Resistance to change and the routines behind it

An organisation has to select from a great deal of information in order to remain capable of acting. Recurring expectations and routines make reliable collaboration possible. But they can lead to new signals being judged mainly on the basis of past experience. A signal from the market may thus take on a meaning other than the one its sender intended.

Immune strength is a systemic term for self-preservation and self-reference. It is not a medical diagnosis and not a measurable performance indicator. The image directs attention to how an organisation processes irritations and which of its existing assumptions it protects in doing so.

During a financial crisis, a large bank transferred a nine-figure sum to an investment bank whose insolvency had long been expected. The payments ran automatically. The knowledge was available and publicly accessible. But internally it was not used in a way that would have stopped the established routine.

The case shows the core of the problem. Organisations cannot perceive their environment themselves. They depend on the perception of individuals. Whether the knowledge of individuals flows into decisions depends on how the communication process is designed. Leadership must therefore enable communication that is free of hierarchy without dissolving the hierarchy.

A signal from outside does not change the organisation automatically. It must be possible to work on it in the organisation's own communication and decision-making processes. This requires suitable connections to customers, employees or partners and occasions where different perceptions come together. External consulting can offer perspectives for this. The decisions are made within the organisation.

An organisation's available energy is directed at maintaining the status quo and established routines. Existing objectives and the personal interests of those involved that are linked to them reinforce this. The more has been optimised and rationalised in the past, the fewer free resources are available for anything new.

Then there are mistakes in the approach. Often only those directly affected are involved. Those indirectly or downstream affected are forgotten because there is no overall analysis of the consequences. Participation is also considered time-consuming. Measured against the total effort until realisation, however, it takes less time than pushing things through single-handedly. Changes imposed from above create demotivation and resistance.

Instead of hastily attributing resistance to individuals, the analysis examines where the new requirement collides with existing roles, rules or expectations. What information is missing from the joint discussion? Which decision would need to be prepared differently? Which interface prevents the matter from being worked on? Such questions help to find a concrete organisational starting point.

Every change initially makes work harder for those involved. Established procedures and routines no longer apply and have to be practised anew. The resulting resistance is normal and part of every change process. It cannot be avoided.

Many managers nevertheless regard resistance and teething problems in the transition phase as failure. They immediately take countermeasures and may even change the process again. A more helpful approach is dialogue with employees about why the change is important and that teething problems are accepted. Clearly stating how long the implementation phase will take addresses uncertainty at all levels and avoids blind actionism.

Change creates uncertainty. People then take on roles that help them cope with the unstable situation. The role model distinguishes four of them. The victim feels overwhelmed by the change, isolates themselves and does not ask for support. The critic doubts the necessity and looks for reasons why it will fail. The observer keeps a low profile and waits until others decide. The navigator gets an overview, asks about the background and actively approaches others affected.

People move through these roles, some faster, some more slowly. It becomes critical when someone remains stuck in the role of victim, critic or observer. It is therefore important for managers to know how the roles are distributed and developing in the team. Their task is to support the movement from one role to the next and to clarify the next constructive contribution.

Some projects can hardly be implemented within an organisation's existing patterns. Concerns that something new will not work straight away hinder implementation, even when the measures have been decided. A breakthrough strategy starts here. A group of managers and employees works over a few days in a facilitated format on a serious gap between target and actual and implements the solution immediately.

The team includes key people from all areas affected and deliberately also people from other areas who bring in new perspectives. This includes the managers who can decide on implementation. At the end, the new practice has already been created and only needs to be defended.

Resistance should not be hastily interpreted as a trait of individuals. An existing routine can ensure reliability, limit risks or compensate for unclear responsibility. Anyone who wants to change it must understand what function it fulfils today. A concrete situation is examined with those involved: what change is expected, what behaviour persists and what could be lost with different behaviour?

This produces testable hypotheses about goals, fears and organisational conditions. Leadership can then change mandates, information or ways of working so that new action becomes possible. Trying it out shows whether this works. Not every critical piece of feedback is resistance. It may also point to a real flaw in the project.