NAIROBI: Resistance is normal. This statement is probably uncomfortable to read, and will likely be met with a few raised eyebrows.

But it is the reality, more so in organisations. We are used to the traditional approach, where employees who do not buy into organisational changes are met with ultimatums.

However, creating an atmosphere that feels hostile and tense to an employee is likely to defeat the purpose of actually trying to implement change, and, in the long run, is counterproductive. To many people change is equated to loss.

It might mean losing that area or feeling of comfort hence the resistance.

The story is often told of a little boy whose mother tells him to sit down. He refuses. She repeats her instruction. He resists. She insists. She finally wins, or seems to.

When he finally sits on his chair, the boy adamantly says to his mother, “I’m sitting on the outside, but in my heart, I’m standing!”

This boy accepted the change, but he did not embrace it. This happens in many organisations as well.

The truth is that a hostile atmosphere cannot result in change being embraced at the “heart” level, and yet for the change to have its desired effect, the team must embrace it.

I have heard it argued that people are being paid to do a job, so they should either shape up or ship out.

Like the little boy they will shape up on the inside, but they will be mentally and emotionally checked out, and this is likely to show up, and unfortunately often shows up right before your clientele.

Leaders often underestimate the power of the current state of the employees. The team usually operates within the status quo - a real force that has a powerful hold on people and prevents them from moving forward.

Leaders, on the other hand, often operate in the future state and fail to appreciate that not everyone sees things as they do or can understand how to get to the future state.

I have observed repeatedly that a key reason for resistance in teams is a lack of awareness of the underlying reasons for the change: why it is needed in the first place, the risks of not changing, and how the organisation will benefit.

This cannot be accomplished in a one-off email; it has to be a deliberate and planned process of creating awareness so that teams can engage with and embrace the change.

Communication on change has to be delivered in person, by the senior-most executive in the organisation.

If the reason why the change is needed is not clear, there will be resistance. It may not be overt, but it will definitely be there.

The other reason that I have noted for resistance is the fear of the unknown – especially the fear of job loss. This happens even when there is a lot of assurance that no employees will be laid off; in fact, in many cases, the more the assurance, the deeper the anxiety.

When consultants are seen milling in the corridors, or rumours begin to circulate about similar changes in different organisations that resulted in massive layoffs, the team begins to wonder if leaders are being genuine or if they need to find a “Plan B.”

Change cannot be successfully managed without the proactive management of resistance. It is imperative to identify areas where resistance may crop up and devise special, customised strategies to handle it even before it emerges.

This cannot be accomplished without intentional intervention by project managers,
Human Resources, and the sponsor of the change.

Reactive measures are rarely successful. Once the majority of the organisation accepts the change, efforts should be deployed to guide this group through the change.