When asked to do things differently, employees and managers often resist change. Resistance to change is a very natural human reaction. Change disrupts familiar routines, challenges long-held beliefs, and requires people to adapt. Managerial resistance stems from many factors, including the fear of the unknown, concern about losing control, or it can be based on previous negative experiences. Put simply, change causes people stress.
For a few organizations, overcoming stress is not an option. The Navy SEALs–an elite force within the U.S. Navy–try to assess people’s ability to handle stress in their recruiting process. Potential Navy SEAL recruits must undergo very demanding exercises, during which they are reminded that they can “tap out” at any point without judgment. Those who do, however, are excluded from becoming SEALs.
Most organizations don’t operate under the same extreme conditions as the Navy SEALs or have the same extreme hiring practices. Yet, good leaders know that implementing changes puts people in a position where they may want to resist or tap out, making the process of leading a change extremely difficult.
Here’s how you can spot and address resistance in your managerial team when implementing large organizational change. It starts with understanding why managers typically resist change.
1. Managers feel like change is being imposed on them
The ultimate success of a change initiative requires ownership from affected leaders and managers. Improvement initiatives may be interpreted as interfering with or undermining managerial autonomy. Change is often greeted with skepticism, and not all managers buy into the need for change.
While you don’t need full buy-in, you do need acceptance of the current performance level and acknowledgment that there is room for improvement. One aspect of gaining buy-in that is frequently overlooked is the importance of pre-presenting findings and ideas for improvement. Pre-presenting possible changes allows a manager to understand the situation, participate in developing the solution, and surface underlying concerns.
2. Managers feel undermined, and the changes discredit their efforts
Managers who have invested significant time and effort into their departments may view new initiatives as a critique of their past work. The feeling that their past contributions are being disregarded can foster a sense of invalidation.
This sentiment is particularly strong when changes involve restructuring or reallocating resources that managers have previously advocated for. Managers may resist any changes that go against their previous direction. A manager who has pushed for certain resources or strategies may perceive this reversal as a dismissal of their efforts.
On the flip side, if a new direction resembles their earlier suggestions, there’s a risk they’ll feel that their ideas have been co-opted without appropriate acknowledgment. This lack of recognition can lead to disengagement and reluctance to support the new initiatives.
3. Concerns about social dynamics and employee reactions
Change shakes up every part of a workplace, including the social dynamic within teams. When many managers initially get promoted to that level, the new responsibilities of leadership can make them somewhat disenfranchised from their colleagues. Over time, they establish new working relationships that become familiar patterns of behavior.
Changes in procedures, roles, or workflows can disrupt established relationships between employees and management. Managers may be uncertain about their team’s reaction to the change. Uncertainty can lead to hesitation, which can turn into roadblocks for leaders.
4. Fear of having to do more with less
Operational improvement almost always involves doing more with the same or fewer resources. When resources are perceived to be tight to begin with, managers may worry about being expected to achieve the same or better results with less support. Higher demands and fewer resources also tend to surface operating problems.
The challenges of running a tighter ship can make some managers want to tap out, like the Navy SEAL recruits mentioned earlier. This fear can quickly translate into passively or actively disowning the changes.
How to Address Managerial Resistance
While you may be dealing with several different types of resistance from your management team, you don’t have to abandon your improvement initiative. Here are some ways a leader can transform a manager’s resistance into active participation.
Have a Clear Plan With Specific Support
Transitions are difficult but can be made smoother through careful planning and support. Leaders should provide clear guidance, set realistic expectations, and offer the necessary resources and training to help managers and their teams adapt to new ways of working. Regular check-ins and feedback loops can help identify issues early and address them before they escalate.
A critical part of any change communication must include a clear understanding of how the new working environment will benefit the people affected. The aspiration of a more profitable company is rarely sufficient. People need to know how their own personal situation will improve.
Managers in the areas being changed must believe they can improve, know they have support, and understand how it will benefit them.
Value and Acknowledge Managers
To mitigate resistance, managers must feel valued and acknowledged. This means giving credit where it’s due and recognizing managers’ contributions, even as new changes are implemented. Throughout the change process, leaders should emphasize that the change is not a critique of past efforts but a necessary evolution to meet new challenges.
Managers in the areas being changed must participate in generating solutions and feel their contributions are acknowledged and credited.
Communicate and Collaborate With Empathy
Empathy, communication, and collaboration are all essential in managing resistance. Leaders must actively listen to their managers’ concerns and respond with empathy and understanding. In doing so, leaders help ensure managers feel that their voices are heard and create an environment where managers are willing to engage with change. This is made possible through open, transparent communication at all levels.
Finally, collaboration should be encouraged across the organization. This gives managers a voice in how changes are implemented and adapted to their specific context.
Deal With Resistance as it Happens
Despite the best intentions and most effective positioning, resistance will happen, and it never works to ignore it and hope for the best. Resistance tends to come in two forms: active and passive. Active resistance is easier to see and handle because it’s out in the open.
Managers who actively resist can eventually be just as strong in their support if they can be convinced the changes are worthwhile. Passive resistance is more shielded and often takes the form of a manager doing little to support the change. These managers tend to wait out a change initiative and hope to return to how things were previously.
With both types of resistance, it’s important that leaders address issues as the change process occurs. Hoping that attitudes and predispositions will morph over time is not effective. Addressing the issues deliberately but empathetically also reinforces to other employees that leadership is committed to the change initiative. Returning to how things were done should not be perceived as an option.
Ultimately, a leader needs to be able to trust their management team to support change as a basic part of continuous improvement. At an organizational level, change should be seen as an ongoing process rather than a one-time event.
By proactively understanding, identifying, and addressing challenges as they arise, leaders can better navigate the challenges of change. In doing so, leaders can create a culture where no one is tempted to tap out.
Originally posted on Forbes.com
