Lamela Blog – Part 4: Reasons for Resistance

By Mark Lamela

Resistance to change is natural, part of the human condition, and when change occurs it is in our nature to want to stick to the past and preserve the status quo.  Since resistance to change can have such a detrimental effect, I will try to shed some light on the possible sources of this resistance. Simply put, studies have found there are typically four explanations why human beings consciously or subs consciously resist change:

1)       People believe that change is unnecessary. If the organization has been successful, and there is no visible trouble on the horizon, resistance is more likely to occur when change is introduced. Even when a problem is recognized, people usually confront it by trying to adjust previous strategies or to do more of the existing routines, instead of changing. The belief that change is unnecessary might also be an issue in an industry – like the Oil and Gas industry – where profits are high and business is generally going well;

2)         People fear economic threats (perceived or real). Employees might fear that they will suffer personal loss of income, benefits and job security as a consequence of organizational change. Thus, economic threats might increase resistance, especially in situations where employees have painful past experiences of downsizing and layoffs.

3)        People are concerned over loss of status and power.  Since changes often imply a shift in power and status for some teams or individuals, employees holding positions that most likely will be affected negatively might be more prone to oppose the change.  Often in major change initiatives, experts working in multidisciplinary teams might experience an increase in status and power, while those who stay put in their ordinary positions might experience a similar decrease.

4)        First, people often resent interference.  Some employees simply do not like to feel controlled by others, and attempts at changing their job situation are likely to cause resistance.  Transformational or incremental change will for some involve significant alterations in their everyday work processes, and this might provoke a sense of being restricted.  Thus, in learning why people are resisting the change, it is possible to convince employees of its usefulness (emotional intelligence).

Second, it is very important to have a high focus on effective communication, and  always keep the employees informed about forthcoming changes and the likely result.  As previously discussed in the opening Overview of this series, advancing from awareness communications to engagement communications  is critical.   Because of the vast amount of information already coming through existing channels, it is vital to deliver the information regarding change through new or different channels (thus inspiring and engaging the employee audience).

The third, and perhaps the strongest strategy, is using participation and involvement of the employees in the planning and implementation of change.  Active participation as mentioned in Part Two of this series is mandatory for speed of adoption and sustainability. This increases the likelihood of employees  interests and needs being accounted for, which will help raise commitment, because doing so will suit their interests and meet their needs.

What do you think?

This is Part Five of a Eight Part Series on How to Insure Programmatic Change and its Sustainability in any Major Oil & Gas Organizational Initiatives®.

Mark C. Lamela is a Managing Partner of Total Value Partners; a consulting and staffing services firm, based in Houston, whose approach to Change Leadership/Management, and related disciplines, focuses on the end users awareness of program/project details and the ability to implement new skills and behaviors to make the transformation program/project a success.