Issue link: https://industrialmanagement.epubxp.com/i/249982
The nature of resistance Experience indicates that resistance to change comes in waves or layers, each of which must be overcome sequentially. These layers of resistance fall into three broad categories that can be derived from the three basic questions of change embedded in the theory of constraints (TOC) first described by Eli Goldratt: 1. What to change (What is the problem that must be addressed?) 2.What to change to (What is the agreed upon solution to the problem?) 3. How to cause the change (How should the solution be implemented?) 18 Industrial Management A CRY FOR CHANGE Figure 1. Fundamental change often requires organizational leaders to peel away three broad layers of resistance just as they would peel away the layers of an onion. D Disag ree me nt Dis ag re roblem he p tt ou ut the solut ab abo ion nt e em ement abou gre tt isa Buy-in The TOC approach suggests that addressing each question sequentially helps overcome resistance to change and achieves buy-in from all of the key players. There is no sense in developing a solution before the key players agree on the problem and no logic in discussing implementation before an agreement on the solution. In essence, the layers of resistance to change may be categorized as: Disagreement about the problem, disagreement about the solution and disagreement about the implementation. To achieve the desired buy-in, these three broad layers of resistance must be resolved sequentially or peeled away, just as one might peel away the layers of an onion. This concept is illustrated in Figure 1. Encouraging ownership – the key to buy-in Since fear of change is a strong emotion, how do we counter this powerful force? With logic? Goldratt plementation im he How many times have you had a good idea to improve some aspect of your organization? And when you begin to discuss it with a colleague or boss, the response is less than encouraging. "Well, I'm not sure that will work because …," or "Let me think about it and get back to you" – and they never do. The problem is that all improvement initiatives require change. And significant change in organizations is difficult. In fact, research from McKinsey & Co. reveals that roughly 70 percent of all significant change initiatives in organizations fail. And despite the proliferation of studies, theories and change management programs, the success rate has not improved. Executives know that the cost of failure is not just the wasted time, money and lost opportunity. Failed change initiatives breed cynicism, kill motivation and trigger withdrawal from involvement in future efforts. The real underlying issue is that significant change always involves uncertainty about how it will affect people. This uncertainty can lead to fear as people imagine real or perceived threats to their job status or security. And such fear often leads to resistance, sometimes fierce resistance, to the proposed change. Fear often leads to resistance, sometimes fierce resistance, to the proposed change. often mused that if you think you can overcome emotion with logic, you never have been married. So to proceed, you must overcome one strong emotion with another strong emotion. Think about past projects. The person most excited about implementing the project was the one whose idea it was. Psychological ownership is critical to generating true enthusiasm and commitment to the project. Therefore, the ideal situation is that every key player gains some psychological ownership of the project. The result would be that instead of having people build brick walls to block the initiative, people will run through brick walls to implement it. Unfortunately, such ownership among key players does not exist at a project's initial stages. A prerequisite condition to cultivating the necessary ownership is that the initiator must be willing to share ownership. That means the initiator must encourage the other key players to participate in discovering