It takes two to tango...

As discussed previously (here and here), the preferences for certainty and for autopilot have been around throughout all human history. And there is one point to stress here: these preferences did not magically perpetuate “in spite of” the evolution, au contraire! They have been accompanying it, nurturing it, and assuring the mankind survives. In other words, they had an essential function for the survival of our species. After all, we did not drop these preferences at some step as the proverbial tail. It seems more like change and resistance to change have been involved in some intricate tango that has been going on for centuries and millennia. These two are a perfect example that “the opposites attract”: one cannot really do without the other and together they bring the system back to balance, especially in the long run.

So, when one states “change is good, resistance to change is bad, so suck it up and move on”, they are doing more than just a grotesque oversimplification. They are literally telling a half-truth. And instead of speeding the process up, this half-truth is creating yet more resistance. Why? In the first place, because this “50% of truth” goes 100% against one’s gut feeling as well as against all that “generational” memory we have extensively talked about. Thus, you basically start off on the wrong foot and negative credibility as no matter how much sense your rational arguments might have, the other side only hears noise and feels being fooled or (and) lied to - and hardly anyone likes this feeling.

But there is even more to it: To every action, there is always opposed an equal reaction, as you might remember from your physics class back at school. Your attempts to push things through ultimately start nurturing the resistance itself, and there is a high risk of entering a negative spiral. The more one side persists, the more resists the other one; the more the driver of the change tells how people should feel and should perceive the change, the less the logical argumentation reaches the audience. The expressed behaviour of the team during the implementation might vary between lacking enthusiasm and sloppiness to neglect and anything short of outright sabotage. And the more you go down this path, the more likely the road will become extra bumpy and the whole “change journey” unnecessarily tedious and excruciating. In cases where the change concerns something reversible or somehow avoidable (say, a new process is being put in place, but you somehow can escape it by sticking to the old one), the “journey” might end up in some kind of a “merry-go-around”: you will end up exactly where you started but now everyone is also feeling sick. And you can count on the fact that this negative experience will be remembered by the participants and the next undertaking will be respectively more difficult.

Before we investigate the question “so what can we do about it?” – and to end on a bright note – there is yet another perspective. Resistance to change also deserves a special mentioning (and most likely a separate article at some point) as an extremely useful trait when observed from a different angle. That is, from the angle and within the framing of resilience, perseverance, and ability to stay on track when faced with challenges and adversities. All these admirable traits are essential when you are trying to achieve anything meaningful. And as is usually the case, there are no free rides, and everything comes with a price tag. Resistance to change is the price you pay for resilience, perseverance and all the great things that can be built on them. You cannot let go of the one, while keeping the other. But you can certainly minimize the downside and optimize the upside if you approach the change with eyes wide open and assuring diligent preparation. And that is exactly what we are going to look at in the next articles.