Overcoming barriers while leading change

Barriers to change

If you have ever found yourself in a position of having to lead a change initiative within a department or organization, then you know what it feels like to stand in front of a group of busy people and ask for some of their precious time and energy. Furthermore, telling a group of employees that they need to move from a comfortable current state to an unknown future state can bring all sorts of reactions.

Some people will be on board from the beginning – be thankful for these advocates and nurture these relationships.

Others will get defensive. Afterall, they are competent and productive employees, why do they need to learn a new behavior or process or technology – or all three? Addressing these blockers from the get-go is crucial.

Still others will not care enough to even have an opinion. This indifference can be deflating and can lead to serious roadblocks along the adoption curve.

What’s more – you get to be the face of the change effort – the thing that, to some employees, is the bane of their very existence, and to others an annoying thing they must put up with so you will go away. Sounds enviable, right?

However, regardless of how you or the stakeholders feel, your task remains the same – to implement change. Now, certainly this task can be made more or less difficult depending upon the attitude of the participants. That is where this blog post comes in. My intention is to put forward some categories of appeal that my fellow change leaders might make use of at the onset of a new initiative.  Some reasonable pleas, if you will, that can help get lagging participants to reconsider their position.

I should probably acknowledge here a larger issue that often results in objection to and/or apathy towards a new change effort. That would be a failure on the part of organizational leadership to both craft and communicate a clear vision and strategy and tie that vision and strategy to said change. If folks within the organization do not understand why they are being asked to do something, then resistance or indifference is only a step away.

Needless to say, leaders should connect initiatives with the larger organizational strategy to maximize employee buy-in. But unfortunately, this does not always happen and, as it stands, is out of the scope of this particular blog post.

Instead, I want to narrow my focus here to several categories of appeal that any trainer, facilitator, or change manager can make to their audience as to why they should give their valuable time to the task at hand.  

Appeal to urgency – “we need to change”

Imagine you feel unwell, and you schedule an appointment with your doctor. You go in for an examination and the doctor collects your vital signs and runs a panel of bloodwork. You go home. Later that week the doctor calls and informs you that your cholesterol is high – dangerously high, in fact. As part of the course of treatment, the doctor tells you that your diet must change immediately. And not just a small change – you have to give up some of your favorite foods and replace them with healthier options – lots of green vegetables.

Now, if you have ever made a significant change in your diet, you know that it can be quite challenging. It is not something that you would decide to change on a whim, or approach in a very casual manner. To get over the change hump, you must have a real sense of urgency about the matter.

In the example above, the serious risk of health complications due to sustained high cholesterol is the fuel for change. It produces in you a sense of urgency. The change becomes easier because the stakes are higher. The cognitive dissonance that might exist is removed because of the seriousness of the situation. You either change your diet or face the consequences. Change happens because it is necessary for survival.

In instructing you to change your diet, your doctor made an appeal to urgency. Do this now, or bad things will happen. The old adage is correct – necessity is the mother of invention – and it applies to change management in the form of urgency.

Now, we should note that urgency does not always have to be negative. In business situations, changing market conditions may mean that certain opportunities have a limited lifespan – in other words, the window will close fast. To take advantage of the opportunity, we must act fact. We must change now. In this case, the urgency is positioned to achieve something positive rather than to avoid something negative. However, because both negative and positive urgency exist in the real world, both have their place when leading change.

Appeal to duty – “we have to change”

It is not always popular to acknowledge this in our modern, individualistic culture, but employees do have an obligation to their employers. Most of us – including myself – are employees. We exchange our labors for money. We provide value for value received. If we fail to do this entirely – or if an imbalance between the value we provide and the value we receive appears – then we might become subject to termination.

It works the same in reverse. If my employer unexpectedly stopped paying my salary – or decreased my salary without my consent – the employer/employee relationship is likely to be terminated, this time by my initiative. In this case, no one would claim that I was being unreasonable. Afterall, my employer broke our agreement – value provided was no longer met with value received.

I would submit to you that change – the adoption of new behaviors, processes, and technology – is a natural part of any employer/employee relationship. Consequently, it is reasonable for employers to expect their employees to change their behaviors, processes, and technology as leaders within the organization deem it necessary. This means that employees have a duty to change. And resistance to change – whether active hostility or passive apathy – is a failure to meet the obligations of employment.

As a parent, I have certain obligations to my children. I have to feed them, house them, and clothe them. I have to educate them. I have to care for their spiritual and emotional needs, etc. If one of my friends or family members were to notice that I was neglecting one of these duties – feeding my children for example – then I would expect a sharp rebuke: “Matt, what are you doing? Your children are hungry. You have to provide food for them. It is your duty!” Although this analogy is not water-tight, there are similar obligations employees have to their employers.

Appealing to duty when leading change may not be the first tactic we should employ, but it is certainly on the table. If employees are actively or passively resisting change, then they should be aware that they are failing in the duties of their employment.

Appeal to purpose – “we should change”

If duty describes what I must do, purpose describes my aim in doing it. At the most foundational level, personal purpose is the reason for my existence. Determining this foundational purpose would require us to answer certain metaphysical questions outside the scope of this blog post.

However, purpose does exist in subordinate ways in the various realms of our lives – including at work. When it comes to leading change within an organization, appeals to purpose can often be related to the organization’s published purpose statement or mission statement.

Let us use the retail giant Walmart as an example. Walmart’s published purpose statement is: “Walmart helps people save money and live better.” Now, we could debate the sincerity of Walmart’s purpose statement all day long but, instead, I want us to see how that purpose statement could be used to help drive adoption of new behaviors, processes, and technologies within Walmart.

In this case, an appeal to purpose could be as simple as: “Here at Walmart, we exist to help our customers save money and live better. This change effort will allow us to improve the way we execute that mission because of x, y, and z. By adopting this change, you too will be helping our customers save money and live better.”

Of course, the “because of x, y, and z” in the statement above is key. The change initiative in question should be plainly shown to support the mission statement for the appeal to purpose to have the greatest impact. However, many changes to organizational behaviors, processes, and technologies cannot be directly tied to a purpose statement. But being able to communicate your organizational value stream clearly to your stakeholders will help you show how customers are impacted by back-of-house change initiatives.  

Furthermore, many businesses even tie employee KPIs and objectives to their purpose or mission statements. This makes it even easier to show how individual participation in a change effort can be part of an employee fulfilling their purpose at work.

Appeal to desire – “we want to change”

Last, but not least is the tactic of appealing to your stakeholders’ personal desires – their wants. You have probably heard this concept condensed into a nice little acronym: WIIFM (What’s in it for me?). This appeal is different from the previous three in that it is the most individualistic. But in some cases, this can be the appeal that gets change blockers over the hump – they see the personal benefit to adopting new behaviors, processes, and technologies.

Getting an individual to adopt a change because they want to is a bit of a paradigm shift. No longer is change pushed from the top-down in a draconian fashion, but it is pulled-in from the frontline. This creates a real sense of ownership and accountability from each stakeholder as the change is implemented. All because your stakeholders could see clearly how the proposed change would personally benefit them.

Oftentimes when organizations approach change management, they speak of very general benefits to the organization (revenue, profit, market share, customer satisfaction, etc.). Normally speaking, improvements in these areas will also translate to individual benefits for the employees. However, the emotions that come with implementing change can obscure these benefits and make it seem to the employee that they are having to change for no other reason than that someone in corporate said so. As discussed above, this is still a valid reason to change (appeal to duty), but it rarely makes the process of change enjoyable for anyone.

Alternatively, identifying clear personal benefits to change (less stress, more free time, less rework, etc.) goes a long way in lowering the adoption curve for your stakeholders. Moreover, this appeal tends to create change advocates – people who will use their influence and relationships to advocate for the change effort, leading to higher change credibility and faster acceptance. So, when leading change, know who your stakeholders are and ask yourself – What’s in it for them?

Conclusion

When leading a change effort, it is important to have all your options on the table.

These appeals are intended to speak to your stakeholders’ minds and hearts, helping them ascend intellectually to the propositions of the change effort, while also engaging their emotions – not in a manipulative way, but in a rational way that promotes action.

There are many reasons to adopt new behaviors, processes, and technologies. We might need to change. We might have to change. Perhaps we should change. We might simply want to change. Or any combination of the above.

Knowing when and how to make these various appeals can be the difference between a successful and failed change initiative.