization, but what others are doing is not.
For those who resist change, there is generally a feeling that they are successful in the current organization. There is security. Change is likely to be a threat, or at least a risk, to that security. This is related to a fear of failure.
Something that I, also, encountered, more insidious, was a fear of success. That is, if there was success in some new development, then what would be next? It was like missed deadlines on new innovations were such normal behavior that people had adapted to such behavior. Many times I would see individuals repeatedly get close to success, then “something happened” to thwart the finished product. Uncertainty, risk aversion, and insecurity exploded as the new development was coming to a close.
Returning to individual’s fear of change, when there is pressure for an organization to change, then people are being told that they are, in fact, doing something “wrong.” On a individual basis, people do not like to be told that they are wrong. If they also feel that what they are doing is successful, being told that they are simultaneously “wrong” is a difficult incongruity to reconcile.
More tangible than the message of “wrongness” is the fear of losing resources. I have known many managers who are admired because their first reaction is to maintain resources for their employees and historical activities. Organizational line managers plan to outlast both executive supervisors and political initiatives. They are, rightfully, skeptical of the programmatic and organization changes advocated by program directors and Agency Executive managers.
Given what might be an intentional resistance to change by existing managers, it is necessary for leaders of change to be prepared to manage and to outlast this resistance. Not only are legacy managers likely to resist, they are likely to represent their staff’s resistance to change because a “good” manager will represent and protect their staff. Further, given a time span of years, it is likely that program managers, political appointees, and funding priorities will change. New managers, at all levels, are likely to be imbued with the value of making the organization “their own,” thereby, undermining the continuity required for lasting development of an organizational, product-focused culture. This reflection of personal goals and priorities by a succession of managers is a major source of fragmentation; that is, continuation of the existing organizational culture.
There is, also, deeply individualistic resistance. Within an entrenched organization of scientists there will be those who are devoted to a certain algorithm or methodology. There are times when an entire career has been made on this algorithm. When faced with a new approach, their first reaction is to demonstrate how they can tweak their approach to achieve similar results.
In some cases, the approach being defended by the entrenched individual will extend back to the research they performed as graduate students. There are those who can make a lifetime career tumbling and applying their doctoral research. In fact, I have had employees call their thesis advisors and complain that I was trying to change a particular algorithm. In one case, the thesis advisor told the person, it has been 25 years, perhaps it is time for a change.
In this case, the attachment to an algorithm has become a part of a person’s identity. Therefore, the entrenchment of individuals is far deeper than, simply, a fear of change. When an individual with this level of stuckness is also central to the historical success of the organization, then this individual will be major organizational power holder with many allies. A dilemma is reached between the ongoing mission of the organization and need for disruptive change. Should that employee be moved to another project or terminated?
The differing mindsets of individuals within an organization as well as individual’s intrinsic reluctance to change assure resistance to change. Indeed, over the years, resistance to change can become a characteristic of an organization that is so normalized that it is “what we do.” This will lead to the organization sabotaging change – overt, covert, and subconscious.
Some additional reading:
Science Says This Is Why You Fear Change (and What to Do About It)