Never ever would I take this advice and in all my years at the "coalface of change" I have never done so. I have always met these resistors head on and in every case have managed to turn them round into supporters. As a result they have become the most enthusiastic supporters of change to the extent that they help other resistors to change their minds. It doesn't take long you just need to know what to do and how to do it. Remember it's all about mindsets and behaviours.
This is true in most cases when you are dealing with normally adjusted human beings but if you have the misfortune of meeting those edge cases where it does not work, you will understand what he is saying. 🙂
I actually tend to agree with the advice of "removing" the NO people from the change process. Hard NO means a mismatch of values in relation to the change and the mismatch is usually deeply emotional more than rational. Hence, it is difficult to turn that class of audience to the YES side without going into deep personal psycho-therapy. As one needs majority commitment for a change to occur, you would just have to cluster the YES around the change and move the NOs in the areas that are not undergoing change. Change involves building a community and a community is based on an overlap (soft match at a minimum) of values between members.
Ideology always works in practice, doesn't it? But anyone who has led change initiatives in organisations for 10-20 years will know that Dr Kotter is on the money. It doesn't matter that you think it shouldn't be that way, or that you think there must/should be a way to get a recalcitrant individual on board. After a while you must confront reality; and sometimes reality comes in the shape of a passive-aggressive employee with issues that 5 years of counselling won't fix.
From my perspective, I feel that some people might resist to change because they might be scared or believe that the worst will happen or else have different personal desires sometimes. People resist change because they don't know what the outcome is. They can't see the positive (or negative) of the change and just try to stick with the familiar. As a general rule, changes require effort. So the initial premise is at least mostly correct. If they are more important to your organization, even People resist to change you need to make sure the change will be a net positive for themselves personally Because that person could be the one who will bring profit for the organization
As long as the change is legitimate and benefitial for the company and all possible ways to win over opponents are not working, then it is necessary to ignore them and get them out of the way.
There is a reason why some people agree with this theory and some don't. This is a classic example of a management theorist trying to create a one-size-fits-all model and ignoring the infinite number of variables that can influence a change management process. Industry, personality, economy, size, time frames, position, influence and experience are just some of the variables that could impact on whether someone opposing change should be removed. Sometimes it might not even be possible to remove a certain person from the change process, does this mean change should not happen? of course not. Sometimes the person you want to 'remove' might even have found a valid fault. there is no reason why John's theory shouldn't be kept in mind when implementing change, but like most management theories, don't try to fit it to every scenario.
Its easier said than done to get someone out of a project of change that is crucial to other processes within the company when they don't agree.Usually it is not upper management that disagrees with change. Mischief is really something.
Por ello, lo fuerte aquí debe ser el trabajo para la coalición (según el Dr. R. Heifetz), si la misma falla, no queda otra que hacer lo que indica el Dr. Kotter aquí.
I think that focusing on reality makes you change your mind because you talk about management irrationally and transforming leadership into something different, and in fact leadership is part of management, but the vital part is vibrant because everything related to setting goals and implementing linked to the effectiveness of leadership by The human being who is the main dilemma in the success or failure of institutions, projects and business in general.
I'm surprised that Kotter is saying this - given that it completely contradicts (at least in my mind) the whole approach to change resisters in his book 'Buy-in - Stopping Your Good Idea From Getting Shot Down.'
No. In many organizations there are people who don't like change because it will hurt them in some way or at least not benefit them. Those people are obstacles that stand in front of transformation because of their self interest. Whatever you do to them they won't change their mind unless they will benefit somehow from change or unless you convince them that they will benefit from change. But if they have decided not to open up, is there any other way?
Like all advice, there is no "one size fits all" solution. Kotter's imperative makes sense to me for certain circumstances involving certain personalities, however I've found that competing perspectives can serve as legitimate tests to whatever is facing a change, though they need to be managed. I'm hopeful that leaders who view this video receive it with a grain of salt and do not make decisions for their organizations based on the advice of someone completely disconnected from their specific corporate culture.
Agreed. I also think that some of this must be presented for shock value. That said, if someone is always and exclusively resistant to change, finding a way around them rather than trying to get buy in from some one who is "hopeless" is a logical approach,
I think much of what has gone on for the last 10-20 years is outdated and this is why there is so much discussion about change these day. Much changes in 20 years. There is a lot of research on the topic. I agree with some of what Kotter says but not all. To simply cast a problem aside is a bit generalistic and perhaps a little irresponsible. I believe it is more situational and dependent on certain factors that are unique to the situation. eg time & finances constraints.
It's not 100% like that, it's related to people and their charasterectics .for some of them collaboration in the change process is a good motivator and help them to be more responsible and helpful. However, for the others maybe a one way to damage the change process as kotter said by saying yes yes first and do something behind completely against the Chang. Therefore, it's not easy to find out which one is the one.
Have you read the book Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim by McShane et al? If not then you may be missing my point. I have not missed the point, especially in the fact I have provided a professional source to support my argument. We learn little unless we explore options rather than go with the flow and agree with the general popular consensus. The study of Resistance to Change is subjective and there is not always a right or wrong answer. It is an idea and ideas should be challenged.
Some people do not want to change and are detrimental to a change initiative. If they are being clearly disruptive I agree to remove them. But getting rid of everyone who is resisting change is IMO ill guided and would lead to an environment where people are afraid of expressing their opinions. Dictatorship is the first thing that springs to mind.
Resistance to change? Who's change?... the change you decree? Can I decide what's to change and impose it on you, or will you be resistant to my change? Who decides what's to change? Maybe we should ALL get to decide.
I don't agree. It's a bit like blaming the student not the teacher.Resistance to change should not be seen as a impediment rather a constructive conflict or useful resource in better understanding what needs to be done to change the attitudes of those resisting change(Mcshane et al, 2010).To simply say,'get them out of the way',respectfully,I don't think is very constructive in addressing underlying factors.Pushing them aside will result in even less chance they will come aboard.
The talk lacks context, specifics, history, goals, process, etc. A better theme would be: how to improve a dysfunctional workplace. What about Deming's 95:5 ratio of system vs people causes of problems?
Generally, this is bad advice. Black and white thinking. Resistance is normal. It shows people care about what's being changed. And it often can provide the change design team critical data that may be needed for the change to succeed. It's those who hide their resistance (and therefore are more likely to be subversive to the change), or those who don't care, that you should worry about. Yes, over time, if people don't adapt, they do need to get out of the way. But you don't approach this like a proverbial bull in a china shop.
Gerard Beenen I have to say I disagree that this is bad advice. I do agree that an effort should be made initially to understand why this individual or individuals resist the change effort, but then when it is certain that they will not get on board with the change no matter the reason, (they don't understand it, they don't like it, perhaps they don't like you) they will often cause more damage to the effort and to the culture of the company. I held onto an employee for a year too long because no amount of collaboration or listening worked with this individual. The damage she created and the amount of time, energy, and money it took to keep her on board was not worth it. So, not the "no" persons, but the "no no no" persons got to go early on.
I do agree with you Oneluv , in mi experience I di have some individuals that consumed all my energy , focus , money to put him on board , did not have success , so I realize that with all resources I spent on them would have been better invested on the other people of my team to move culture change. i am not saying that is worthless to try first give them the opportunity to any individual to get on board , but not for so long.
Never ever would I take this advice and in all my years at the "coalface of change" I have never done so. I have always met these resistors head on and in every case have managed to turn them round into supporters. As a result they have become the most enthusiastic supporters of change to the extent that they help other resistors to change their minds. It doesn't take long you just need to know what to do and how to do it. Remember it's all about mindsets and behaviours.
This is true in most cases when you are dealing with normally adjusted human beings but if you have the misfortune of meeting those edge cases where it does not work, you will understand what he is saying. 🙂
I actually tend to agree with the advice of "removing" the NO people from the change process. Hard NO means a mismatch of values in relation to the change and the mismatch is usually deeply emotional more than rational. Hence, it is difficult to turn that class of audience to the YES side without going into deep personal psycho-therapy. As one needs majority commitment for a change to occur, you would just have to cluster the YES around the change and move the NOs in the areas that are not undergoing change. Change involves building a community and a community is based on an overlap (soft match at a minimum) of values between members.
This was a very insightful resource for this morning. I am not repeating this mistake.
Great video! Thank you for your truth
Agreed! However, too many organizations resort to co-opting, which backfires. Thank you.
Ideology always works in practice, doesn't it? But anyone who has led change initiatives in organisations for 10-20 years will know that Dr Kotter is on the money. It doesn't matter that you think it shouldn't be that way, or that you think there must/should be a way to get a recalcitrant individual on board. After a while you must confront reality; and sometimes reality comes in the shape of a passive-aggressive employee with issues that 5 years of counselling won't fix.
From my perspective, I feel that some people might resist to change because they might be scared or believe that the worst will happen or else have different personal desires sometimes. People resist change because they don't know what the outcome is. They can't see the positive (or negative) of the change and just try to stick with the familiar. As a general rule, changes require effort. So the initial premise is at least mostly correct. If they are more important to your organization, even People resist to change you need to make sure the change will be a net positive for themselves personally Because that person could be the one who will bring profit for the organization
👍
As long as the change is legitimate and benefitial for the company and all possible ways to win over opponents are not working, then it is necessary to ignore them and get them out of the way.
There is a reason why some people agree with this theory and some don't. This is a classic example of a management theorist trying to create a one-size-fits-all model and ignoring the infinite number of variables that can influence a change management process. Industry, personality, economy, size, time frames, position, influence and experience are just some of the variables that could impact on whether someone opposing change should be removed. Sometimes it might not even be possible to remove a certain person from the change process, does this mean change should not happen? of course not. Sometimes the person you want to 'remove' might even have found a valid fault. there is no reason why John's theory shouldn't be kept in mind when implementing change, but like most management theories, don't try to fit it to every scenario.
Hi,
I am very interested to know what you suggest one should do then?
thanks
Its easier said than done to get someone out of a project of change that is crucial to other processes within the company when they don't agree.Usually it is not upper management that disagrees with change. Mischief is really something.
Por ello, lo fuerte aquí debe ser el trabajo para la coalición (según el Dr. R. Heifetz), si la misma falla, no queda otra que hacer lo que indica el Dr. Kotter aquí.
I think that focusing on reality makes you change your mind because you talk about management irrationally and transforming leadership into something different, and in fact leadership is part of management, but the vital part is vibrant because everything related to setting goals and implementing linked to the effectiveness of leadership by The human being who is the main dilemma in the success or failure of institutions, projects and business in general.
I'm surprised that Kotter is saying this - given that it completely contradicts (at least in my mind) the whole approach to change resisters in his book 'Buy-in - Stopping Your Good Idea From Getting Shot Down.'
This message should be send to the Egyptian President
No. In many organizations there are people who don't like change because it will hurt them in some way or at least not benefit them. Those people are obstacles that stand in front of transformation because of their self interest. Whatever you do to them they won't change their mind unless they will benefit somehow from change or unless you convince them that they will benefit from change. But if they have decided not to open up, is there any other way?
Like all advice, there is no "one size fits all" solution. Kotter's imperative makes sense to me for certain circumstances involving certain personalities, however I've found that competing perspectives can serve as legitimate tests to whatever is facing a change, though they need to be managed. I'm hopeful that leaders who view this video receive it with a grain of salt and do not make decisions for their organizations based on the advice of someone completely disconnected from their specific corporate culture.
Agreed. I also think that some of this must be presented for shock value.
That said, if someone is always and exclusively resistant to change, finding a way around them rather than trying to get buy in from some one who is "hopeless" is a logical approach,
Business has to be a one size fits all otherwise you'll go broke trying to please everyone
I think much of what has gone on for the last 10-20 years is outdated and this is why there is so much discussion about change these day. Much changes in 20 years. There is a lot of research on the topic. I agree with some of what Kotter says but not all. To simply cast a problem aside is a bit generalistic and perhaps a little irresponsible. I believe it is more situational and dependent on certain factors that are unique to the situation. eg time & finances constraints.
It's not 100% like that, it's related to people and their charasterectics .for some of them collaboration in the change process is a good motivator and help them to be more responsible and helpful. However, for the others maybe a one way to damage the change process as kotter said by saying yes yes first and do something behind completely against the Chang. Therefore, it's not easy to find out which one is the one.
Have you read the book Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim by McShane et al? If not then you may be missing my point. I have not missed the point, especially in the fact I have provided a professional source to support my argument. We learn little unless we explore options rather than go with the flow and agree with the general popular consensus. The study of Resistance to Change is subjective and there is not always a right or wrong answer. It is an idea and ideas should be challenged.
I don't think he's trying to fire someone, I think he's telling us to make exemptions for people or to build policy around them.
Resisting change? Some change needs to be resisted. What then?
The change you talk about is all about you getting your way. And those who don't agree can be silently eliminated. It's the way dictators think.
Exactly.
Some people do not want to change and are detrimental to a change initiative. If they are being clearly disruptive I agree to remove them. But getting rid of everyone who is resisting change is IMO ill guided and would lead to an environment where people are afraid of expressing their opinions. Dictatorship is the first thing that springs to mind.
Resistance to change? Who's change?... the change you decree? Can I decide what's to change and impose it on you, or will you be resistant to my change? Who decides what's to change? Maybe we should ALL get to decide.
Absolutely.
I don't agree. It's a bit like blaming the student not the teacher.Resistance to change should not be seen as a impediment rather a constructive conflict or useful resource in better understanding what needs to be done to change the attitudes of those resisting change(Mcshane et al, 2010).To simply say,'get them out of the way',respectfully,I don't think is very constructive in addressing underlying factors.Pushing them aside will result in even less chance they will come aboard.
Meeting our minds, Dr. Kotter, traitors should be out, period.
The talk lacks context, specifics, history, goals, process, etc. A better theme would be: how to improve a dysfunctional workplace. What about Deming's 95:5 ratio of system vs people causes of problems?
Yes, I agree that it seems pretty anti-democratic.
Generally, this is bad advice. Black and white thinking. Resistance is normal. It shows people care about what's being changed. And it often can provide the change design team critical data that may be needed for the change to succeed. It's those who hide their resistance (and therefore are more likely to be subversive to the change), or those who don't care, that you should worry about. Yes, over time, if people don't adapt, they do need to get out of the way. But you don't approach this like a proverbial bull in a china shop.
Gerard Beenen I have to say I disagree that this is bad advice. I do agree that an effort should be made initially to understand why this individual or individuals resist the change effort, but then when it is certain that they will not get on board with the change no matter the reason, (they don't understand it, they don't like it, perhaps they don't like you) they will often cause more damage to the effort and to the culture of the company. I held onto an employee for a year too long because no amount of collaboration or listening worked with this individual. The damage she created and the amount of time, energy, and money it took to keep her on board was not worth it. So, not the "no" persons, but the "no no no" persons got to go early on.
I do agree with you Oneluv , in mi experience I di have some individuals that consumed all my energy , focus , money to put him on board , did not have success , so I realize that with all resources I spent on them would have been better invested on the other people of my team to move culture change. i am not saying that is worthless to try first give them the opportunity to any individual to get on board , but not for so long.
How to theorize mobbing and make a business out of it. Revolting.