Why people resist change, and what to do about it

Most change programmes announce a goal, communicate it widely and are then surprised when little shifts. The usual diagnosis is "resistance to change". A more useful one is that the people who do the work know things the programme's designers do not.

Resistance is information

When staff push back, there is often a reason. The new process may add steps for the people who must follow it, a risk may have been overlooked, or the change may threaten something people value, such as status, autonomy or the quality of what they produce. Treating pushback as a problem to be overcome throws that information away. Treating it as data tells you where the design is weak.

Soft systems thinking: agree what the problem is

In many organizations, people do not even agree on what the problem is. Soft systems methodology, developed by Peter Checkland and colleagues, was created for exactly these "messy" situations, where several legitimate viewpoints compete. In outline, it asks a group to:

• Build a shared picture of the situation, including the people, the pressures and the relationships.
• State the purpose of the activity from each stakeholder's point of view.
• Compare those views with what actually happens.
• Debate changes that are both desirable and feasible in this particular culture.

The value is less in the diagrams than in the conversation. People who have helped define the problem are far more willing to act on its solution.

Change laboratory sessions: redesign the work with the people who do it

Change laboratory sessions come from developmental work research, associated with Yrjö Engeström. A group of practitioners examines their own work using evidence such as case records and examples of where things went wrong. They identify tensions in the way work is organized, and then design and test new ways of working. Because the new practice comes from the team, it fits how the work is really done.

Practical steps that reduce resistance

• Involve people early, before the design is fixed, and visibly use what they say.
• Explain the reason for change, not only the plan, and be honest about what will be harder.
• Acknowledge what people lose as well as what they gain.
• Pilot before scaling, so problems appear in a small setting.
• Have leaders use the new way themselves. Staff watch what leaders do, not what they say.
• Measure adoption rather than announcements: is the new process actually being used?

Warning signs

Quiet compliance with no real change, workarounds that bring the old process back, and rising absence or turnover in the affected team are all signs that resistance has gone underground. The remedy is usually more listening, not more communication.