In
his chapter on resistance in Flawless
Consulting, Peter Block makes the point that people often use the phrase
"overcoming resistance," which implies that convincing or persuading people will
win them over. This doesn't usually work. If your point of view wasn't persuasive to begin
with, repeating it only leads people to dig their heels in deeper. If they don't buy your ideas, that's a cue
they're either threatened in some way -- which to them is legitimate, or trying to
maintain what is important to them -- which to them is legitimate. They may feel some
concern about their credibility, their job security, their sense of autonomy, their
competence; they may also see a lack of congruence between the proposed change
and core organizational values.
Furthermore, those who defend the
status quo play a valuable role. For starters, you may be missing
something in your zeal for change that could help you avoid problems. These
defenders
probably also represent others who don't support the change (yet) and can raise your
awareness of some important issues you need to address. Most important, because
defenders have
the courage and strength to present a challenge, you want them on your side, and it
isn't necessary to fight for what you believe in order to make that happen.
Think of the futility of standing in a flooding
river to stop its flow. When the "flow" of someone's energy is directed against
your efforts, trying to convince them to head in a different direction can be equally
futile. An effective way to deal with a flooding river is to divert the water using its
own energy -- by digging a channel, for example. The same thing is true for people. If you think they're "stuck
in a box,"
GET IN THE BOX WITH THEM! There are
many ways to do this. One that has worked well with my clients is a version of creative problem solving I call
reframing. Another is with the use of
paradoxical problem solving.
In his classic
article, "A
Positive Approach to Resistance," H.B. Karp suggests
"surfacing," "honoring," and exploring the resistance by making
its expression as safe as possible and asking for all of it; at
the same time listening, acknowledging; reinforcing the
notion that resistance is permissible, even valuable; and
probing for alternatives. Karp reminds us "the objective is not
to eliminate all resistance;" but instead to "work with
and reduce needless resistance" and, once the
conversation is workable, to "thank the resister and move on. It
is important not to try to persuade the resister to like
the demand. It is enough that the resister is willing to agree
to it."
