REPRINT H009FRPUBLISHED ON HBR.ORGSEPTEMBER 25, 2012

ARTICLECHANGE MANAGEMENTTen Reasons PeopleResist Changeby Rosabeth Moss Kanter

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Ten Reasons People ResistChangeby Rosabeth Moss KanterSEPTEMBER 25, 2012

Leadership is about change, but what is a leader to do when faced with ubiquitous resistance?Resistance to change manifests itself in many ways, from foot-dragging and inertia to petty sabotageto outright rebellions. The best tool for leaders of change is to understand the predictable, universalsources of resistance in each situation and then strategize around them. Here are the ten I’ve foundto be the most common.

Loss of control. Change interferes with autonomy and can make people feel that they’ve lost controlover their territory. It’s not just political, as in who has the power. Our sense of self-determination isoften the first things to go when faced with a potential change coming from someone else. Smartleaders leave room for those affected by change to make choices. They invite others into theplanning, giving them ownership.

Excess uncertainty. If change feels like walking off a cliff blindfolded, then people will reject it.People will often prefer to remain mired in misery than to head toward an unknown. As the sayinggoes, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.” To overcome inertia requires asense of safety as well as an inspiring vision. Leaders should create certainty of process, with clear,simple steps and timetables.

Surprise, surprise! Decisions imposed on people suddenly, with no time to get used to the idea orprepare for the consequences, are generally resisted. It’s always easier to say No than to say Yes.Leaders should avoid the temptation to craft changes in secret and then announce them all at once.It’s better to plant seeds — that is, to sprinkle hints of what might be coming and seek input.

Everything seems different. Change is meant to bring something different, but how different? We arecreatures of habit. Routines become automatic, but change jolts us into consciousness, sometimes in

2

uncomfortable ways. Too many differences can be distracting or confusing. Leaders should try tominimize the number of unrelated differences introduced by a central change. Wherever possiblekeep things familiar. Remain focused on the important things; avoid change for the sake of change.

Loss of face. By definition, change is a departure from the past. Those people associated with the lastversion — the one that didn’t work, or the one that’s being superseded — are likely to be defensiveabout it. When change involves a big shift of strategic direction, the people responsible for theprevious direction dread the perception that they must have been wrong. Leaders can help peoplemaintain dignity by celebrating those elements of the past that are worth honoring, and making itclear that the world has changed. That makes it easier to let go and move on.

Concerns about competence. Can I do it? Change is resisted when it makes people feel stupid. Theymight express skepticism about whether the new software version will work or whether digitaljournalism is really an improvement, but down deep they are worried that their skills will beobsolete. Leaders should over-invest in structural reassurance, providing abundant information,education, training, mentors, and support systems. A period of overlap, running two systemssimultaneously, helps ease transitions.

More work. Here is a universal challenge. Change is indeed more work. Those closest to the change interms of designing and testing it are often overloaded, in part because of the inevitable unanticipatedglitches in the middle of change, per “Kanter’s Law” that “everything can look like a failure in themiddle.” Leaders should acknowledge the hard work of change by allowing some people to focusexclusively on it, or adding extra perqs for participants (meals? valet parking? massages?). Theyshould reward and recognize participants — and their families, too, who often make unseensacrifices.

Ripple effects. Like tossing a pebble into a pond, change creates ripples, reaching distant spots inever-widening circles. The ripples disrupt other departments, important customers, people welloutside the venture or neighborhood, and they start to push back, rebelling against changes they hadnothing to do with that interfere with their own activities. Leaders should enlarge the circle ofstakeholders. They must consider all affected parties, however distant, and work with them tominimize disruption.

Past resentments. The ghosts of the past are always lying in wait to haunt us. As long as everything issteady state, they remain out of sight. But the minute you need cooperation for something new ordifferent, the ghosts spring into action. Old wounds reopen, historic resentments are remembered —sometimes going back many generations. Leaders should consider gestures to heal the past beforesailing into the future.

Sometimes the threat is real. Now we get to true pain and politics. Change is resisted because it canhurt. When new technologies displace old ones, jobs can be lost; prices can be cut; investments canbe wiped out. The best thing leaders can do when the changes they seek pose significant threat is to

3

be honest, transparent, fast, and fair. For example, one big layoff with strong transition assistance isbetter than successive waves of cuts.

Although leaders can’t always make people feel comfortable with change, they can minimizediscomfort. Diagnosing the sources of resistance is the first step toward good solutions. And feedbackfrom resistors can even be helpful in improving the process of gaining acceptance for change.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s latest book is MOVE: Putting America’s Infrastructure Back in the Lead. She is a professor atHarvard Business School and chair and director of the Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative. Follow her on Facebookand Twitter @RosabethKanter.

4