“There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction” Winston Churchill

It seems that whenever changes are introduced in an organization, fear, panic, and defiance often can occur. To better understand how leaders can be more successful implementing organizational change, we sought out Rick Maurer. Through his new Website (7/23/2008) (www.beyondresistance.com), and his blog (www.changemanagementnews.com) Maurer provides expertise to help identify hidden resistance to change, overcome it, and implement even the most difficult strategic and tactical changes.

Vantage Point:  How can leaders reduce the stress that can affect organizations when changes are introduced and people are upset about the initiatives?

Rick Maurer:  One key to minimizing organizational stress is to understand where the resistance to change comes from. There are three levels or conditions where people find themselves resisting change.
 
1. I don’t get it (Level-one resistance) - If leaders who are introducing change are not communicating effectively or are using arcane jargon, people subject to the change are left in the dark and might be afraid because they don’t understand what is being presented.   

2. I don’t like it (Level-two Resistance) - People may not understand the change and are making assumptions about what might be coming and their emotional reaction is often fear. For example, a leader chooses to use the word “restructuring” with a positive context in mind, such as expanding staffing responsibilities into new areas.  Yet, the staff hearing the leader is keenly aware that the same term was used a few years ago as a codeword for layoffs. These Level-two fears may be in our subconscious and out of our awareness. The fear can also be very deep. “I’m going to lose my job,” “There goes my career,” “I’m doubtful that I will be capable of adjusting to the proposed changes.”

When people are at Level-two, it is not possible to give them more information, expecting them to understand what the changes are.” Once people enter the fear mode, they shut down. At that point, the change becomes personal. They are worried about themselves. They stop listening to the speaker because they’re listening to the voice inside asking, “what other firms are hiring?” or “how can I get a transfer into another area?”

3. I don’t like you. (Level-three resistance) - People lack trust in the leader to see this change through. These leaders are often considered to be “Flavor of the Month” people. They start a project and when it doesn’t come together in a short timeframe, they are known to get bored and move on to something else. When they move on, they often take their budget and close insiders with them. People will say, “I’ve been there with this guy, I’ve done my part only to get burned, I’m not going to invest myself in him again.”

VP: Is it also possible that they are resisting because they feel that they are dealing with a threat to the status quo, also known as, “If it isn’t broken…?”

Maurer: Sometimes it “isn’t broken” and resistance is the message leaders should hear.

VP: Is staff resistance at level-three very well understood by leaders?

Maurer: No. It hardly ever gets talked about.  When leaders discuss change, they typically will ask, “How are we going to communicate things to the staff?”  And sometimes they will ask, “What are their objections going to be?” Hardly ever do I see people asking, “What is our reputation within the departments that will be affected?” or, “How credible is my image as a leader?”

VP: How important is “street credibility” when leaders are about to make changes?

Maurer: Extremely. I’ve seen changes happen where people didn’t understand it, but still went along because they trusted the leader. Conversely I’ve seen potentially good changes fail because the troops did not support the leader.

VP:  Can you give a real life example of how a leader’s credibility enabled a significant change?

Maurer: Here is one example I believe your readers can relate to. In the lead up to the Iraq war, Army General, Colin Powell went before the United Nations, there was tremendous amount of positive press coverage pointing out the truth of what he was saying. As a result, many Americans were inclined to support the war effort. It’s common to hear people say that his speech shifted their own thinking about what the use should do with regard to Iraq.

VP: General Colin Powell was a popular general long before the Iraq situation. He was well-known and well-liked as a proven leader. Is effectiveness at Level-3 based more on “Personal Charisma?”

Maurer: It does not have to be charisma. There are a number of non-charismatic leaders who have acquired a tremendous amount of level-three trust. There was a book that came out a few years ago called, Everything I needed to know, I learned in Kindergarten. The book provides a set of values that can help you measure the amount of trust collateral you have in an organization. If I recall correctly, the book included things like: 

• Are you good at keeping your promises?
• What you see is what you get (You are consistent and trustworthy)  
• If you say you’re going to get something done, you do it.
• Do you listen to other people’s ideas and are you willing to be influenced by other people’s ideas?

Over time, you’ve earned your credibility either because of your track record or your knowledge in a very special area.

VP: Is Level-3 credibility something leaders are born with?

Maurer: For some people, it is an innate part of their leadership talents. But it also can be learned. It is simply paying attention and doing the responsible things every time. I wasn’t born knowing how to floss my teeth but I learned how to do it. By the same token, one can learn how to keep commitments; one can learn how to see things through; and one can learn how to listen to people.

VP: What if, as a leader, I have a reputation for not meeting my project commitments? How can I change the negative – but accurate - perception people have of me?

Maurer: First, you have to be open to getting that feedback. Then you must demonstrate, in word and deed that this time it is different and your commitment is going to be unwavering until the project is complete. Then stick to those promises you made.

VP: Receiving unflattering verbal feedback, admitting my past flaws and changing my ingrained behaviors going forward takes considerable intestinal fortitude.

Maurer: Certainly it takes courage. But if you are in a leadership position you ought to be able to do those things.  Otherwise, your organization did a poor job of placing you in a position of responsibility. Perhaps you don’t belong there. The actions of leaders are often far more important than their words. I know that may seem trite, but it is true.

VP: Can you share how effective leaders are good at listening to people on their team? Do you have an example?

Maurer: I know a CEO of a well-known, Fortune 100 company who can come in to a meeting, get up in front of a group of people he may not know in any given department and conduct a Q&A session. By the end of his time with these people, they are willing to follow him anywhere he asks them to go.

VP: He sounds like the pied piper. Not to harp on the term, but it sounds as if he has extraordinary charisma?

Maurer: No it isn’t his charisma. He has a very direct, sincere and human way of responding to people. People trust him because they see him as a “straight shooter.” If someone asks him a question and he doesn’t know the answer, he doesn’t give a 20-minute political side-stepping response. He simply says, “I don’t know. I’ll find out and get back to everyone.” And he does.

During one Q&A session, someone asked him one of those pointed questions that came across in an accusatory way. “What are you executives doing about this one problem?”  His reply was, “Thank you for having the courage to ask. That is a great question and I don’t have an equally great answer. I have to tell you, it is something we struggle with. I’m open to hearing suggestions, because we need to figure that out.”

VP: So this CEO relied on candor and honesty when he responded to tough questions instead of dodging the subject.

Maurer:  Yes, exactly. He didn’t try to fake it.

VP:  Trust and being honest are commodities that can be in short supply when senior execs know information, yet are reluctant to tell the troops or stockholders in order not to damage morale. It was galling, for example, to hear Kenneth Lay plead with the people at Enron during their company meeting. “C’mon folks, we are going to get through this and reach a better time. Let’s hang in there and pull together.” 

Maurer: He was lying to his people and he was a convicted criminal. He wasn’t alone. There were a number of people in that company who were simply lying to the stockholders and employees.

I believe that there are a lot of ethical, good leaders up and down every organization who stand to benefit from asking the question, “What are people saying about me when I’m not in the room and what impact is it having on my effectiveness?”

VP: When it comes to ensuring that the right audience understands your message about making changes, who primarily needs to hear it?

Maurer: I’m writing to organizational leaders, not to the rank and file. When I communicate to the leaders, I am stressing that they have to pay attention to the rank and file, to get them involved and listen to their feedback. Clearly that is my primary audience.

My second audience is consultants who are working on change projects.   We also reach a wide variety of people who sometimes surprise me….students, clergy, etc.

VP: What happens when change is originated by the rank and file going upward in an organization?  Are the odds stacked against these types of change initiatives?

Maurer: There are two kinds of change that can occur in an organization.  The first type is called, Transformational Change. Examples might include, we are entering a merger with another firm, we are entering a new market, we are doing something our company has never done before. Transformational changes must be lead from the top. They cannot succeed without the full support of the senior leaders.

The kind of changes that can work from the rank and file up the organization are continuous improvement changes, often associated with Six Sigma initiatives or with manufacturing in Japan, Kaizen or continuous improvement.

These types of programs that can work from the bottom up must be supported by senior management but can be initiated from lower levels.

VP: When you consult with people in organizations, how do you unify the group to think along the lines of better change management?

Maurer:  I do a simulation of an organizational change. I have a typical communication I hand out to the group that is done rather poorly. I give them a few minutes to read the announcement and then I ask them, what would your reaction be to this initiative?

I write their responses down on a flip chart.  Invariably, the reactions from the group are all negative and fall into level one, and level two categories.  The fear about losing one’s job comes out, even in this canned presentation. I also get level three responses, asking, “What has he been smoking?” or “Oh no, there he goes again.”

People are laughing, but it is amazing how they are picking up on the concepts I am presenting. Every one in the room has been involved with a badly structured change initiative.

VP: So they see the fears and then get the underlying message. And they are saying, there must be better ways to introduce change.

Maurer: Yes. Within minutes, the people in the room are focused and aligned with me ready to learn. We then begin to talk about it from their leadership perspective. I will ask them, suppose you have a list of concerns like the ones on our flip chart and it is your project they are worried about. What do you do to begin to turn those issues and fears around? The second thing we talk about is how we can avoid having a negative list like that in the first place. How can we initiate changes that almost immediately bring about support?

VP: How does an effective leader deal with people in a company who take pleasure in sabotaging larger group support of change?

Maurer:  Awhile back I was writing an article about a very good quality program at a cell phone manufacturing plant. In doing my research, I went on the shop floor and asked one of the supervisors a question along those same lines.

I asked him, what is done about people who attempt to undermine the program.  He explained to me that those people represent a five percent subset of the total number of people who are fully on board and supportive. He told me, “With ninety-five percent ready to go, we just ignore the five percent.”

In Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman’s book, In Search of Excellence, they talk about that notion by saying, the wrong thing to do is to give attention to that five percent. On the other hand, if the CEO and CFO are in that five percent, then you better do something to recover their support.  You can’t ignore your senior leadership stakeholders.

VP: If someone comes to you expressing disagreement with a change and they fall into that five percent, what do you tell them?

Maurer: I’d love to have you on board. We need you and the skills you bring. But you need to know that the “train has left the station.” These are things we need you to do in order to support this effort. If you can support it, great. If not, you’ll need to leave. So, you have a decision to make. Let’s meet again in two days and you can tell me if you want to continue to be part of this team.

VP: So you are asking them to be open about their stand and making a commitment to the success of the project.  

Maurer: Exactly. When I’m working with a planning team, I will ask them to identify who the stakeholders are in this project?  The list begins as a small number, perhaps three or four people, but usually grows quickly as the planners identify impacted departments and key people.

Then I ask my planning team members:

• What do you need from each of these stakeholders?
• How likely are you to get it? 

For some of the people, perhaps all that is needed is positive support for the project, informing staff to help out. For other stakeholders, the CEO for example, what is needed is a champion who is willing to include a line item in the budget, mention the importance of the project in the next company meeting, etc.

Then the team needs to identify the potential trouble spots. Where are we likely to get resistance? What can we do to turn that initial resistance into support? This work needs to take place long before the conversation about the train leaving because, these people may have very important information to share regarding key sticking points affecting the success of the project.

VP: So potentially negative feedback from stake holders early on in a project lifecycle is a desired thing?

Maurer: Yes it is. Something happens when we get an idea in our heads. It starts sounding better and better to us. After thinking about it in isolation, it becomes the “best idea ever!”  We tend to lose the ability to look critically at the idea.

The New Coke initiative is a good example. The reality is, not every idea that individuals or organizations have are perfect. Some are flawed; others are totally impractical. That is why resistance from those directly involved can be a positive influence. These voices of concern are asking troubling questions about the emperor’s choice of clothing for the company parade. Could it be embarrassing?

VP: With “best idea ever” momentum building, the emperor giving his blessing to proceed, and project deadlines possibly already being set, isn’t it difficult to hold up the “parade planning committee” when troubling concerns are raised?

Maurer: It can be very difficult and upsetting to all involved. However, those important voices need to be considered and dealt with before going on with the project.

VP: Is there a less traumatic way of getting feedback to a planned change?

Maurer: I like to refer to the work Kathy Dannemiller did. She would ask a planning team to put together and share (in a presentation) a proposed plan for change and then ask for feedback from all over an organization.  To manage the responses, she set up three categories of feedback:

• What makes you glad?
• What makes you mad?
• What would you add?

VP: How does dividing feedback into categories help reduce the negative trauma?

Maurer: Putting the “Mad” stuff in a context makes it safe to talk about the negative issues. It also helps to determine the level of support (“Glad” feedback) a proposed change has even though the feedback expresses certain concerns. The spirit is, how do we make this idea work? Channeling the feedback makes it harder to simply tear the idea down out of spite.

VP: Thank you for sharing your insights about change with us.

Maurer: You are most welcome.

* * *