Overcome the Resistance that is Limiting Your Success | Dr. Ross Wirth | Skillshare

Playback Speed

  • 0.5x
  • 1x (Normal)
  • 1.25x
  • 1.5x
  • 2x

Overcome the Resistance that is Limiting Your Success

teacher avatar Dr. Ross Wirth, Professor, Org Change & Strategic Planning

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Lessons in This Class

18 Lessons (2h 39m)
    • 1. Introduction to Organizational Change Resistance

    • 2. * Pathway to Learning

    • 3. Cost of Resistance

    • 4. Introduction to Change Resistance – Defining It

    • 5. * Change Resistance – Multiple Points of Leverage

    • 6. Self-inflicted Change Resistance

    • 7. How Change Resistance is Demonstrated

    • 8. * Resistance to Change – Reasons why people resist

    • 9. Change Resistance Transition – Moving people past resistance

    • 10. * Deeper Understanding of Change Resistance

    • 11. * Accidental Triggers of Resistance

    • 12. * Enduring Change Resistance – Pathway to Failure

    • 13. * Resistance Mitigation – Anticipating reasons for resistance

    • 14. * Benefiting from Change Resistance

    • 15. A New Path to Overcome Resistance

    • 16. Summary – Understanding Change Resistance

    • 17. * Summary – Mitigating Change Resistance

    • 18. Knowing what you don’t know

  • --
  • Beginner level
  • Intermediate level
  • Advanced level
  • All levels
  • Beg/Int level
  • Int/Adv level

Community Generated

The level is determined by a majority opinion of students who have reviewed this class. The teacher's recommendation is shown until at least 5 student responses are collected.





About This Class


Managing resistance – clearing the path to Success

What is getting between You and the Success You Want?  Other people resisting what you want!  That is what is holding you back.  Are you taking out your frustrations at home?  Or compensating by micro-managing the resistance you face? 

Understand what is causing resistance – and Do Something About It!  If you believe people will resist you – they will.  Time to change your approach because conquering resistance is possible.

All organizational change projects have some resistance.  However, the reasons behind resistance are very complex and often influenced by the change objective’s impact and how the change project is managed.  Further, the people leading the change project are often the source of the resistance through their choice of leadership style and management actions.

Upon completion of this course, you will have a foundational understanding of why people resist change (many reasons are hidden) and what you can do to manage a successful change project (you want to avoid being a cause of resistance!).  Topics covered in this course span the breadth of change management since mistakes in analysis, change visioning, planning, and implementation all provide fertile ground for resistance to develop and flourish.  (The path to reducing resistance is possible, but does take some work.  Do not attempt this if you are not willing to face the resistance you may be causing.  You will only frustrate yourself further.)

Now, why don’t you do something about the resistance that is holding you back?

Meet Your Teacher

Teacher Profile Image

Dr. Ross Wirth

Professor, Org Change & Strategic Planning


Dr. Ross Wirth currently serves as a part-time management professor at Franklin University, teaching strategic management and organizational change classes. Prior to his retirement, he served as the Dean of the College of Business and Business Administration Program Chair. Before joining Franklin University, Dr. Wirth worked 32 years in international oil and gas where he served in a number of management positions, often involved in strategic & operational planning, business development, performance management, and organizational change initiatives. Over his career, functional leadership spanned IT, retail & wholesale marketing, supply & logistics, corporate planning, and human resources.

Dr. Wirth earned undergraduate degrees in biology and chemistry from the University of N... See full profile

Class Ratings

Expectations Met?
  • Exceeded!
  • Yes
  • Somewhat
  • Not really
Reviews Archive

In October 2018, we updated our review system to improve the way we collect feedback. Below are the reviews written before that update.

Why Join Skillshare?

Take award-winning Skillshare Original Classes

Each class has short lessons, hands-on projects

Your membership supports Skillshare teachers

Learn From Anywhere

Take classes on the go with the Skillshare app. Stream or download to watch on the plane, the subway, or wherever you learn best.


1. Introduction to Organizational Change Resistance: Hello. I'm Ross Worth. And it is my pleasure to welcome you to managing resistance toe organizational change. Resistance is inevitable, but it doesn't need to be as severe or as frequent as is often the case. We're gonna be talking about understanding resistance, why people resist. And some of it may surprise you because often times we are our own worst enemy. Once that understanding is framed, then we can talk about how to reduce it or mitigate or in some cases, endurance or even embrace it. Managing resistance toe organizational change. Why do people resist organizational change? It's a normal reaction to something being different, but we need to look at it from multiple perspectives, the points of view of not only the people who were involved but what we're doing as the leaders of the change that possibly encourages or enables resistance needlessly. We're gonna have to take a look at the process that we managed to change process as well as the objective. What are we trying to change? All of these come into play a different different ways. When we talk about resistance, we're gonna be talking about mitigating or preventing the resistance mitigations not only the prevention but the reduction of the impact of severity, the frequency with which we have to face the resistance. We're also gonna talk about the benefits Yes, benefits that can come from the change resistance. It's not all bad. A lot of times the knee jerk reaction is that resistance bad. Kill it, get rid of it. And you don't take advantage of what we may learn about why the people are resisting. So how can you then also contribute to reduction of the change resistance or the flipping and around? What might you be doing that encourages reasons is this is another key topic in this course . What do I bring to this course? Fair enough. I bring 30 years experience, often times leading change initiatives, often times leading strategic change initiatives. I also have a PhD in leadership and organizational change. I see leadership and change being really tightly intertwined, and I bring that to all of my courses. I've been teaching at the cows level since 2004 and I enjoy it. I enjoyed bringing not only to the classroom but to the online and video experiences such as this within the curriculum design while working full time as dean and program chair for business administration. I came to understand how curriculum is designed, and I bring that to this course also so that we are going through the learning process in a way that makes sense. Not only the theory about the change and the theories behind change resistance, but how do you put that into practice? That's the key point as a theory to practice. Approach the teaching approach then, as I said, theory to practice, but is what you need to know when you need to know it. I have a number of courses that will focus on different aspects. This one is on the resistance, but I'm doing this in such a way that I am enabling you to be able to apply what you're learning. The application of learning is key without having to buy consulting. Too often, people don't understand what they need to know, and they have to go out and purchase that sometimes at a rate that they cannot afford for the signs of organization that they have. I'm trying to provide a just in time, as needed service at a reasonable price within this course I use a project oriented learning approach and that there will be an application, a learning off, how you use what you're learning within this course to apply to your situation, whether it be a change initiative that you are planning to implement in the near future, or a change initiative that is already underway and you'll run into resistance because you did not do some of the things earlier on. So the focus here, then, is to think about the business organization where you work and some change process that you might want to do in yourself because we resist change that. We know that we need to do ourselves too. So this is also a self improvement aspect of how we resist change and understand how we resist. Change will also help you understand how others resist change. Learning objectives first will be discovery of why people resist organizational change. Secondly, understanding the stages that people go through as they go through from initial discovery that change is coming to compliance through full commitment of the change objective, we're gonna be talking about where change resistance originates. Sometimes it originates in the objective what you're trying to change other times, people may actually agree with the objective, but they will disagree with the change project methodology that you are using. So there's two aspects of where change might originate. We're also gonna be talking about what you can learn from organisational resistance to a change. This is key people often times resist for valid reasons that may be overlooked by the change in leadership team. It's necessary to learn and improve as you go. Otherwise, you can actually have failure because you have done something wrong yourself through no fault of the people within the organization. We're also gonna be talking about how your leadership style may be contributing to the resistance itself. A key point at the end of the course. You should be able to understand the reasons for the change resistance and prepare an action plan for change. The action plan will include a number of things the possible ways resists might occur, how to mitigate the personal reasons. So sub cautious. The things that people don't think about. Those reasons change resistance. What you can do to understand it mitigated to our dirt and place it 2. * Pathway to Learning: pathway to learning. Let me give some pointers on how to best utilize the lectures. In this course. The key is what to watch. If you're not gonna watch everything, I know there's a reality that not all students that start with the first lecture will go through all the lectures. I know that. So let me help you find out what you need to know. If you really want to accomplish the learning objectives, look for the lecture titles that are flagged with an asterisk. These are the ones that are most important. If you want to accomplish the learning objectives, the others you can skip. But you may miss some fundamental knowledge that builds into those learning objectives. So if you skip a lecture earlier, you may need to go back and fill in some of those learning gaps. Let's now turn our attention to going through the content quicker, particularly if you already have intermediate knowledge of this particular topic. If that is the case, you can skim through the material using a viewing rate that is 1.5 to 2 times the normal. In that case, you can quickly listen and, if necessary, didn't go back and play the content at a normal rate to go into a deeper learning. Also, some of the content is duplicated by design. This is content that is directly related to the learning objective. People do not understand content the first time they hear This is basic learning theory. Therefore, I will approach the learning objectives from multiple perspectives so that you get a deeper understanding. However, if you already know that material, this duplication is unnecessary for you, so scan through it quicker. Also, if you really have a good understanding, go ahead and use the slide notes that are available. Look through the bullet points and see if it all makes sense if it doesn't make sense. Those are the lectures or the slides in those lectures that you need to go back and use some time to study. Slide notes. Air always available, as are the numbers on the slides so you can quickly zero in on those areas that you need to study. Also, go ahead and use the slides as reference later. A lot of times when you're going through a change initiative, there are multiple opportunities where you might need to refresh your memory or go into some detail to make sure you are not missing something. In these cases, the slide notes become a reference source for all change initiatives. Let's use the best use of your time. Focus on what is critical. Focus on what you need to learn and quickly move through the rest of the content. 3. Cost of Resistance : cost of resistance. Before we get into a discussion about why people resist and what we can do about it, we really need to come to an understanding of what change. Resistance cost the organization not only in delays but also possible failure of the change initiative itself. Once we understand the magnitude of the cost, then we have a better understanding of how much we can afford to invest in preventing resistance paper exercise. I would like you to take out some paper and reflect on your past experience. Jot down a change initiative where you have observed resistance. Think about what happened and why it happened. What were the symptoms of that resistance? How did you know that people were resisting? What were they doing that displayed resistance? Not only in what they were saying, but what they were doing. And what was the reasons behind that resistance. Think about these. Why have people resisted in the past? What have you personally observed? And what did you learn from your observations of how people resisted in the past? And then let's talk about the change resistance itself. What did the leadership team do? Toe address the problem of resistance and were they successful? Think about this. It will lay the foundation as we go through the next series of videos. Now let's shift to a change that you are considering yourself. What would you like to implement and what would it be? Delay cost you if you could not get it done by when you desire. What does each month of delay cost the organization in direct monetary losses as well as lost opportunities, something something that you would like to do but haven't been able to do because of the delays and the resistance? Possibly low productivity. If you need to increased productivity be competitive. What is that delay costing you and the employees time This change effort, any change effort requires additional work until it becomes routine and big in the habits of the organization that takes additional employees time that could be otherwise used more productively. Maybe, but we still need to get through the change initiative. And what is it costing you and the management team in your time to deal with resistance? We often times think about that time it takes to develop and implement a change we don't often factor in the extra time for dealing with the resistance that will come from a poorly designed change plan. The larger question incomes is to what extent does your cost estimates make some assumptions? The recipients are often throwing up what we believe to be unrealistic obstacles. But are they? Are we making assumptions about how people think about what we're proposing and how we're proposing to get it done? And the change managers themselves? Are we doing the right things to streamline the change process, or are we creating barriers to the change with what we're trying to do and the way we're doing it? This is a change agent centric point of view. Too often we used a change agent ourselves Central and that we think about resistance and the cost to us and the organization. From our perspective, we do not turn this around and think about change from the people being impacted from this observation, though we need to look at multiple perspectives. And that is one thing we're gonna be doing repeatedly throughout the series of videos, looking at change not only from our point of view, but the point of view from the people being impacted, change, resistance, the cost, how much is the resistance costing you and your organization 4. Introduction to Change Resistance – Defining It : introduction to organizational change resistance. We're going to start now getting into what is organizational change and understanding of resistance. That paradox here of change, resistance. We generally assume that people resist change. But is that true? Because people also resist boredom. We have a paradox here. So what we're really talking about is not resistance to change but resistance to people being changed. They like to have control over what is changed and how it has changed. Without that control, their being changed, they're not deciding themselves to change. This is a key part of understanding, resistance toe organizational change. But people also default to doing things the easy way. We're creatures of habit. We do things without thinking about it. Run or a pilot. Think about the times you've driven down a road to go to a place you've been to frequently . But when you get there, you can't remember how you got there. It's so habitual, it just happens. So we're gonna be talking about giving people a reason to change, because even without a resistance or a reason to change, they're gonna take the easy path. We're gonna be talking about why people do what they do and how the easy path, oftentimes Kenly, lead to a reason for resistance because is no longer the easy path change involves mental work is cautious activity. We have to think about what we need to do different. We can't go on habit and operate subconsciously, and this is a key part, and that change is mentally exhausting work. We have to think about things that we don't normally or don't want to think about. So let's talk about the change recipient classification. What we want people to be is on board and ready for the change. However, we generally see two other categories of people those that are taking a wait and see. These might be the people that have seen change resistance, come and fail. They take the attitude of this is the flavor of the month and this too shall pass. Don't worry about it now. It will go away on its own, and too often that does happen. There's also the people that are active, resist er's, And throughout this course we're gonna be talking about those that wait and see, and those that resist actively, which are the more difficult ones to handle you may be surprised going forward, then those that are ready to change. They may not necessarily be beneficially ready to change. They may be politically aligned with the change leaders and possibly yes, people. They are doing things because of a personal alignment, not necessarily because of what they think is best for the organization. They may be taken action that is, to them personally advantageous, but not necessarily to the organization if they would think about what they were doing. So even if people are on board and ready for the change, it may not be the best for the organization. Those that are in a wait and see. As I said, this too shall pass. They may disagree with the change objective, or that people that are involved they may have a personal conflict with you and the other change leaders, and they're standing off to the side. This may be passive aggressive behavior. They will say yes, I agree. But then don't do anything. Then, on the resist er's, this is active resistance that may have a hidden agenda, things that you don't know that they know this requires you to get inside their head. They may not even know why they resist because a lot of resistance comes from the sub cautious things that are ingrained within the way we do things because we've been doing him that way. Also, we need to understand that not all resistance is the same and we need to be able to differentiate between the resistance and the validity behind the resistance. The challenge then is we think about change from a rational evidence that if you present information really rational, if you present information rationally to the people they will understand and come on board . However, change is not rational, it's emotional, it's often emotionally self interest based. So we need to rethink Ah, lot of our change from a rational perspective. To an emotional perspective, all change is personal. Think about that. Organizations do not change, the people and organizations change. And not all aspects of the change are equally important to all people. We need think about what are the benefits to the organization as the people see it as a change leader. We think of change from the organizations perspective and we think that other people think as we do, that's not the case. They think of change from their perspective and what worked elsewhere in the world has no bearing upon them. They are unique, the organization is unique, and any argument can be made that a best practice elsewhere cannot be applied here because of the differences. True, and even if it weren't true, is that, Oh, it's what people believe. What people are really interested in is knowing how they will be impacted and, if necessary, can they follow the early adopters with the risk. This gets into the wait and see if it is safe to follow others. It will be easy for them to take that wait and see passive behavior. All changes personal. All change is emotional and thereby resistance originates. Let's talk about change resistance at a high level, their traditional sources that we believe or I should say, the traditional sources that most managers leading change believe is that we're dealing with habits that are really stemming from past practices, including experiences with path change initiatives. We think about resistance from the power dynamics within the organization, who loses, who gains power and the impact on the people. We also think about cultural mo mentum, the habits of the organization, the values, the normal ways the culture operates and the assumptions that we have within the organization. These are the traditional ways of thinking about sources of change, resistance. We're going to think about things a little different. In addition to these, we're gonna be talking about traditional approaches to managing resistance. We often think about supporting people, communicating, empathizing and involving people. And we do these in different priorities. We support the people through the training and the time to get used to the change. We communicate by explaining and oftentimes selling the change initiative. And we empathize with them to identify with the problems that they're having in doing the change transition and to some extent, we bring them into the process, the key to resistance. So it's not these four approaches, but how you employ these approaches and when you employ them in the overall change planning process, this will be a critical part of what room we're gonna be talking about. Change, resistance. You know it when you see it 5. * Change Resistance – Multiple Points of Leverage : change resistance from multiple points of leverage. This is they diagram that I put together when structuring all of the different courses that I will be putting together on organizational change. Each park flows from an understanding of why organizations need to change into the types of change how people change. Remember, always remember, organizations do not change, people within organisations change and you have to have that as a foundational step. You also have to be able to analyze it, diagnose what needs to be changed as well as what needs to be protected. Then we talk about the methodology employed in a change project, the tools that are at hand for enabling change, the personal becoming a change agent, how you develop your leadership capabilities as well as the tracking of progress. All of these are really sections at a master course for organizational change. When I originally put together the total table of contents and then went back to see where videos for this course existed, I was somewhat surprised to find that I did not have a single subsection anywhere on change resistance. Instead, it was in multiple places, and that took me back a little bit because when you think about change resistance, you think about something like this course a series of learning steps to understand and address resistance. But in reality, change resistance impacts the entire process, General, because you don't do something right somewhere else. Traditionally, we talk about fighting resistance. Resistance is a war. You had it. You deal with it head on. You find a way for them to change. You fight the resistance. That is a traditional way. We deal with resistance to organizational change. You verify the facts. What do we know? What do they know? You challenged beliefs. What's your opinion? Why do you think what you're thinking? We challenge them at a rational level off what they believe, why they believe it. We do acknowledge emotions. We acknowledge it not because we really are interested. As much as we see it as a pathway to eliminating or reducing the resistance, making them friends on our side. We also relate to the values we say. What are your priorities relative to the organization? Are you putting your personal agenda ahead of the organization's? It becomes a loyalty issue. These are the traditional ways we address resistance. This is the This is the default. But is it the best? Wait? The trigger for resistance is often a hidden. We don't easily understand them, but are typical response is persuasion and training. We communicate in a persuasive way to win them over to the change, and we give them training because they're learning something new. This is the way we traditionally approach change from an implementation point of view as well as wind resistance occurs. But let's think about this a little bit more. Too often. We think about all change coming from the same way, the same purpose, the same foundation. But in reality we need to separate him into two separate places of where the change might originate. First, is the change objective itself? What are we trying to change? What is the end state we're trying to get to? But more important in some ways is the methodology that we are put in place to move people through the change process. They may agree with the objective but disagree with the methodology, or they may disagree with the objective itself because they because we did not protect what needs to be protected wild, defining the change objective. So we need to think through two sources in off resistance. So the change objective is it unclear is aligned with the organization. Processes that are already in places gets into deciding what needs to be changed and what doesn't change and how that is connected together. We also need to have the change objective be non controversial or non confrontational with the existing culture or the normal way of doing business. To the extent that we have a change objective that is culturally in violation some way we're talking about a different change objective or the objective itself may be subordinate to a larger cultural change. There's also the personal agendas. To what extent does the change the organizational change, objective impact, personal agenda, what people believe about themselves and what their identity is within the organization within the methodology. What kind of engagement are we using? This is a five step level of engagement that typically is employed when moving any type of change forward. Do you tell them? Do you sell them? Do you test the ideas? Do you consult with them, or do you co create together? We're going to be spending some time on these levels of engagement. When do you use each level of engagement? And how does that choice then lead into the resistance that may come about within the organization? Persuasion Through communication, This is generally the first approach they changed leaders use when rolling out a change initiative, and is often not very effective for a number of reasons. The resisters. You are unlikely to be able to talk somebody into something that they're resisting. You can try, but it's a very difficult process because there are so many things that may be behind the resistance. And you've got so many different people with a different combination that how can you talk everybody into a green with the change when everybody is thinking about it differently from different points of view, the issues that are involved are too complex for a simple message and often times the reasons behind the resistance or what you're trying to persuade is hidden. And you only discover them through testing or through a trial and air process. On the wait and see people, there's often times a conflict between the old messaging and the new messaging. There is a abrupt change without any context for why the message changed. They're also waiting things to blow over. This, too, will pass. This is based upon their prior learning in earlier change initiatives. If they know that they can sit and do nothing or be passive aggressive and the change process will die and go away, that becomes a logical way for them to behave. And no amount of communication will persuade them differently. And it's often better for them to be a slow follower, letting others do the hard work up front, and then they'll come in behind and do the easy work. And there's some validity in this, because rarely is the change process known fully. Before you start, you're always going to encounter some difficulties. And to the extent that those difficulties are inevitable, the recent minor changes down the road those there on board and ready. They're too often interested in what not the why. They also lack the context, but because they may be more obedient. They want to do things quickly without understanding why the changes being put in place that properly equips him for doing the change Very narrow, but too often you cannot mandate all the variations that may be required, and without the full context of the change they may not be. They may not be effective down the road. Also, they could also hijack the change initiative for their personal benefit. If they jump on quick, they can become part of the leadership team and move it in their direction. This can lead to other problems and other resistance down the road. Training training is the second default. We know that change requires different ways of doing things, and that is the role of training and development of people. Training, though, needs to be aligned with where the individual's stage of change is. There's five stages have changed, the 1st 3 a critical when implementing change. And if you're putting a change process in place that is misaligned with where they are in the change process, it's a wasted effort. First is the ignorance of the problem. Do they understand the context of a problem being solved? If that context is not there, it's a wasted effort. Add the confusion because they're seeing action taking place that does not match their understanding of the world or the organization from their previous point of view. Second, do they have a decision to change. Often times we think that people will quickly change when in reality, even after the understand the context of the problem, they have not yet made the decision to move forward for change. Third, the preparation stage. This is when it is now appropriate for training. This is where people leading change too often think the entire organization is that all we need to do is prepare them for training and stage three, and they're ready to go into Stage four. The action If we approach it from the action point of view, it's really too late because they're not trained. They're not on board the or understand the context. The resistance depends on the perspective of the people involved. From the manager's point of view. From what we think when we implement change, people are just resistant to everything People are going to resist. Let's plan for the resistance and deal with it. When it happens, it's inevitable. That's our point of view. But the change recipients point of view is very different to them. It may be too hard to learn something new a me conflict with what I want to do for my self interest. Yeah, I may think from the best interest of the organization that the objective is flawed. These all have resistance to the change objective. There's also resistance to the change process. Are they being changed without their consent? Do they see conflicts with that change and other things are going on in the organization? Or do they see lack of resource is money and more importantly, the time to do the change process and reality? We may be the cause of the resistance resistance. Are we understanding resistance in mortality, or are we looking at resistance only from the point of view of change? 6. Self-inflicted Change Resistance : we ended the last video talking about the things that we do has changed leaders that can actually cause resistance to what we're trying to accomplish. This is the self inflicted change resistance, and I'd like to go into this in much more detail, because if we're able to eliminate change resistance by doing things different ourselves, the process itself is going to go much easier, much quicker, with less resistance down the road. And life will be much more fun as a change leader versus creating battles. Needless, who defines resistance, Interesting point, and that we think of resistance from our point of view of having to kill it or stamp it out off what others are doing, thereby. We are defining what others are doing as resistance. It is from our point of view that resistance is defined and it can become a self fulfilling prophecy. If we expect resistance, it will happen because we end up planning differently. If you think about resistance from a battle or a warrior standpoint, you're gonna be doing the project of initiating a change very different that if you think about it as a cooperative fellowship approach again, it's who defines the resistance and what resistance is from that point of view, we also need to make sense off the change recipients reaction again. We review others people's comments and behaviors. From our point of view, we think of what they're saying as contrary to what we're trying to do. But we may be overlooking many other aspects of what they're really thinking about or believing or trying to tell us that we're not listening because what we're hearing is resistance, not an attempt at cooperation. It also provides an excuse. Think about this. If we expect resistance and we find resistance, it becomes an excuse for us to do things differently. We can take a much harder line on it because, after all, we're dealing with resistance than if we were to think about things more of a cooperative fellowship approach. Thinking about resistance from this perspective also, though, gives us an excuse for failure. The failure than becomes those that resist not failure based upon what we may have done wrong and crafting the change objective or designing the change methodology for the project . It becomes an excuse for our failures by blaming others. We also need to talk about ignoring the potential benefits. If we come at resistance confrontational e, we are ignoring what we can learn from the change recipients. We are ignoring what we can build from an awareness and the momentum of the change by getting their involvement and understand it from their point of view, not our point of view, defying it as resistance. We also do corrective action for the design and the conduct of the change process differently. When we think about it from a beneficial point of view, what can we do different? There's also a presupposition that resistance will occur if you believe resistance will occur naturally, we are going to be looking for it. We will see resistance in actions that may not necessarily be resistance, but we will interpret those comments and behaviors because we're trying to frame it within the expectation off resistance. The change manager then doesn't become responsible because if they continue to resist, it's their problem, not our problem. If they resist, we have to fight them harder. This sets up a trust breaking cycle and that it becomes confrontational. It's a communication breakdown. In reality, it may be a problem with reallocation of resource is time people availability or the budget . We may have overlooked those, and the resistance is really being interpreted not as opposition. But lack of resource is, from their point of view, something we're overlooking. We also may be looking at the raisins driving decision making differently. We have the context from a change leader perspective of having gone through the diagnosis, the problem solving the planning. We understand the total context, and then we're laying there on others, possibly with no context, and expect them to have the same understanding that we do. This is a formula for resistance. We also may be violating the psychological and implied contracts. Everybody has a working relationship with some assumptions, and a change initiative may be violating those assumptions, and we may be doing that unconsciously. Ourself. So what do you believe about where change resistance originates? And to what extent does that belief really force you or cause you to see resistance when it may not necessarily be resistance, but your interpretation as such? So let's talk about avoiding the contribution to resistance from what you do. Mislabeling resistance is often the case when in reality it is the poor design of the change objective and some deficiency in the change methodology. I mentioned this before. I'm gonna continue to mention it because it is a common cause off the change resistance as we see it from our point of view because of what we fail to do in proper design and implementation planning. It also involves, from our point of view, poor organizational sense making by since making up talking about the context that people understand the problem and understand the change being a solution to the problem. It is the context for how we communicate fully within that context or developing that context or possibly misrepresenting something as being a little bit different, because we don't want to deal with the hard issues that sometimes are involved. When significant culture change occurs, we can also they violate the trust that breaks down the psychological contracts, the implied contracts that we have with people in the organization, what they expect from us and vice versa. If that trust breaks down, it becomes a major impediment for successful change. The key point, then, is the personal change resistance that you may be fostering within the organization and how you design and plan for the change. Self inflicted changed resistance could also come from our fear of failure. If we are afraid of what we may be doing wrong, we may be taking a harder line aspect on forcing change, being a more hard line manager, raising expectations on realistically and having disjointed communication and misaligned actions. This is seen in this too will pass. It reinforces complacency within the organization because we lack consistency and what we say and what we do. The conflicting messages, as in Do what they say now, as I do when you take a look and many books that address resistance and what to do these other critical things they talk about. The consistency of message is the alignment of actions. What needs to be said, though, is the reasons behind those recommendations is to avoid self inflicted damage from fear of our failure itself. So, to what extent are we dealing with self inflicted damage as an excuse for poor management? If you can blame others for resistance, it takes blame off of you. And some managers may not want to eliminate the resistance because truthfully, with some resistance that allows blame shifting to others when they need to report to their superiors about why the change is not happening. A proper response is a self reflection off. To what extent is the change resistance self inflicted and not truly originating from the people involved in the change recipient point of view? The key, then, is when are you because exists? What are you doing? That should be done differently to avoid resistance. First place Because you can avoid resistance, things go smoother. 7. How Change Resistance is Demonstrated : Let's turn our attention now to how resistance is demonstrated within organizations. When I first started to put this course together, I started to list the different reasons four Resistance, and I found that this was becoming an impossible task. These numerous reasons are from just one book on organizational change, and I had dozens of other books that have even Mawr combinations of why people resist change. And it occurred to me that too often authors come at resistance. As to these other reasons, let's address the reasons, but it's too many reasons we need to be more generalized to figure out why people resist. Assuming that we've already taken ourselves out of the equation. Let's talk about then, why people resist in a way that we can deal with it instead of having so many of these little things that you have to go through the checklist of. Is this the case? Is this the case? Is this the case isn't the case we need to be more generalized in our approach. The key, then, is that every situation is different. Generalization is gonna be the essence. If we're going to deal, would change resistance because there's too many different reasons to try to organize them . So let's talk about the types of seaweed in group, though into some generalized types of reasons that we can then start to deal with as to how to understand and eliminate. There was reasons for resistance. First is let's talk about active resistance. These are the people that are critical, overly critical, even the smallest details. They will argue they will fault. Fine. They will undermine, obstruct and stall progress from happening. To some extent, they may be starting rumors. They may be actively sabotaging events and raising fear throughout the organization. They are active in their resistance. We also have the passive those that are slow to act. They don't follow through. They will treat the change as a fan of the month that this too will pass. Ignore it and it will go away. And all too often that is the case. So you've got active resistance, passive resistance. We also have some symptoms of distress. This is truly distressful. They are struggling with the change process itself. These are symptoms that have underlying causes. The absentee rate may go up this illness, in which case we're talking about mental work that, just like physical work, can wear people out, reduce their resistance to illnesses, and they may truly get ill. Or they may want to avoid the conflicts and the pressure and will call in Sick Win and Realty. They're avoiding the change and the stress it's causing on them. Low productivity, procrastinating and it's a critical one. Procrastination may be a symptom of the resistance, but we need to be careful because to some extent procrastination is also normal behavior and similar to what we talked about last time. We are the ones that label resistance, and we need to be careful about incorrect labeling. Those that are in distress will also more likely to be involved with the rumor mill. They're more likely to gossip. There are also likely to focus in on themselves, close themselves out from others there. Low morale and the isolation, these air symptoms of distress that people are struggling. These are not necessarily anticipated as likely that they will happen if the change process is difficult developmentally as well as habit changing difficult. We're also talking then about passive aggressive. It's not just passive but passive by saying that they will do something but consciously not doing it, in which case they appear to be on board. But internally, they're actively resisting very dangerous because you don't know what's happened. You think they're on board when they're not. We also need to talk about the perceived risk of a particular change and how that perceived risk will impact the resistant that we will see here. We have on the left hand access the perceived risk low to high. This is a perception, and that perception may be influenced by their understanding of the problem, the context surrounding the problem and their understanding of the relationship of the context, the problem and the solution being offered in the change. We're also talking about past experiences that they may have with the change process. Previously, whether they've had very little some or moderate change or possibly a lot of change or prolonged changeover period of time. Let's talk about what this actually looks like so we could get an understanding of how people understand risk and how they relate to that risk in the change resistance. This is a graph of how the resistance can be perceived as high risk if they've got little experience would change and as they get MAWR experience with change, that risk drops. However, as it becomes more ongoing change, fatigue sets in and the risk goes up until such a point. Where becomes a crisis situation at crisis, it becomes better to move forward than to face non changed during the crisis. Labelling these in change in experience, people that have little experience and change will think that any change will be high risk . Those that experience change regularly. And this is an argument for the kaizen, or continuous change process off many frequent small changes versus infrequent large changes. People become competent with change and as it become competent with the change process, they also gain on understanding that they can get through this change. Also, it becomes routine. Change becomes a core routine. Competency, however, change fatigue as I mentioned at the peak versus crisis being acknowledged. The key then is to challenge the organization to have a moderate level of change so that change competency becomes ingrained within the organization and they can then approach it with a perception of less risk, thereby less resistance to change when it occurs. What resistance are you experiencing? What resistance are you expecting? How is that resistance being demonstrated within your organization 8. * Resistance to Change – Reasons why people resist : We've briefly talked in the last video about the many possible reasons that people resist and we categorized some of the types of resistance. We're now going to categorise the reasons that people resist change. This becomes a turning point and that we are now starting to get into a better understanding of how we can categorize actions to reduce the likelihood or the severity of the resistance itself. Typical reasons why people resisted something new to be learned. This is really in all change programs because we know that if something is being done different, they need to be trained. People need to understand how to do what needs to be done in a different way. So we respond with a training program, new skills, new knowledge and the attempt here is to reduce the fear of failure, their fear of failure because they don't know what they need to do differently. But at the same time, we know that put activity will fall because there's a learning curve to become fully skilled at the change. But while we're doing that, they're also under time pressure because there have to continue to do the old job while learning something new. There's also a typical reason of loss of something, something that they've had in the past, possibly the benefits there. Compensation, different positions will have an impact there. The authority that they have over others or over budget or over decision making process, the responsibilities they've had, maybe even the status and prestige they hold within the organization. All of that can change as well as opportunities for advancement or other things in the future can all be changed dramatically by some organizational change outside of their control. So the typical responses there is respond to them by bargaining. Same as we respond with training for something new. The typical management responsive response is to respond with bargaining for the loss of something. If you do, this will do this type of bargaining. There's also the issue of poor timing too many things at one time. Too many change initiatives at one time, in which case you're putting unnecessary pressure on trying to expect people to really accomplished more than they are mentally able to accomplish. Typical reasons why people resist change. There's also cultural or those social pressures within the organization, the traditions, the climate of trust or mistrust within the organization and the worker relationships. The relationships they have with the peers within their work group or across the organization may be altered in many ways. The responses. There is possibly a second change initiative. A lot of times when you do a single change, there's the cascading effect, and we often don't get it right that you don't change the foundation before you start building the house. In which case, if you start building the house, you may find that the cultural foundation is insufficient. So all the sun you are trying to build the house and rebuild a reinforced the foundation. This leads into change fatigue as well as conflict in the organization. The reason, then is resistance occurs because of what is put in place and the sequence that things were put in place. There's also personal factors those that are often hidden from the people and definitely hidden from the person leading the change. The predisposition to change there, attitude toward ambiguity. To what extent do they need certainty to give them comfort? The surprise and fear of the unknown? All change has some surprise factor, particularly if the context of the problem has not been built previously. There's also potential conflicts within the people. The personalities that involved organizations have dynamics based upon individual relationships that can be altered dramatically by change. Typical reasons why people resist change. However, many of these we have to dig deeper, particularly in the personal factors. The things that are hidden from our view, the things that you discover Onley by running into them, not in advance, by figuring out why they may happen. Ignoring the essentials. This goes back to earlier presentations of what are the essentials that you have to get right to be successful in leading a change initiative. If you do not do these essentials correctly, you will get resistance knowing what to change, but more importantly, what not to change. Too often, resistance occurs because we're changing things that have a ripple effect, and we are not protecting the core cultural values or the things that make the strategic competencies work. We may not see that, but others in organizations see it and thereby will resist for things that we are ignoring . We need to differentiate change leadership from change management. Change is not one size fits all. You have to lead the vision but manage to change process. These are not one or the other there, complimentary. You must do both. Same as any position in the organization. Too often we use leadership and management interchangeably. They're not. Leadership functions are different from management functions and in change to become even more important to use the right function of leadership or the right function of management when necessary. Failure to use the right approach will gain resistance and not success. We also need to know how to involve people. So you've got changed. Leadership change management change enablement, enabling the people to get involved because going back to the first video people don't necessarily resist change. They resist being changed by involving them. Avoids the being changed Conflict change fatigue. Let's come back to this a little more detail now and that we need to manage a change portfolio we mentioned before having multiple change initiatives, sometimes building upon one another. And if you try to do too much at one time or into rapid of the succession, people get tired mentally exhausted from the change process, sometimes physically exhausted by trying to do multiple changes and keeping the organization running at the same time. Some time is needed to stabilize between changes. And when we talk about types of changes, some are discontinuous, some are sequential and some are discontinuous, very disjointed. This requires some conscious understanding of a long term change we're trying to accomplish and how the smaller change initiatives all fit together. If you attempt to much change, fatigue will set in. So we're talking about then managing a portfolio, and that as resistance develops, the organizational energy will keep being distracted from one into the next, and you get into lack of priorities or disjointed priorities. Disjointed actions. What is driving train? What is driving change resistance? 9. Change Resistance Transition – Moving people past resistance : change, resistance, transition, how people move through the change process from initial surprise through compliance into commitment, this is gonna be the focus here. There are different change models, and the topic change models. Often times is very confusing because authors and speakers do not differentiate two different purposes of the different models. And I'm gonna take a long time now here to explain where the models of resistance transition takes place within the broader framework so that you can see where this fits within your other aspects of organisational change, the focus in is gonna be on the resistance transitions itself, and we're gonna be talking about four specific transition models. But these models really are subordinate to how individuals change the stage. Is that changed that people go through individually curie eights, instances of resistance so that you have a broader perspective of individual change with a subordinate or embedded resistance models. But the individual model of change also fits within a higher category. Still off the project methodology, how the project is initiated and managed through the implementation. And there's 1/4 area of diagnostic models. Those that are used to analyze and prescribe changed itself. So within the broader perspective. Then there's four different types of change models, and in this lecture, we're going to focus just on Those two relate to resistance transition. Think of them as being linked models, each with a different purpose. The purpose, in this case, understanding resistance to change. First, the loss cycle. This comes from the grief for the death and that there's the death of what is familiar and known. This then gets into a Siris of steps. The shock. It's all of a sudden a surprise. The denial is not happening to me. It will go away. The anger. Why me? Bargaining? I promise to do this. If this will be changed in some way, the depression in that what's the use? It's too much for me. These are all different stages of grief that people go through not only dealing with death of someone they know, but death of the familiar within the organization. Finally, there is a tipping point. There's acceptance. It has happened well, okay, and then finally taking ownership or the adaptation of your behaviors and your thought processes, so that you go through a cycle of transitions that is normal and to be expected. This is the stages of loss or grief model. A second model is the psychological transition, and that performance changes over time, In which case, when you initiate the change, the will be a performance dip and then improvement. The performance dip is doing something different, something you may not be prepared to do, and then once you become competent, it becomes a upper slope to higher levels of performance. You have transitions than through the process of over time becoming more competent while first becoming what may appear to be less competent because you're doing something different. So there's a resistance initially followed by lady and go with the tipping point and then building competency going forward to higher levels of performance. The Psychological Transition model, The third model is a stage of transition model, similar to the grief cycle where you lose focus, you minimize the impact, and then you go into the pit of despair. Eventually, you let go as a tipping point. You let go of the past and you're moving forward once again, but you're testing limits. You're searching for meaning, and eventually you integrate the new ways of doing things with your old and you become more competent. See their stages here similar to grieve but a little bit different and that you're focusing on what you're doing versus how you're reacting to the change. The fourth model is a phase of acceptance. If you ignore, it won't happen. Eventually, though, you feel the pain Hannis worse than you thought. You isolate yourself your wine. You'll try to manipulate the system. You may become angry and aggressive toward others. You become territorial. We talked about some of these demonstrated symptoms an earlier video, So first all you ignore it, then you'll feel the pain and it is bad. Eventually, though, you get to a tipping point and healing starts to occur. You start to look once again to the future, your focus on the me and the plan and how it starts to fit together, even though it is still evolving and you'll start to look for opportunities, eventually turning the corner fully committed on board. But sometimes compliance is enough, and we're talking here about compliance of doing it, not necessarily wanting to do it, but agreeing to do it. So we've talked then about a lost cycle, a performance cycle a acceptance cycle. The key, then, is which model should you use? What is your model of choice? It depends. All models has some validity because it come at it from different points of view. My recommendation is this. Choose one. Choose one based upon your comfort with understanding how people react and does it fit. It's really not critical that you use one mile or another. But what is critical is that you understand that people go through phases and you may pick one model dependent upon the situation to help them move through the faces. This is different than the models of how people progress through organizational change itself. Because there there are five very specific steps that you go through and you go from one to the next to third, the fourth to the fifth and their sequential in their approach. In this case, the rationale behind the mile is a little bit different, and you may want to review the models later when you're in a change situation to see which one fits where people are, because that then will give you some understanding of what you may need to do different to move them forward. to the next step. So what's important in is the move past the resistance toward compliance, ideally, toward commitment. Using the model that makes sense to move people forward, keep the people moving forward through the resistance still requires some understanding of how the resistance is demonstrated. We talked about that previously, but also needed now address. The reasons the underlying core reasons that once addressed will give a better focused on how to mitigate. We're moving now from the understanding into the mitigation of change resistance, dealing with the pain as it arises, or mitigating the reasons in advance that requires some understanding moving into action. The deeper understanding, though, is why people are resisting beyond the symptoms that we see to their core needs. Understanding the core needs, then, is the foundation for the actions in dealing with resistance. When should resistance be resisted? What do we need to be doing different 10. * Deeper Understanding of Change Resistance : we're now going to go into a deeper understanding of change resistance. Up until now, we focus primarily on the behaviors exhibited in resistance, and we're now going to shift to the psychological drivers of those behaviors, the things that people often do, some cautiously, we run on autopilot, think about the habits that we do on a daily basis. We don't think about most what we do, because if we did it be too hard. When we learned something, it becomes habitual so that we don't have to focus on as much. We don't have to consciously focus on it. We subconsciously focus on it and it just happens. That is what we're gonna be talking about here, within the behaviors and what drives those behaviors and how so often what we do is on autopilot. It just happens without us thinking about it. Change recipients, those impacted by the change. They're influenced by the psychological factors that then in turn, drive their resistance at the same time. Change makers, We do what we know because we are also creatures of habit. So even while the change recipients are operating are a pound, so too are we. When we talk about the change recipients. This is the social influence of others, a social dynamics, that tolerance of risk, the tolerance of ambiguity. Is it easier to fight something out there? Vs change something in here? It ISS thereby. We resist without their versus having to change ourselves. And we rationalize these feelings. They're not bad or misdirected. They're just out there. We also have to rationalize our actions as managers that resistance must be controlled. We need to overcome that natural habit. We operate on an autopilot as the prime targets for change consultants because they mark the answer. To the extent that the consultants have an answer, we too often grab that answer without realizing that all change situations are a little bit different. And you need to be able to modify what may appear good in one situation as it will apply in this situation. The deeper understanding then of the change psychology that manifest itself as resistance all changes personal emotion trumps logic. We often think about logic, rational thinking and then deal with emotions as resistance. The core needs, though when they're challenged, people will protect themselves. It's only natural to protect themselves. We think about protection from physical challenges. These are mental challenges that are attacking them. We also have the core needs that are often hidden there hidden from ourselves. Also, unless we consciously focus on these, there's also a Siris of cross cultural needs that are culturally embedded. But they may be slightly varied by local dominance. What I'm gonna be talking about are the six core psychological needs that manifest themselves in various ways as change, resistance, the cross cultures. But each culture may have a slight variation in which is more dominant, so we're going to focus on the six. But you will have to evaluate within your nationalistic culture as well as your organization culture, which may be more dominant than others in driving resistance. But change again starts with the change leader. Our sub cautious drivers are very similar, so we need to think about not only the change recipients but how those core needs apply to us and what we're doing in the change process itself. So the core needs must align with the change plan, the needs then 1st 2 are associated with the training and communication. These are the ones we think about routinely, the communication of needs, the training for competence so we have then is the competence feeling capable? This is where you train people, the feeling of need for order and control, things that are predictable, structured, no surprises. Communication is directed toward this area. These two are well accepted and understood and are almost by default. Included in most change plans. The next four are not necessarily so well accepted. The third and fourth really involved the change management. The methodology employed how you include in connect people. People need to feel that they're part of something. They are involved, what is happening. They're not excluded and they're not isolated. But they are connected in the work process as well as the decision making process. There's also the power structure. This is the direct power that the influence there has over others and the outcome. But there's also the indirect, the personal powers that we all have in our competencies, our knowledge, our relationships and how that influences the decision making process itself. These two are incorporated and how we plan the process or the methodology for the change initiative. The last two are associated with the empathy that we have toward others, as well as the identity that people have of themselves. What is the role and how to others? See them? This involves security. Are they emotionally safe without the threat? This is beyond physical threat, but mental and psychological threat we also have. This is very important. The sixth is the justice and the fairness. They're feeling that they're being treated equal to others, that there's minimal political impact and no nepotism or favoritism involved, and that they have an equal right with anyone else in the organization. In having a say on what's best for the organization, these six core psychological needs then drive resistance if not met. So let's move from autopilot to explicit cautiousness, making these six core psychological needs explicit and how we structure our approach to change and the change objective itself. We're conditioned to hide our feelings. We are especially condition that way in business and that we are down to business were not emotional. We're not flaky, and we move our inner feelings to the side. We hide them from others, and to the extent that we have these feelings, we may blame something that is outside of our control because Otherwise we would have to take blame ourself. We hide our feelings and we do this naturally. We're also culturally reinforced. The culture we live in is like the air we breathe. People say Get out of the box, see things differently. It's hard to get out of the box. What All you see is the inside of the box. There is no outside of the box. We say Just get over, move on. Managers can overcome any resistance. That feeling is culturally reinforced by everything we do and the interactions we have with others. That is the autopilot default that we need to explicitly recognize and move away from. We also need to acknowledge the resistance in the planning process. Look at where the organization is going, how we move through that process and how we enable the organization. This gets back to change leadership, change management, change enablement. We're also needing to take a step back away from the change objective and understand how that objective impacts the people and existing processes what is really being changed? What are the small things we may be overlooking that are changed and more importantly, how does that desired change have a ripple effect that pushed down pop up. You pushed down one problem. What's gonna pop up? This is the mitigation of the objective through unattended consequences elsewhere in the organization. We also need to recognize the transition that people go through for their resistance and allow for that in the process itself. Allow people to express their feelings actively. Listen so that you really get in understanding. Are they really struggling with it personally, or are they trying to tell you something that you're overlooking? This gets to the core issue of Go slow early to go fast layer. We want to do the change process quickly because we want to solve a pain point. And the change team has struggled with the pain for a long time and they developed a plan. They're ready to go quickly. There in stage four change, they want action. They're overlooking the 1st 3 stages that people need to progress through. And if you progress too quickly through those changes, you're going to develop resistance. Taking the time early to go through the work needed to move people through the 1st 3 stages of change will allow you to go quicker later by having less resistance. Yo, Too quick. Early. You're gonna go slow later. So think. Go slow early. Go fast Later. What are the unseen factors that are driving resistance? Use as a template to slides for this presentation. As a checklist of those six psychological factors Are you recognized them in your change plan? And to what extent are you explicitly building them into the change, objective and change methodology To think about how you can reduce the impact or the frequency of resistance Go slow early, Go fast later. 11. * Accidental Triggers of Resistance : in the last video, we talked about the six psychological core needs that people have and how violation of those needs can lead to change resistance. We're now going to flip around and look at those from the perspective of the change manager . What might we do that violates those core needs? And how does that violation then manifest itself in change resistance? This is where we are our own worst enemy. When it comes to leading change. These are accidental triggers of resistance, and there's management reasons of why they happen. So for each of the violations, I'll also put it in context about why managers make these mistakes and why the mistakes were so easily made. The first core need is one of competence, and this is where we violated so easily because we want that competence quickly. We pushed for the change without giving sufficient training time. We're over the eager, and we may simplify how much is needed to be learned. We also may prematurely hold people accountable for things they're not yet competent to do . Were overly optimistic in our expectations. Another management air we make. We also may make an air of unrealistic expectations we pushed for the change on top of an existing workload. After all, we have to keep the business running and we're just adding something. While there's benefits down the road, there's also some extra work. In the meantime, these are natural management issues that we do routinely that lead to change resistance. The second psychological need. It was one of order control and we think about it. From our perspective, we are having order and control, but by us taking the initiative of manifesting order control over the process were taken away from those who are being impacted by the change. We provides little direction or alignment as a poor leadership failure. We may describe the change objective very poorly in our communication so that it's not understood. We understand it, but it doesn't come out so that they understand it and some of the change may be hidden. We are incomplete in our planning or we are confused or incomplete in our communication management reasons that lead to resistance because we're violating the order control. The third corny is one of inclusion or connection. However, the change itself is usually planned within a small core change leadership team this is done for. Quickness is done for a ease of understanding the problem. But in so doing, we have a closed communication so that the people that are impacted have been out of the loop. They don't have the context. We've done it natural, though, because we want speed and sometimes the problem solving or the problem. Diagnosis is messy work, and we don't want to confuse others in the organization. Sometimes there's also need for confidentiality in that there may be major implications to the organization that we have to stage when that knowledge is released. But in so doing, we closed herself off and we have not allowed others to gain context for simplicity and speed. We also rush by telling or selling versus taking the time to consult or co create the change process. We also may ignore the informal organisation. We focused the reorganization on filling the boxes in the organization chart, ignoring that the culture or the informal relationships in the organization really drive what's happened. The power, the positional power, is often used from our side overlooking the impact on the positional power who may be taken away from others. The changes may be announced without warning. It's an abuse of position of power and that we're doing it because we can. We may remove people from the decision making process or informational loop because of confidentiality, but at some point they need to know the key is how do we allow them inside the information loop without doing it prematurely? The reorganization may also impact a power structure, and that we are moving people around simply by filling in the boxes was easy for us without realizing the unintended consequences that will roll throughout the organization. MAWR management reasons that can be justified from our perspective that creates resistance from those impacted security. The fifth psychological core need its oversight? Sorry we didn't think about that. Its actions taken within the context of what we know but leaving the fear of the unknown out there. This is a poor communication and that we release things slowly. We may release things disjointed. There's also a possible implied threat that they need to get on board. This is survival anxiety that is a security issue. It may be a shortcut that we take as change managers just to avoid the issues we want. The problem to go away, so we force a decision to make it go away. An implied threat. The sixth and last core issue is one of justice and fairness. We may be out of touch. We don't think about it from their perspective because we're too focused on it. From our perspective as managing the change process, we overlook people that may have expertise. We may overlook those with seniority and create a fairness issue. Sometimes this may be done to favor individuals that we can count. Hunt to speed through the process we owe may also reorganize where there's obviously going to be some winners and some losers. But the rationale is quickly. We don't release the rationale, we just do it and is out of context once again that people don't understand it and then they see it as unjustified or unfair. There may also be some reasonable reasons of confidentiality because people are being moved . Personal issues often have to be held confidential, but at the same time people don't understand those issues as they relate to the changed without also understanding the context itself. These are reasonable mistakes that we make every day because of the way we do are change management that accidentally creates resistance. Some of these are also related to specific change objectives. So, for example, a merger or acquisition will impact security, control, inclusion, connection, fairness and justice mawr than the other two. A reorganization impacts the power, the competence, inclusion more than the other three. And if you're doing a process re engineering, it's gonna impact competence, power and control. So the key take away here is that the six core psychological needs aren't always equal. Different change objectives will impact those six in various levels of importance. So you need to think through the change objective and which of the six core psychological needs are more likely to be impacted and recognized. Imagine mistakes that we may make ourselves. The existing culture may also emphasize different core needs. High tech companies. They're gonna have more off a reliance on the competence. Banking may have more power and control needs. Government government entities may have more power and control and non governmental organizations that have mawr of a need for inclusion and fairness. So not only does the change objective, but the culture of the organization itself may favor the need to focus on different core needs. The design of the change strategy then must be done that works within the existing culture , even if the culture is a target of the change. While you may need to change the culture, you may need to then just some of those core needs to be able to then leverage other changes. How are you triggering resistance? 12. * Enduring Change Resistance – Pathway to Failure : enduring change resistance. This might be a pathway to failure, but these are the things that most managers typically do when dealing with change resistance. Typical solutions. First, ignore high performers will generally leave the poor. Performers will stay if you ignore the problems that you're trying to rectify with the change. Secondly, they'll double up on training and coaching. We talked about this already. These are the typical approaches that are used along with communication. Tell them, Tell them, Tell them again, while necessary, it's not sufficient alone. The rewards and penalties These are the carrot or the stick approach. You can generally get short term compliance but difficult for long term commitment, and it's an easy crutch for poor management. There's also potential for a loss of trust. This can come from really breaking the psychological contract that people may have with the organization, and in turn, it will lead to increased resentment and really anger itself fall back solutions if the resistance continues. These are the typical approaches that managers will use as a fall back to dealing with resistance. They'll use force. This could be done through the systems and processes that are in place or the infrastructure of how the organization is designed and hierarchy the reporting the information flows. There's also manipulation that can be used, though sometimes disguise that we will get into this in another video later. If you continue to have problems, obviously reorganization to move the resist er's. This is a way to get rid of your problem. If you could get somebody else to accept it without them knowing you're giving them a problem. There's also the potential of firing and replacing a blocker not always beneficial, as we discussed in the you're fired. Pdf. And you could also revert back and accept the status quo a giving up, fall back solution. If you can't overcome the resistance, you just give up. The difficulty here, though, is that it reinforces a wait and see attitude toward change, because if you've given up once, you may give up again on the next change initiative. Let's now shift over into systematic approaches to resistance, starting with the least desirable and moving up to the most beneficial approach to dealing with resistance. Number seven declare success in lieu of failure. Obviously, this is not we want to be, but I actually saw this take place. The change failure was going so poorly, so much money was being invested that everybody in the organization knew that it was a failure and we had to give it up. However, as a face saving effort and to put a positive spin on it, the Change leadership team actually declared success and said that we're now ready to move into the next change initiative based upon how successful we've been. It allowed them to basically kill one change initiative, move into the next, saving their face of not having to admit defeat, though obviously everybody knew that defeat was at hand when they sent out that memo. Number six Manipulation and Corrosion If all else fails, use force. It's obviously quick and inexpensive on the surface, but maybe not because to the extent that you are coercing the organization to do something by force, you're creating other problems and other areas of resistance that can really expand into mega types of problems. Though it is obviously a better solution than declaring success in lieu of failure, number five manage the problem. This is typically were. Most managers reside, they will use force as necessary, and they will also micromanage the situation to get compliance, while hoping that that compliance will eventually go into commitment. The difficulty here, though, is that you're only taking care of the problem. Short term. If you stop managing and keeping close direction over the situation, the organization will revert back to the previous state and you will have lost any gains in the process. But again, this is where most changed Management resigns. Number four. You could negotiate the non essential elements. The key is understanding what is critical for success and what are 10 gentle, negotiable issues? A lot of times, if there's a power structure or even a change in someone's identity and how they think about their role within the organization, the leadership team could easily make minor adjustments to the change process as a negotiation to make it basically agreeable to those that were initially resisting. This may involve bargaining, bribing, begging people, but again, it may be cost and time effective because what you're bargaining away may not be that significant to the organization Success for the change, you can also prior ties around the edge of Let's make a deal. If you do this here I will do this for you over here. If they trade off, that can take place. But again, you're giving them the power to resist. And to the extent that you're negotiating, you may set up that type of expectation down the road also. So while it is beneficial to negotiate the small things, you need to be careful of not letting that creep into the more significant areas that really are critical for the success of the change. Third, address the problems ad hoc. You could ignore some with risk associated with it, but has issues come up deal with them as they come up and resolve them as a reaction to the problem. This obviously could be done negotiated. Or it could involve changing the change objective or the methodology with which you are managing the change project. It's basically making minor changes on the fly, and to some extent this is a reaction, and you're hoping that the problems will go away with minor adjustments. These are the four things that are most typical used in the next video. We will shift our attention into two that actually have a better outcome and more lasting effect on dealing with change resistance. Are you just during the pain for you dealing with the pain of resistance 13. * Resistance Mitigation – Anticipating reasons for resistance : we're now going to turn our attention to mitigation the anticipation for the reasons that resistance might occur so we can build a plan to reduce or possibly eliminate those resistance drivers from even occurring these air. The systematic approaches we started in discussing in the last lecture we're now going to be turning, though to the proactive approaches. We're no longer going to be reactive but proactively anticipating and moving forward. Number two on the list is planning for resistance and actually embracing it. We're going to get into this little more detail in the value of resistance. But for this time, let's talk about the training communication strategy to win people over. This is building the rational case for change. That is really the knee jerk reaction that all change initiatives do. But let's go low but further and identify the change champions, those people that will really get behind us, the early adopters and how to use them in the change and allow them to lead the emotional charge that is required to get people excited about change and not let them get excited against the change. We also need to talk about the support systems, the things that you can do structurally within the organization, managing what you can manage and anticipating the possibilities in your contingency planning. This lays the foundation and for identifying possibilities of where resistance will occur and then dealing with them in advance. Also, we're gonna be talking a little more detail later about engagement of resistance. People who are resistance are actually more engaged than those are passive outside of the process. And there's some benefit of having engagement, even if it involves some resistance. We're also now going to be shifting to the number one, the co op ing of the sources of resistance. This is building the bigger tent involving the people who may resist in the process itself , enabling them to add something to the change objective and to the change project methodology, your involving them so that they are part of the change process. They're not being changed. We also there need to prioritize the effectiveness. We're going to use a framework here of effectiveness. The higher on the chart, the more effective, the lower, the least effective. Also, it gets into a timing situation. Are you going to start your prioritization of focus on resistance late in the change process, or are you gonna be more proactive and really focus on the change resistance early on and how you plan your objective and the process for implementing to change fifth and sixth we talked about in the last lecture is you basically manipulate or kirsch use force or and number five, you manage the problem. These are done late in the change process. Because you're running out of time, you're under pressure. Things have to be done. And because you didn't do the early on anticipation and the mitigation, you're now dealing with the problem. It's not effective, but it may become required at that stage of the change process. In the middle is addressing things ad hoc as they occur. Ignore them, otherwise deal with them as they arise or negotiate than non essential elements, focusing on the key drivers that must be in place for the success and negotiate around the edges. The two that we just talked about then are the bringing in of people into the process or the planning. The key then is you're going to have change resistance and some point are you going to deal with it early argue and deal with it later. That becomes a question that you will have to address as well as the rest of the leadership team to determine where you want to spend your time and how effective you will be in that time. Mitigation in the identification in the planning for reaction, there's always consequences involved with the change. This requires thinking through not only the end state of the change, but all the little things that have to be changed along the way, as well as the ruble effect that things will change because of the primary actions that are taking place. Who might be impacted? How might he react? How might that ripple through the organization because of the people that they interact with on a daily basis? What are the public reasons that they might give to you while keeping their private reasons to themselves? And what reasons might they psychologically have that they can't articulate to you but will surface in resistance? How much power to the people hold within the organization? And, more importantly, who else in the organization may follow their lead in resistance? And what is the degree of impact of their resistance is it gonna be major, or is it gonna be minor that you can deal with or negotiate with around the itch? Let's now turn our attention to the group dynamics that air valve a change as we talked about before. All change happens individually but is done within a collective relationship of other people. We now need to talk about resistance in the context of how people are reacting and the dynamics of them. To others of their peer group as well as manager subordinates in the organization. The left hand side here is a negative positive scale of personal attitude and individuals attitude toward change. The lower access is really their trusted peers those that are around them, whether be negative or positive. Ideally, you want the individual to be positively motivated and you want their peers to be positively motivated. That is where we really want the organization to be. Too often, though, what we end up with, though, is a negative reinforcement in that an individual is negatively inclined and that is being reinforced through the negative feedback that that person is getting from the piers. There's also the possibility that if someone is negative that their peers can win them over . This is the change champion that can cheerlead the change process. You get the organization involved that will bring in the few people that are resistant. There's also the possibility of a person that may initially be highly motivated with positive feelings toward the change. But they're embedded in a group with negative feelings. We would like to think that they can win over the negative people, but too often they're drowned out and their support will wane. Over time, the negativity will be sucking the positive you're out of them. So we need to be careful that if we find a small group of individuals that are excited about the change, that we don't throw them into a group of negative thinking that can basically move them away from their positive attitudes. The key, then, is how to manage this middle area, the movement of people from a negative to a positive and the interactions that may happen within their peer group. We try to move people that are open to persuasion but also keep the people from being drawn back into a negative attitude. The key, then, is where in the change process. Are you addressing resistance? Are you being more effective by dressing it up front, or are you being reactive and addressing it later in the change process when things become more critical? 14. * Benefiting from Change Resistance : I am now going to turn my attention to the benefits. Yes, the benefits that can come from change resistance. This is a little bit different way of viewing resistance than might be more normal. First, let's flip the viewpoint and embrace it instead of working to overcome it. What can we do to understand it? Because resistance is some feedback on not only the change objective, but the process that's being employed. So you may not know as much as you think you do, because the true reasons for the resistance may be hidden deeper. So what we need to focus on, then is what are we hearing and what behaviors are we observing? And what can we learn from both? The practice is also that you are employing may be contributing to the problem. This goes back to your leadership style and your management processes that you put in place . How are you contributing to change resistance? If you can learn from the resistance, you can improve your own activities, so let's use it. That's use resistance to your advantage. Let's understand and focus on the needs that are identified of what's driving the resistance. There's also the common ground that we confined to get people on board and move them from resistance into the compliance and do the commitment phases. We also must respect resist Er's and not further alienate them from the change position we need them to occupy. Also don't take resistance personally. It's often not personal, and in many cases they may be acting in what they see as the best interests of the organization and see the change from different point of view than you do so benefiting from resistance. First, let's clarify the problems that a really understanding the change objective. Are you overlooking something? And are they trying to provide alternatives to the objective that would really be Justus Good again? What can you alter around the edges that will accomplish what you're really trying to solve without really deviating unnecessarily? Also, let's identify the problems with the change process. You put together the change process with a small team. Most likely do you have flawed communications strategy? Is your message on target? Is your message aligned with other messages that people in the organization are hearing? And are you using all mediums that are available to you? A lot of times Resistance is identifying something that is flawed in the communication. They lack the context with which to understand the change, objective and the process being employed. And let's avoid groupthink. A small leadership team often has a feedback within that bubble that it is somewhat resistant itself to outside points of view, so the resistance can be used explicitly to avoid that self talk that often occurs within small groups. And resistance doesn't apply some engagement. Think about this. If someone is actively resisting, they are telling you something. The worst case is the passive resistance that you don't know about until the sabotage and damage has been done. So embrace active resistance learned from it because it is better than the alternative of passive resistance resistance. What can you learn from it? 15. A New Path to Overcome Resistance : I am now going to continue along what we started in the last video on a new path for overcoming organizational change resistance. It's a thought process and how you approach resistance. So let's rethink resistance. A lot of times, normal actions can be mis understood. People procrastinate all the time. Not everybody is attentive to detail, and foot dragging sometimes happens. These, though, are often interpreted as change resistance when in reality they're just normal everyday activities. Also, how can resistance really be determined? What are the behaviors that makes up resistance? And how do you differentiate normal behavior from resistant behavior? And how is it changed to be done? Are you micromanaging? And that then is causing the problems? You're seen as resistance again. It's how you view things versus how others are viewing the change also, who should label resistance? We as leaders and managers of the change initiative. We generally are the ones that label resistance, but we do it from our point of view when in reality we should be doing it from those being impacted because they're the ones that are really making a cautious or possibly unconscious decision as to Are they resisting or embracing the change, and in many cases also think about resistance. If you label resistance, are you then using unwarranted management actions that are justified by the resistance that had you not labeled it resistance, you would be doing things quite differently. So in reality, the change initiative is a request for action. You cannot mandate a change even under the most severe force. They have the option toe walk with their feet and leave. You're trying to lead by a request that they can't accept or decline. The key is how can you get them to accept the change initiative and not decline it with resistance, rethinking resistance? Let's further talk about how we can look at resistance from what people say versus the behaviors that they exhibit, because their inter related what we need to get to is behavior. But at the same time, the attitudes that are expressed verbally have dynamics within the organization on how people are encouraged to be won over to the change or possibly join a change resistance movement. We then want to get to commitment. This is where they are talking the walk and walking the walk. This is where people are having positive messages and what they say, but are also doing the change with their behavior. Compliance is one step less that commitment and that you're getting the behavior, but you're not necessarily getting them to fully commit in what they say. The case here is that why you're getting behavior. They can easily backtrack because they're not yet committed with their full attitude itself . We then have the active opposition. This is hard to know. They're not really taken any action, and they're speaking negatively. This is where we can learn things, and we don't really know whether we are dealing with something that has to be challenge to to deal with or whether there is a learning process that can easily overcome the negative attitudes and move them toward positive behavior. There's also then what we talked about last video, the more negative point of view, the passive aggressive, in which case there given you positive feedback in that they saying they're on board, but their behavior doesn't exhibit that. So we're going to try to seek active engagement while ignoring resistance per se, because the resistance is how we interpret it, not necessarily what it ISS so moving on, Let's talk about the alternative point of view, the active engagement. This is an input on the change, objective in the process, what they know and how they feel about it being brought into the change itself and we enter into a dialogue. This is the slowing down early to go fast later doing early on. What if you don't do, You'll have to do later. This is also determining. Went to lead and went to manage. You leave the change vision. You manage the change process, but there's also 1/3 component, the active engagement. This is elements of both leading and management, but it involves the people, pulls the people into the process itself. It pulls him into determining to change objective. It flips around so they're not being changed. But they're becoming changed through their action. We also have the possibility of having to ramp up pressure as necessary. Too often, we use pressure early on to deal with resistance when in reality we ramp up as needed after you try the 1st 3 first, so taking action to avoid resistance, the employee engagement, giving them a sense of ownership, the leveraging of their knowledge. Too often the leadership team lacks knowledge of what really is going on in the organization, and that's information that can feed into not only the change objective but the process of managing the change initiative. We could also realign the reward structure with the change goals. This is getting into the alignment that everything in the organization is self reinforcing . If you don't do this alignment, there'll be a conflict with what people are seen elsewhere in the organization. Learn from resistance, improving the change objective and the change process and self analyze your leadership style. Eliminate how you are creating problems. Sometimes, though, it is impossible to avoid resistance. So what do you do? Not all pain can be avoided. Mergers and competitive threats sometimes are gonna cause pain. You cannot avoid it. Also, you cannot anticipate all possible problems, and all possible areas of resistance face it. Not everything is possible to be foreseen in advance. Also, mistakes will be made no matter how much you plan. No matter how much you foresee, some mistakes will occur. You will have to deal with them as they occur, so let's acknowledge the pain from the change objective but mitigate the resistance through the process. Again, you acknowledge the pain from the objective, but you deal with it in the change process itself. If you fail to deal with it in the change process, that resistance will compound itself and may become insurmountable and sink the entire change initiative. We also can lower the learning anxiety, but ramp up the survival anxiety. We should always lower learning anxiety. Learning goes back to the mental work that you have to consciously think about doing something different. That is always going to be the case. And we should always do what we can to lower the learning anxiety, the fear that people have of failing f the end, though it may be necessary to ramp up the survival. What if the implied? What if they don't get on board? With the change, this becomes more the threat that you really don't want to go to. But you may have to slowly, easier way in that direction. Where are you now? In becoming a change leader? How are you seeing change resistance differently? Are you employing a different approach that setting your change objective and managing to change process 16. Summary – Understanding Change Resistance : Let's not take a few minutes to summarize our understanding of change resistance. First, what does successful change really involve? It really gets down to consciously developing a change plan. Moving away from the are a pilot approach that we too often take and focus on the core unconscious needs that are often unexpressed by the people being impacted by the change. We also have to identify the reasons for their resistance those that may not only be hidden , but those that are involved with their identity, the power structure, the way things have been done in the past. The unlearning, the new learning, the mixed communication, the lack of context, everything that we've discussed that goes into change resistance. We also have to learn how to involve the people so that we can learn from them. What did they know that we are overlooking? This is how we define resistance. That may not necessarily be resistance, but somebody else's view of what is best for the organization. We're also gonna be moving from a resistance to commitment first. If there's no change, is it active resistance or isn't people in stage one of change? This is where they don't have the context for change their ignorant. They don't know there's a need for change, so they're not changing. This is not resistance. This is stage one stage of change. Also, is there agreement with change but no action? This could be passive aggressive behavior where they are giving some verbal agreement but not taking behavioral movement. But this also could be a stage to change the stage. To change is involved where there's an agreement to change, inasmuch as they see the need to change. But they haven't yet reached the decisional balance off balancing the benefit of changing versus a cost of changing without that decisional balance. While they may agree with the problem, they're not yet an agreement fully with the change, objective and moving forward, so is a passive aggressive or is it the second stage of change? Third would be the agreement, but no action plan. This could be a lack of preparation. The Stage three, where they are in agreement to change the tipping points been reached, but they're not yet prepared. They're lacking the training. They're lacking the motivation, the peer support everything does involved with actually moving from an agreement into action Finally, we get into compliance. The desired behaviour is being exhibited. But because it's not yet commitment, there is a potential of backsliding. They are short term action oriented, but nonetheless we are getting the desired behaviour. Finally, the commitment there fully on board with the change and they're internalizing it so that the maintenance of the change becomes mawr likely. Let's not talk about how you prioritize your actions for effectiveness. This is the range then, from late in the process, down the bottom toward early in the process and the different stages of effectiveness dependent upon where and what you do to address change resistance. Typically, we're in the middle here. Were either managing a problem negotiating around the edges or were dealing with the problems ad hoc or possibly ignoring them. This is where most change resistance management occurs. We also have the bottom to the manipulation, the corrosion or declaring success in lieu of failure. These are typically associated with the failure itself, and that if you are heavy handed with the manipulation and the coercion, chances are you may get limited compliance. No commitment, and everything can come unwound very easily, ideally, where you need to be is in the top two success. You either are involving the people in the change process or you're planning for resistance . Ideally, you do the involvement, but often times the circumstances involved with the change objective limits that capability . Do the confidentiality or sensitivity of the problem being dressed and solution that may need to be required. So I would combine these two as good options, ideally involvement, but that often it falls back into the need to plan and vaal as much as possible when possible. Where in the change process are you and win, will you be addressing change resistance? 17. * Summary – Mitigating Change Resistance : mitigating change resistance. The summary we've talked about change resistance. Let's move into the action planning and to mitigate change resistance. Philly. We talked in the last video about the plan and the necessary follow through the identification then of early adopters and how the leverage that success to involve others through the group dynamics but also the expectation that there will be some failure. But we need to caution the organization that we don't want to reinforce the resistance. So to the extent we run into problems, we need to address it, contain it and not let it necessarily expand. We also need to chunk to change portfolio so that you're dealing with manageable change initiatives. That doesn't mean that they're disjointed by no means. We need to think about how multiple change initiatives might build upon one another to create a much larger, possibly cultural change initiative. The key, though, is to keep each initiative manageable, such that the people in the organization don't become overwhelmed at the same time, looking at little chunks that don't overwhelm individually or collectively cause fatigue. This is the portfolio management approach to not only the change process, but how to even out the impact on the organization, such that there's some action, rest, action, rest and the resistance becomes more tolerable or becomes fully mitigated. We're also talking about the anticipation and how to confront the resistance, identifying the reasons often times in the change objective or the change process, the alignment of the communication with the stages of change. If you are communicating at the wrong stage of change, that will totally be wasted effort and likely to create resistance when you take action at that improper stage, we're also need to talk about how to mitigate and manage the resistance. This is the rethinking of the resistance. Yes, resistance is natural, it's emotional, but it's also beneficial feedback. So not only do we need to think about how we define resistance, but how we use that resistance to improve the change process and the objective we're trying to accomplish. We also need to definitely recognize the six core subconscious needs. Just as we talked about the managers being on autopilot, so too, are those being impacted by the organizational change. We need to think through what is in their head that they don't know about the security issues being included in the process the power structure, people's need for order and alignment, the competence that people need to feel, what they're doing, and the fairness and justice that they're not being improperly treated in the change process and what is being changed. We also need to identify the need to dialogue two way communication to service. The emotions were servicing not only issues in the objective and the process, but the emotional reactions they have to it and deal with it in a forward, transparent manner. We're talking then about providing clarity and the type of leadership for simplicity. Think about D, a C leadership setting direction, said in alignment. Focus on getting commitment. That leadership approach encompasses many different leadership styles. But instead of focusing on a particular leadership style, sink deep direction a Lyman C commitment and focused those three aspects in your management of the process and how you put forward the vision for change. We're also talking about how to shift change recipients into change. Agents move them from being changed to changing themselves and having to say in the process that shift will then allow them to take ownership and reduce the possibility or the severity of the change resistance they might otherwise be felt. We're also talking about decreasing the learning anxiety. Allow an adjustment time for the change, as well as the time that might take to go through that learning process and, as necessary, increased survival anxiety do not start with survival anxiety. This is the carrot or the stick lead with the carrot decreasing learning anxiety only used to stick survival anxiety as necessary. We're also talking about the change portfolio, reducing stress by managing an even level of change so that the resistance doesn't peak. But there's a constant impact. Let's also talk then about what we need to remember and how resistance is defined and who influences it. It's the change manager that defines resistance, and oftentimes we will see resistance that are, in reality, normal, everyday occurrences. But we frame it within what we're looking for. To the extent that we're seeing things that are there, we may be improperly altering our management style and treating the people improperly or thinking that there is a conflict when in reality were aligned but ignoring that alignment . So we also need to be careful of not shifting blame for what we control to what we perceive as resistance. If we shift the blame to others, we can label it to our superiors as we're only dealing with resistance. But in reality where the ones that are not only defining resistance but contributing to that resistance by our viewpoint, of how the people are reacting to what we're doing preventing resistance and also involves getting people involved to the extent possible in defining the objective and how that objective aligns with the problem solution and how we implement that change in a process across the organization. We're also needing to show that we understand the difficulties that are involved. Too often, managers will impose a solution and a process for implement absolution and think that everything is gonna be easy. This then creates a break in a psychological contract, the loss of trust and a compounding us versus them relationship that we are not empathetic of what they're going through and are re providing sufficient information to establish the context for the change is our vision for what we're trying to accomplish, fully understandable without the underlying context. Any attempt to explain the vision will have a mental model that passes, you know each other. We need to be able to connect all the different pieces of information that they know about and they're seeing not only in the change initiative but across the organization. And is there open discussion on the change objective and the change process being employed ? Let's now turn to the core essentials that we have to get right, and to the extent that we don't get them right, we will create resistance first, knowing what the change. This is obvious. What's not always obvious is what not to change. A lot of times, we don't focus on the total picture and how the change will impact other aspects of the organisation. Or are we changing things needlessly? That may be part of the core values to the company holds or other processes that will have unattended consequences elsewhere. So we also in all cases, need to identify what changes, what not to change. Secondly, the different ation between change leadership, change management, they're different functions. Think about leading the vision for change but managing the change process. To the extent that you don't match the leadership and the management functions properly, you increase the possibility of resistance needlessly. Thirdly, knowing how to involve people. Most of this course has talked about involving people and different levels, different ways. To the extent that you exclude them, you are leaving out a major contribution that they may bring to the change process as well as creating resistance because of that exclusion and lastly, managing the change portfolio four essentials. To the extent that you ignore any of these four, you will be setting up a recipe for failure through the increase of change resistance. What do you now need to do differently, knowing what you now know about change resistance? 18. Knowing what you don’t know : we're now going to turn our attention to knowing what you don't know. Now that you know what you know, how are you going to find the answers to what you don't know water? The unanswered questions that you have after going through this. And where might those answers be found? I'm gonna go through a suggested list of places where you might find these simple answers. And sometimes all you need is a simple answer to be pointed in the right direction you don't need. In all cases, the big answer the expensive answer first would be the organ change tip sheet that I produce weekly. This is an email that you can subscribe to using the link that can be found in the slide notes attached to this lecture. These are the simple little things that need to be reinforced from time to time. Or maybe the things that you don't know about that would trigger additional learning elsewhere. There's also Facebook and linked in in both places. I have an active advice column that people can post a question and I generally will get an answer back to them within half a day to a day. These are obviously a public forum. But if you go through not only the most recent but go through the archive of answers, you may find what you're looking for without having to ask it again. There's also Cora. I am most viewed writer in four areas. Organizational change, change management, strategic planning and strategic management. If I don't provide an answer, chances are one of the other writers, and those four categories will provide an answer for you generally within two hours to a day. There's also Where are you going to go in your next area of study? This is the table of contents that I used structure all of my courses. Are you going to need more understanding of organisational change, the types of change stages of change that people go through? Do you need help in the analysis that diagnosis to to determine what needs to be changed? Are you talking about the project management deficiency, The tools for change or possibly how you become a better change leader, or possibly the tracking of change progress? These are different areas that you may take your next step in your area of study for organizational change. One final comment. Leading change is often very, very lonely. You are often working alone with sensitive information in a sensitive situation that impacts people's lives. The reason I bring this up is that leaving is difficult enough. Leading under difficult situations becomes more problematic and you can't go it alone. You need a sounding board for new ideas. You need to get suggestions from others. And most important, you need encouragement to be motivated through the deep, dark stages that change sometimes go through. So I leave you with a parting question. Where are you going to get the assistance? The encouragement to be a good change leader, knowing what you don't know, how are you going to become a better change leader?