How can you identify the root cause of stakeholder resistance?

I learned a very interesting technique for identifying and addressing resistance early in my career. When you see it, "name it to tame it." The idea is that you name the facts without judgement, i.e., "This is the third time you have asked me that question." and then wait with an expectant look on your face in silence until they respond. What they say next is their resistance. In the scenario above, the corporate lawyer inside a company I worked for had asked me the same question over and over (when I was in HR). After I used this technique, he told me he thought my boss was undermining him with his boss and he was close to tears when he said it. I had NO clue that this was what was really going on. I was amazed at how well it worked.

Plenty of ways and means. I'd like to share one powerful way... Listening to the stakeholder and to those around them to understand their story. Everyone has a story and often it will "all make sense" as to why they're resistant when you understand their story. They may be feeling vulnerable about the change because they think they'll become obsolete. They may have "seen it all before" and need to build trust that you know what you're doing, and it won't end up like a past disaster. They may have been ignored a lot in the past or even in an earlier stage of the current change, and really yearn to share their thoughts and help co-create the solution with you. Engage, chat and listen, to uncover their story.

Identifying the root cause of stakeholder resistance can usually be found in the fact that their business requirements have not been fully considered and implemented. Better to address their resistance, even if it means having the uncomfortable conversation. When the stakeholder feels he/she is heard and understood, the resistance will recede and form a new level of appreciation for each other.

Recognize that empathy can be a powerful tool in addressing resistance. By actively listening to employees and understanding their concerns, you can uncover the underlying reasons for resistance.

When change happens, resistance will always occur. It is natural. It is key to address the resistance appropriately. Listening to the fears and opinions is the basis for this. When listening to groups of people make sure you also address the quiet ones. This will give you a much more complete picture as they - in many cases - form the majority of the group. Listening only to the loud supporters or loud resistors will give you a wrong picture!

Recognize that underlying fears, insecurities, or perceptions of loss often fuel resistance. By applying psychological principles, you can tailor your change management strategies to address these root causes, fostering a more conducive environment for transformation.

Such assumptions surrounding the definition of resistance, devoid of considerations surrounding brain function, takes thought down the standard dead end. The opposite of resistance might be considered, 'assistance' or cooperation. For one person to assist/cooperate with another, the human brain requires connection, a sense of value, a high self concept, which is reinforced systematically (not through one off events like a bonus or reward). It requires the quality of relationships to shift the neuro-chemical mix from 'defence' (away from) to 'safe' (toward). Conducting surveys, interviews and trying to capture data to qualify the issue, doesn't improve relations. In fact, it's more of the same approach, which detracts from relationship.

Often, it's our ego or fears that throw up these roadblocks. Understanding the root cause of such resistance involves diving deep into the motivations of those who oppose change. The real task is to decode data to uncover what truly drives this resistance. Often, it's a misalignment or a misunderstanding regarding how a proposed change aligns with personal or collective goals. The trick is to unearth this misalignment. The goal is to tweak your proposal so it resonates with their aspirations, creating a win-win scenario. When people see how change benefits them, resistance often turns into support. It's all about aligning interests and clearing up misconceptions – a bit like a diplomat navigating through a complex negotiation!

Assessing resistance by observing indicators like low morale, lack of engagement, and unmet goals is key. These signs can often provide an early warning of underlying issues. However, it's also crucial to complement this with direct communication: - Talking to people can provide insights into why morale is low or goals are not being met. It helps in understanding the context behind the observable signs. - Clarify Misunderstandings: Sometimes resistance is due to misunderstandings or lack of information. Direct conversations can clarify and resolve these issues. Employee Feedback Mechanisms: - Surveys and Feedback Forms: These can be useful tools to gather anonymous feedback, giving employees a safe space to express their concerns.

Open up the definition of resistance and don’t come at it with a closed mindset. If you do, you will probably just put oil on the fire. Is this resistance just engagement? Are people anxious? Afraid? Angry? Upset? Most of the time it means that something else is going on. Also: have you helped people with psychological tools to negate psychological change pain?

In her book, The Chocolate Conversation, Rose Fass has a great line, "Underneath every concern is an unmet need." Ask, "What do you need...?" It's a great way to understand the different standards and root causes that underly resistance. More often than not, it's something that can be addressed by adding greater clarity or detail around change. Resistance may be rooted in understanding existing commitments that stand in the way of change. Ask, "What do you need?"

After assessing impact, analysing resistance is indeed extremely important as it is the only way to identify leverage points. Resistance can simply be beg for attention. It is however usually more complex. Situational factors as well as biases, conflicting agendas or group dynamics may trigger resistance. Once figured out, then we can start working on resolution.

This approach has led to huge change program failure rates (reported over the last 50 years), massive disengagement stats all over the planet and such high levels of stress, we've seen new phrases like 'Burnout' enter the business lexicon. The models currently available typically start at the 'Change management' level, and focus on individual development. This is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. If our environment is triggering resistance in our people, ensuring their brain also avoids suggestions of change, we must first understand what brains reject and why, and address the environmental factors systematically, before we analyse and judge the psychology and emotions of individuals.

Recentemente eu sugeri a um amigo que é gestor em uma empresa com alta resistência à mudança uma ideia que deu certo. Indiquei a ele uma ideia diferenciada: a "História Compartilhada". Sugeri que ele convidasse colaboradores a narrarem momentos em que superaram obstáculos juntos, criando uma teia de conexões emocionais. Após essa prática o meu amigo dise que as histórias revelaram padrões de resiliência, desmistificando a resistência. Minha dica é: explore narrativas coletivas como um radar para identificar fontes ocultas de apoio interno, desencadeando uma mudança mais autêntica e colaborativa.

In today's day and age we can use AI tools to analyse resistance. For example: MonkeyLearn: A text analysis tool that uses machine learning to automate business processes, providing sentiment analysis among other features. Brandwatch: Primarily a consumer intelligence and social media listening tool, it offers powerful sentiment analysis capabilities. Culture Amp: Offers employee feedback and analytics platform, enabling companies to monitor and improve employee engagement.

Begin with the assumption that a person who is perceived as resistant is coming from a good place and cares deeply. Understand their perspectives and concerns. The more deeply you enquire and the more people feel fully heard and understood, the more insight you have re what are the great points that person may have which are not being acknowledged, and the more that person can engage and take ownership as they feel seen

All such advice assumes the 'resistant stakeholder' is somehow wrong for demonstrating their natural survival response to their environment, and that all factors which trigger a 'survive' based neurological response are automatically right / OK. (Despite never being considered in terms of sensory stimulus for brains). As for step 1. Create urgency (Kotter), people don't need any contrived pressure added to the stress already experienced in the modern workplace. The only good line in pt.4, is 'reduce or eliminate the barriers to change' .. however, we must understand what such barriers are, in terms of natural (evolved) human brain function, and reverse engineer back from that position to improve work and org design.

Employees need to understand how the change will benefit them personally and professionally. They have to see their place and role in the future of the company. Usually, with change there is a vision, representing the ultimate goal but from 30000 ft high. Employees cannot relate to something like this. We need to break down this vision to concrete, relatable actions, specific behaviours, goals, and outcomes that staff could understand and apply. To instil this understanding organization-wide, the best way is to develop a training program for ALL employees at all levels. When we address what we were doing, why it was necessary, who it involved, and how each individual could contribute then resistance will gradually subside.

Two key levers to address and minimize resistance are communication and participation. As you will always find the full breadth of personalities in a group of people (if this group is big enough) you will be faced with every type from passionate supporters of change through neutral "wait-and-see" to militant resistors. Address all of these groups in your communication - not just one. It is key to make everyone feel to be genuinely heard and seen. Leverage the passionate supporters to make the neutrals participate to shape the change to their liking. Address the militant resistors with the right messages (e.g. "this change will happen, we can shape it, but not make it go away"), but do not waste too much energy in turning them around.

An out-of-the-box approach is the "Reverse Town Halls." Here's how it works: - Instead of leadership addressing employees, reverse the roles. Have a panel of randomly selected employees from various levels and departments address the management and leadership team. - You can use real time polling where all attendees, including those not on the panel, can vote or give feedback on the issues being discussed. This approach is not for the fainthearted and may ruffle feathers, but it also sends a powerful message about the organisation’s commitment to transparency and genuinely addressing employee concerns.

Culture is an emergent property of the human brain function, behind concepts we name, attitudes, values / principles etc. (eg Respect, Trust), as demonstrated in practice/action (behaviours).. all of which sits behind human relations, with self, others, process, systems... we've had all of the tools and methods listed here, for decades ... and the disengagement / stress and stagnant / regressive national productivity challenges are either sustaining or getting worse (hitting GDP). We need a human centric approach to be put in front of all other habits, assumptions, beliefs and practices, to fundamentally shift purpose from profit to people, (which delivers more profit). Understanding brain function can deliver this shift in belief. #btfa

There is not one single road to manage change appropriately and the amount of actions you can take and tools you can use is wide. It is therefor key that you assess the success of your change efforts on a regular basis and adapt, if you see that some of these efforts are futile.

Start by actively listening to their concerns to understand their perspective fully. Engage in open, honest dialogues, asking probing questions to uncover deeper issues. Analyse any patterns or common themes in their feedback.It's also important to consider the context of their resistance – are there external factors, such as market changes or personal interests, influencing their stance? Don’t overlook the impact of past experiences,previous engagements with your organisation might affect their current views. Utilise feedback mechanisms, surveys or informal conversations for additional insights. Involve them in problem-solving this will help in pinpointing the exact issues but also fosters a collaborative environment for addressing them.

It seems a lot of responses here, and the article itself, are treating Culture Change as if it were any other kind of change. It's not. Using tools designed to manage change within an existing culture aren't necessarily going to work *on* a culture. If there is resistance to culture change, is it rooted in a change in values (and whose are changing?) or is it in the artefacts of culture (for example, power structures). Starting with clarity of values and seeking alignment/clash avoidance should ensure that changing necessary artefacts of the culture become easier and experience less resistance. Ultimately, if people are resisting culture change, maybe they no longer have a place in that culture.

Ich halte die 6 Schritte für abstrus. Wichtig ist doch zu verstehen, dass Widerstand ein Kooperationsangebot ist. Er hilft mir zu erkennen, dass meine Massnahmen oder Lösungen dazu führen, dass wichtige Bedürfnisse des Gegenübers nicht erfüllt werden. Das bedeutet, dass ich etwas "übersehen" habe. Es erinnert mich somit daran, dass ich nochmal nach den Bedürfnissen nachfragen muss oder mein Angebot anpassen muss und all dieses in die Kommunikation einbringen sollte (sofern ich den Widerstand überhaupt verringern möchte).

A very important aspect is to try to avoid resistance in the change upfront. Leverage the organizational capabilities: When planning a change, it is very helpful to know the "DNA", i.e. the specific strengths and capabilities, of an organization and to tune the change initiative towards these strengths and capabilities. Allow people to shape the change: Resistance - especially with high performing employees - will always be higher, if they have no opportunity to participate also in a creative (as opposed to a simply executing) way. The top management should thus make the target of the initiative completely clear and set the direction, but let your people define the measures.