Quarterly Journal on Management
From the publishers of THE HINDU BUSINESS LINE

Vol. 2 :: Iss. 3 :: February 1999

---

Face the Phase

Dynamics of Change and Resistance

Porus P. Munshi

Act I, Scene I (The Garden of Eden) -- Period: Dawn of Mankind

Enter Eve, serpent
Eve: Now is the winter of our discontent.
Serpent: Discontent, Eve? Try this apple. It'll change your life.
(Eve eats apple).
Enter Adam, singing.
Eve: Stop singing and eat this apple. It'll open your eyes.
(Poor Adam eats apple, realises suddenly that he's naked, and also feels afraid.) Enter God God: Adam, wherefore art thou Adam? Adam: Here God, I was afraid because I'm naked.
God: How did you know you were naked? You have eaten from the tree of knowledge. I forbade you to do that.
God (aside): The status quo has changed. Behold the man is become as one of us. God: Away with you. You're banished from the garden of Eden. Never darken its lawns again.
Result:Adam, Eve and 6 billion descendants banished from Paradise.

ACT II, Scene II (General Motors HQ) -- Period: Dawn of M.B.O. 1946 A.D.

Enter Peter F. Drucker, Alfred P. Sloan Drucker: Mr. Sloan, this is the report on GM and its methods. While the methods were good once upon a time, currently they're outdated. Productivity is steadily dropping. It's now below WW-II levels. Workers have to be considered as partners... change your methods, change your attitudes, change the way a car is made, change the way it is sold, change your perspective... change ... change...change.
Sloan (wrathful): Serpent! You seek to change my methods? These methods have been in operation since 1922 and have made us what we are. You seek to change them? Change the status quo? Away with you. You're banished from GM. Never darken its doors again.
Result : Drucker banished from GM for 40 years.

Different epochs, same story, same result. Have things changed so little since the days of Adam and Eve then? In this article, we will examine the dynamics of change and resistance from evolutionary, historical and psychological perspectives; as well as what organisations can do to overcome resistance to change in general, and to computerisation in particular.

The garden of Eden parable illustrates almost the entire story of change. Change agents (Eve, Drucker) seek change for different reasons: Eve because she's bored and curious, and Drucker because he has a vision for the future. They both run into opposition from the established order (God and Sloan). God resists because his position has been threatened (man is become one of us) and Sloan resists because Drucker wants to change his (Sloan's) ideas.

Adam exemplifies what we go through when we undergo change: an increase in knowledge, but accompanied by feelings of vulnerability (nakedness) and anxiety as well as retribution from those who oppose change.

The Evolutionary Aspect of Change

Throughout history and across cultures, some people have sought change while others have resisted it. Both, the seeking of change and the resistance to it, are therefore perhaps inherent in human behaviour.

From an ethological and anthropological perspective, any behaviour that is widespread and consistent across time and culture, has to have survival value. So how do both change and resistance have survival value?

Let's take Resistance first. Prehistoric man was a weak and ineffective creature whose only means of survival was in staying put with the rest of the tribe. There was not much scope for individuality. Survival was paramount and lay in conformity. When every day is a battle for survival, you don't experiment much if you've found something that works and keeps you alive.

As Nigel Nicholson says in "How Hardwired is Human Behavior" (HBR, July- Aug '98)," Ancient hunter-gatherers living a hand-to-mouth existence may not have been great risk takers. But that did not mean they did not explore or act curious about their world. We see the same kind of behaviour in children. When they are securely attached - confident that an adult nearby will prevent any harm to them, they can be quite adventurous. But when danger looms, this adventerousness evaporates." When a sabre-toothed tiger attacked, prehistoric man must have scrambled frantically trying to avoid, or to beat the predator away. The use of sticks and stones as weapons may have developed as a result of this scramble. Prehistoric man therefore, may have alternated from survival through avoiding risk, and survival through furious battle - through taking risks and changing the rules.

The real tests for change, however, may have come when natural disasters like drought, flood and earthquakes threatened. The conflict then could have arisen between those who wanted to stay and endure, and those who wanted to leave and attempt a new life in a different place. In some cases, status quo may have meant survival and in some cases, change may have meant survival. Genes from both survivors may have come down to us.

Genetically, therefore, we may be programmed to both seek change and resist it.

On the ubiquitous bell curve, Around 15 per cent of any population constantly seeks change and around 15 per cent constantly resists it. The remaining 70 per cent goes towards change when it clearly benefits them and resists change when it does not directly benefit them.

Incidentally, perhaps it is no coincidence that the country most supportive of risk-taking and change - the US - is mostly populated by change-seekers: immigrants and their descendants.

The Dynamics of Resistance

Most management gurus opine that change is usually, if not always, good; and resistance is always bad. An organism should strive to keep changing; Resistance is akin to stagnation and stagnation is akin to death. Everybody therefore should seek change.

They may be right, but let's examine resistance in more depth. First, your doctor may not agree with the management gurus. As far as he's concerned, it's your resistance that keeps you alive and keeps the change agents (viruses) at bay. Your internist will tell you that we, as organisms, seek homeostasis - equilibrium. We need to maintain a constant temperature. We need to resist environmental fluctuations. Our entire body is programmed towards maintaining steady heart-beat, respiration, and sleep patterns. A mental health professional too will tell you that mental health depends on equilibrium - homeostasis. When there's no homeostasis, wild mood fluctuations called Manic-Depressive illness take place. In society, stability has always been praised. 'steady as a rock' is a compliment; while 'changeable as the seasons' is a censure. A man who is predictable is liked because he makes us feel secure. "He's solid. You can trust him" and "You can set your watch by him" are traits seen as desirable. On the other hand, a person whose ideas keep changing is called 'inconsistent' and one whose moods keep changing is called 'moody'. Both traits are considered undesirable.

Yet, when this very solidity and dependability in a person make him resist change, we call him an anachronism, a road-block, a resister. We forget that such people are the bedrock of society. The change agent comes, makes the changes, and goes his way. It is this ordinary plodder who, when he can, internalises those changes, resets his internal mechanism, and gives to the new change a solidity and stability it so badly needs. In time, because of his internalisation of it, the once new change becomes the established order... and the world moves forward a notch.

If there was only change, there would be no continuity. Divorce rates would be as high as 100 per cent, as would be employee turnover. Industries would not be built up. No consolidation would take place. The world would be chaotic.

What prevents all this is another face of resistance that we call habit. We get used to something and are loath to change it. We get habituated to getting up at a certain time in the morning, performing our toilet in a certain way, using a particular brand of toothpaste, eating a certain kind of breakfast, and going off to work at a certain time. Our entire day is determined by habit. Incidentally, it is our habits that create 'brand loyalty', a form of resistance that management gurus and corporations pray for every day.

Habit frees us from the need to think through things. It saves time and the effort of decision making. If we had to think about every action and choose the best way of doing it every single time, we'd have no time left for productive work, for leisure, or for any planning of our activities. Our entire day would be occupied in our own physiological tasks.

William James, in his 1890 classic 'The Principles of Psychology' says, "Habit is the enormous fly-wheel of society; its most precious conservative agent. It alone prevents the hardest and most repulsive walks of life from being deserted by those brought up to tread therein."

Resistance to change, therefore, may not entirely be the black sheep it's made out to be. One face of it - habit - keeps the wheels of society well-oiled. And another face of it - brand loyalty - keeps the bottomlines of corporations well in the black.

Strangely, resistance to change also helps create a new order. If the Jews had not resisted Christ, Christianity may never have come about.

Jesus would have been just another Jewish prophet. If orthodox Hinduism had not resisted Buddha, Buddhism may never have come about. If the Church had not resisted Martin Luther, Protestantism may never have come about - and it is the Protestant Ethic that has arguably had the greatest influence on modern technological progress.

Take politics. The American revolution came about because Britain resisted the reasonable demands of the colonials. The Quit India movement gathered steam because Britain resisted the demands of the Indians for change.

Resistance often spurs the change agent to more radicalism, greater creativity, further refinement, and very often, the new product/system is better, more polished and often completely different from what was originally conceived.

Also, very often, the resistor finds that he has to undergo far more changes than those who don't resist change. The Jews resisted the Romanisation of Israel and they had to undergo the Diaspora. The Parsis resisted the Islamisation of Persia and they had to move to India. Very often, in corporations, something similar happens. The person who resists change the hardest, finds himself in a new job the soonest.

Reasons for Resistance

There are four major reasons why a person resists: 1) A desire not to lose something of value; 2) A misunderstanding of the change and its implications; 3) A belief that change does not work for the organisation; and 4) Low tolerance for change. Besides these, other reasons for resistance may be:

• Fear: Most people have an innate fear of the unknown.
• Self-interest: Change may be good for others or even for the system as a whole. But unless it is specifically good for us, we will resist it.
• Lack of self-confidence: Change threatens our self-esteem and requires fresh skills/attitudes. Most of us lack the confidence to face the challenge by acquiring new skills.
• Cynicism: The motives of the change agent are suspect. For instance, when a new person comes into an organisation and tries to make changes, people may feel that he's making changes only to give the impression that he's doing something. They will then resist the changes.
• Ego: Sometimes change requires people to admit that they had been wrong earlier; or to give up innovations/changes they themselves had introduced - as in the case of Sloan.
• Short-term thinking: Change often involves the postponement of immediate gratification, and most people won't defer immediate gratification.
• Fallacious expectation: "We're different. It won't work here".
• Chauvinism: "We're right, they're wrong".
• Change has no constituency: Machiavelli's famous dictum in 'The Prince', where he says that the innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new.
• Habit.
• Blinkers: Organisations resist change because certain methods may have made it successful. Repeating them may have made it even more successful. This reinforces the belief in the legitimacy of its methods - it worked once, it'll work again... even when the external situation may have changed.

Resistance to Computerisation

Computerisation makes the theory Y style of management easier. Unfortunately, it also lends itself very well to the theory X manager. Consider the following extract from India Today (Oct'98) "...the Chief Minister was accused of trying to centralise authority by developing a sophisticated information gathering system and keeping everyone - cabinet colleagues, MLAs and officials - on a tight leash..." The CM in question? The networked Chandrababu Naidu.

It is this facet of computerisation that is most resisted: the fact that computers function as the Panopticon - a control system in the form of continuous, one-way surveillance. According to Michel Foucault (Discipline & Punish - The birth of the prison), "...the Panopticon functions to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power... power to be effective, should be continuous, visible and unverifiable...".

Most religions use the Panopticon concept in the form of an all-seeing, all-powerful God. Shops use the Panopticon in the form of closed-circuit cameras to check shop-lifting. In organisations, Accounting and Finance function as the Panopticon. Incidentally, these are the first departments to be computerised in any organisation.

To illustrate how Accounting functions as the Panopticon, lets take a leaf from the ultimate 'controls' man - Harold Geneen of ITT. In his book 'Managing', Geneen writes "...I insisted upon unshakeable facts and cross-examined the men who brought me those facts...suppose on going through his numbers I came across the number 4 ($ million); breaking down that 4, I may find it represents not 2+2, but +12 and -8. I focus on the -8 and find that consists of +5 and -13. I delve into the -13 and find it represents losses on selling out-dated products. I stop production - save that loss of 13. Added to the bottom-line, the +4 rises to +17 : a healthy gain...Some men could not abide what they considered an attack on their abilities and left the company. But most men recognised that all the monitoring of their activities was for their benefit..." In the words of one ITT manager, however, "You'd realise that being a manager at ITT was like living in a room with a closed circuit TV and a bug up your backside".

Cut to Chandrababu Naidu. If computerisation helps him to dig like Harold Geneen, it's not surprising his bureaucrats resent computerisation - The ultimate Panopticon.

Resistance to Computerisation - the learning of new technology

Here, we'll examine the psycho-social aspects of learning rather than the cognitive or mental processes. We want to see why people resist learning something new and how that resistance can be overcome.

Erik H. Erikson. in his work 'Childhood and Society', writes about the eight ages of man from a developmental perspective - where the child grows into an adult. We can draw some valuable insights into the psycho-social aspects of the development of learning in adults from this.

Stage I: Basic Trust vs Mistrust

Here the individual has to develop trust in the responsiveness of the new technology (read computers). He may have heard horrifying tales of systems crashing, data being erased by accident or design, of viruses and ferocious bugs.

Over a period of time, if he finds the computer more responsive than otherwise, and an attendant is always around to tame it whenever it decides to bite back, he begins to develop trust with the accompanying virtue of hope for the future - for his ability to master and put to productive use, this new technology.

On the other hand, if his experiences are basically negative because no one has been around to immediately respond to his difficulties with the computer, he will develop mistrust. The learning process will then stop right here.

Stage II: Autonomy vs Shame and Doubt

If he has emerged from the previous stage with basic trust and hope, the individual will now attempt to stand on his own feet, independent of the operator. He will now begin to try and control the new technology that has so far controlled him. If he should fail (as he often will), and is made to feel embarrassed, shame will develop, accompanied by doubt - doubt in his ability to ever master the new technology. The basic conflict here is between autonomy and shame and doubt. If autonomy wins, the virtue of will develops - he begins to develop the will to master the new technology. On the other hand, if shame and doubt develop, he loses interest in continued learning.

Stage III: Initiative vs Guilt

In the previous stage, if the individual has begun to stand on his own legs, he now seeks to move forward, to 'stick his neck out'. He begins to initiate tasks using the new technology. Rather than being asked to do something, he seeks to do it on his own. He is also eager to do things cooperatively - do things with others using the new technology. If he fails, he may feel guilty - perhaps the guilt of letting others down, or of failing in his own goals. If his initiative brings him more satisfaction than guilt, the virtue of purpose develops here. He seeks to put to his own use, for his own ends, his newly acquired capabilities.

Stage IV: Industry vs Inferiority

Here the individual begins to put to use, his knowledge of computers. He begins to compare himself with others. This comparison could be either with others who started learning the new technology at the same time as himself, or with others who are on the same hierarchical level in the organisation as he is. If he feels that he is on par with, or bettter than the others, industry develops. He begins working harder with the new technology. On the other hand, if he begins to feel he is lagging, inferiority will develop and he will stop using or begin complaining about the new technology. The virtue that develops if he feels industrious, is that of skill. He becomes more skillful in the use of the new technology.

Stage V: Identity vs Role Confusion

The sense of identity that the individual had lost as a result of the changes brought about by the new technology, now begins to emerge again, in a different or more modified form. He begins to find his role in the organisation. He now sees himself as beginning to make a contribution. If, however, he still does not see how he fits into the new dispensation or, if his status is now much lower than earlier, role confusion sets in. He begins to feel that he does not 'belong' or feels 'different'. He may try out various roles; but if he still does not find where he fits, he may drop out of the organisation. On the other hand, if he does find his identity, the virtue of fidelity develops. He becomes more faithful to the new technology and, perhaps, his new identity.

By this age/ stage, the individual's 'learning period' may be over. In developmental terms, he is now an 'adult'. The remaining three stages may not be relevant here, because they deal more with the process of maturation. As far as we are concerned, the individual has weathered the various resistances and conflicts and is now able to stand on his own feet, having completely internalised the new process/technology.

Organisations can help the individual go through the various stages through 'scaffolding' - putting up structures to support the individual during the learning process and dismantling them stage by stage as he begins to support himself.

How People Resist Change

Resistance to change can either be overt or covert. Overt resistance is obvious : People refuse to work, go on strike, argue, get abusive. Covert resistance, however, is far more invidious and most often we don't even know that resistance is taking place. It can manifest in the following ways:

i) Passive resistance; where a person promises to do a task and then leaves it undone; finds it difficult to understand what the change agent/superior is saying, or does not hear what is being said to him, forgets to read a memo, to leave an important message; also, very often, his messages may contain factual errors.

ii) Loss of motivation; where the individual does only what is required of him, and nothing more; finds his outside interests and commitments more appealing than the group task; becomes chronically absent or a latecomer, frequently feels physically and mentally tired.

iii) Indiscriminate opposition, where suggestions made are opposed regardless of their merit; objections are raised distracting the group and taking it off at a tangent.

Covert resistance can also be expressed as ambivalence: saying one thing now and the opposite another time, as well as Masochistic behaviour. Here, the individual seeks to guard against his own aggressive tendencies by provoking aggression from an authority figure.

Covert resistance is not easy to identify and, even if identified, it is not easy to confront the individual regarding his behaviour. Very often, the individual himself is unaware of what he is doing or why he acts in such a manner.

By recognising the signs of covert resistance, the organisation can help the employee overcome his negative behaviour patterns through employee counselling programmes or through behaviour modification.

The Dynamics of Change

We seek change to either move towards a desired situation, or to escape from an aversive situation. Change is made up of two components (1) Growth, and (2) Change without growth.

All growth involves change. But all change does not necessarily involve growth. The seeking of change may be either a hope for the future or an escape from the present. The result of change may lie either in the area change without growth or in the area growth. We cannot predict where, and there lies the element of risk. If we change, we may either a) grow, b) be worse off or, c) stagnate A person seeking change in order to escape from the present situation, may not be too motivated to risk change unless the present situation is so unpleasant/aversive that any change would be for the better. Also, if he moves, he will move only enough to get out of the immediate aversive situation.

On the other hand, if he is motivated to change by a hope for the future, he is more likely to take risks. His vision sustains him. Most entrepreneurs are motivated by a hope for the future and this hope sustains them in the face of adversity.

What determines who seeks change and who resists it?

The need for perfection could perhaps make one person seek change, and the need for stability could make another resist it. An unstable, traumatic childhood involving perhaps the loss of a parent, or severe economic deprivation could make a person resistant to change through anxiety. Similarly, a secure childhood could make one more adventerous and risk-seeking.

In an earlier article (Praxis, Aug '98), I had written about the Achievement motive and the Fear of Failure. With regard to change, the achievement-oriented individual may be more of a risk taker and change agent in the earlier part of his career. Later, however, as he builds up and consolidates, he may become risk aversive and resist change. Henry Ford is the best example of this dictum. He started out as the change agent to end all change agents, but later became so resistant to change, that he nearly drove his company completely under.

The Fear of Failure individual, on the other hand, may initially resist change; but as the years pass, and he realises he's not getting anywhere, may become extremely risk-seeking and undergo change after change in a final bid to catch up with his peer group or with his own goals and dreams.

Stress as a Result of Change

Any change is accompanied by stress. Even changes perceived as desirable such as a promotion, marriage or the birth of a child are stressful.

Changes on the job are exceptionally stressful because most of us derive our identities more from what we do and where we work rather than from who we are. And when change threatens what we do, it threatens our identity. And this threat can be extremely stressful.

Stress is a product of the interaction between a particular person and a particular situation. A situation that makes one person feel severely stressed may be only moderately stressful to another. How one perceives the situation determines the level of stress. The implication here is that a person's level of stress can be regulated to a large extent by changing his perception of the situation. Organisations can help their people cope with stress caused by change through education, discussion, counselling and behaviour modification.

On a personal level

Change is really the only tool most of us have to raise ourselves above the mediocrities of our life - and once raised, it is Resistance that ensures we don't slip down again.

We tend to see change and resistance as polarities. But in fact they lie along a continuum. We move up and down the continuum, from making changes to resisting them, perhaps a dozen times every day. These unseen, unheard changes are our daily adjustments, improvements; step-by-step evolutions as Darwin would have called them.

Some say that Change is greater than Resistance, and others say that Resistance is greater than Change...but to paraphrase Gibran, They are inseperable - "Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your table, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed."

Porus P. Munshi is a Chennai-based HR consultant. He can be reached at porusmun@hotmail.com.