Covert Resistance to Change: Why logical change fails

Leaders, over time, will be at the forefront of many change management initiatives. The changes might be driven by data or a consensus that the market is no longer willing to consume the status quo. So change plans are created and implemented, and the reasons for the change are made clear, but still the organization seems reluctant to come along. If they do, they come kicking and screaming. How is it that a change so obviously needed predisposed to so much resistance?

The problem is that in spite of the logic of the business case for change, which is typically very strong, there are always covert processes that will get in the way. It is a phenomenon that OD practitioners usually pick up on early in their careers, but hugely frustrating for the leaders tasked with dealing with their front-line employees. 

We study change models, change theory, resistance to change, among other things, trying to arm ourselves with whatever we think will get people to move in a new direction, but like a lot of human dynamics however, it’s much more complicated than that. 

Any time a major change or initiative is presented, it immediately triggers subversive forces that can and will impact the journey. Robert Marshal wrote a very insightful book describing what he saw as every organization’s covert forces. These are both conscious and unconscious thoughts deeply embedded within the workforce, but if we fail to recognize and act on them, they will feed the powers of resistance. These include: political challenges, emotional reactions, cultural mindsets, psychology, and inspirational messaging. Because they are so covert in nature, therefore harder to qualify, we usually don’t pay explicit attention to them.  

As organizations, we are much more comfortable in the formal lane of logic and reason. We live here because it’s safe and defendable. We need to change because there’s a window of opportunity that’s closing fast…and here’s the data that makes my case… So while we make our best argument, -based on the logic of any proposed change, the OD practitioner needs to cast a wider net in the planning process. How is the plan going to accommodate the tacit, covert forces that will work against your change?  

• Politics. In the realm of politics and political forces, political scientists use this term realism.  In political theory, realism refers to the notion that people/groups/nations always operate or think in the context of power. When you are trying to understand why an actor acted in the way they did, or predict how they might react to your move, just view the action through the lens of realism. Any proposed organizational change then, will be examined by some groups or individuals within the organization in the context of what the changes will mean for them (and their power). Will they have greater control or power (or less control and power)? The question for change practitioners then becomes how to address and neutralize the power threat that many people are certain to pick up on.

• Emotions. In the realm of emotional dynamics, people confronting change feel real emotions. Again, we are so much more comfortable with reasoned and logical arguments that we want to step over emotions (as if they aren’t really a factor). The problem however, is that these emotions go underground and surface in other ways. Without addressing the emotional losses people feel (i.e. attachments to the traditional ways), it inevitably increases resistance. The OD practitioner should give people an opportunity to express their emotions to the change, whether that is within a team meeting, a focus group, or in a survey, just the act of expression of loss is helpful. These personal and individual emotional circuits are addressed in the Kubler-Ross and Bridges models, but often overlooked. 

So the challenge for the OD practitioner is to acknowledge the emotional blowback that is a natural human response to most proposed changes. How then does the change initiative give voice to the sense of loss that people will feel? When and where do we let people express their feelings of letting go of what was?

• The Vision (see-feel-change). In Kotter and Cohen’s The Heart of Change (2002), the authors point out that even though organizational planners might make a great case for change based on logic and data, they cannot step over the need for a vision that emotionally moves the employees. It is the vision of the future, where life as we know it today will become much better in the new way (i.e., it serves our customers better, it enables the organization to become more competitive in the market, or maybe it makes the workforce more efficient). In essence, you are grabbing the heart over the head. Regardless of the strength of your business case, the change effort needs to grab hearts.

• Covert mindsets. If you’ve ever been involved with constructing a change initiative, let’s say the adoption of a new software program, you inevitably run up against the wall of mindsets that say it can’t be done, it’ll never succeed, etc. These expressions of doubt are natural, but they are coming from mindsets that see the world as it is in its current state with no vision of where the future could take us or where the market is heading (and demanding change). 

Kurt Lewin’s concept of double-loop learning (DLL) is not only an OD practitioner’s tool, it is a change management strategy. DLL enables us to continuously examine and re-examine our assumptions. When the mindsets of resistance are forced to give voice to their assumptions, they also leave the door open to explore those assumptions. The assumptions can be examined, challenged, and hopefully changed when it is shown that the assumptions aren’t etched in stone. 

• Psychology. Lastly, the psychological reaction to change cannot be overstated. I can remember a time in my career when we had to introduce Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPEO) to the physicians at a community hospital. Healthcare had changed and we were actually somewhat behind the times, so there was no turning back or negotiating on this. Watching the physicians go through freak-show-worthy contortions to get out of actually doing CPOE was a study in human nature. Marshak describes this psychological state as a fight-or-flight mentality, and some physicians were so offended by the new system that they opted to retire or at least leave the organization (although there was nowhere to run).

This is a category that is the most difficult since we often don’t fully understand our own deep-seated emotional triggers. Trying to understand other peoples’ emotional triggers is even more mystical. The best we can do is help our leaders to become self-aware of their own emotional intelligences so that they can recognize what’s going on. If we can identify it for what it is, we can also dampen its impact on us. 

The value of Marshak’s work for OD practitioners on the undercurrents of organizational life is to raise up the reality that there is much more going on than meets the eye. Change is ever-present and it only seems to come faster and faster. Gone are the days of Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze model, -there’s no re-freezing anymore. We are always in a constant state of motion. Planning and putting into action change plans need to take into account the covert processes that are in play.