Resistance as a Resource
Dale H. Emery
www.dhemery.com
1
An Experiment
2
Three Definitions, Three Perspectives
Resistance is any response that I don!t like. From this perspective, it is the change agent!s likes and
dislikes that determine whether a response is resistance. Though we change agents don!t admit that this is
what we mean by resistance, we often act as if this is what we mean.
Resistance is any force that opposes change. In this perspective, what makes someone!s response
resistance is that it opposes some change. This definition puts the change itself front and center. On the
surface, this is a more neutral view of resistance. But when we change agents use this definition of
resistance, we often wield it with the assumption that the change is good, and therefore the resistance is
bad.
Resistance is any response that maintains the status quo. The focus here, the standard by which we
determine whether a response is resistance, is the effect of the response with relation to the status quo.
This definition acknowledges the intentions of the person who is resisting: they are trying to preserve
something that matters to them.
Examples of Resistance
What I want the person to do:
What the person is doing or saying:
3
What you want the person to do. Describe the specific, concrete actions that you want the person to do.
Try to describe what you want in sensory terms: What would you see and hear that lets you know that the
person is doing what you want? Be as specific as you can.
What the person is doing or saying. Try to describe the person!s words or actions in sensory terms: What
do you see them doing or hear them saying?
It can be tempting here to describe the person!s thoughts or feelings or attitude: “They!re afraid to try
something new” or “they think it!s a bad idea.” Try to avoid mindreading here. Instead, focus on what you
seem them doing or hear them saying.
Realities of Resistance
Resistance
=
Control + Differing Points of View
The Harsh Reality of Resistance
You can not control the other person
The Hopeful Reality of Resistance
You can sometimes change a point of view
4
Control and differing points of view. If I!m getting resistance, then I can count on two things being true.
First, the other person is in control of whether to do what I ask. Second, their point of view about the change
differs from mine.
The Harsh Reality of Resistance. I cannot make another person do anything. People always decide for
themselves how they will respond to my proposals, my requests, and even my demands. What's more, no
matter how brilliant my ideas, people always choose their responses based on their own point of view and
not on mine.
The Hopeful Reality of Resistance. I can sometimes change a point of view — either my own or someone
else's. Sometimes I can influence a person to accept my point of view and to do what I ask. Sometimes I
learn something new, adopt the other person's point of view, and drop my request. Sometimes, as I work to
understand the other person, the two of us end up at a third point of view, different from where either of us
started, and we both change in ways we hadn't expected. In each case, the resistance has vanished.
Resolving Resistance
To resolve resistance
The first step:
Understand the other person
Turn up
your curiosity and empathy!
5
Build a Shared Point of View
If you want to resolve resistance, you must build mutually compatible points of view with the people who are
not doing what you ask. You might attempt this by redoubling your effort to persuade, by trying to explain
your viewpoint so clearly, so brilliantly, and so convincingly that the other person is won over. Unfortunately,
there are problems with this method. One is that it requires you to know what information the person would
find clear, brilliant, and convincing. Another is that people are not always open to being convinced.
A more reliable method — the key to resolving resistance — is to become curious about the other person!s
point of view, and empathetic to their needs.
Overcoming Resistance versus Resolving Resistance
This presentation is not about how to overcome resistance. Striving to overcome resistance means holding
tightly onto your perspective. The tighter you hold, the less you learn about the other person!s perspective.
The less you understand the other person, the less hope you have of changing their mind. And the less
hope you have of learning whatever wisdom their perspective can provide.
My approach is not to overcome resistance, but to resolve it. To resolve resistance, I must be willing to
change my own perspective.
Your Reasons
Think of a time
someone asked you to do something
and you chose not to do it
What were your reasons?
Think of a time
someone asked you to do something
and you chose to do it
What were your reasons?
6
What I!m asking for here are not reasons that someone might have for accepting or rejecting a request, but
real examples of your reasons from your experience.
What Factors Affect Resistance?
Motivations about the change
Communication about the change
Your relationship
The organizational environment
7
Four Factors that Affect Resistance
I have asked hundreds of people about their reasons for doing or not doing something that another person
had asked them to do. From their answers, I have identified four broad factors that affect how people decide
whether or not to do what another person asks:
•
Motivations about the change
•
Communication about the change
•
The relationship with the person making the request
•
Influences from the environment
Resistance as a Resource
Resistance always carries information …
… about motivations, communication,
relationships, and environment
This information
is a valuable resource
to guide your next steps
8
Resistance as a Resource
A great way to learn about someone!s point of view about a change is to explore their responses —
especially the responses that strike you as resistance. Every response carries valuable information, clues
about the person, about the environment around you, about your request, or about yourself. Treat each
response as a precious resource.
Clues About the Four Factors
The way people respond to your requests gives you clues to what people are thinking and feeling about the
four resistance factors—motivations, communication, relationship, and environment. If you can interpret
these clues, they can give you new options for resolving resistance. You just might end up with an outcome
even better than what you were asking for.
Interpreting the Clues
Let!s take a look at each of the four resistance factors. We!ll explore what makes each factor important, how
to interpret resistance for clues about each factor, and how those clues can give ideas for resolving
resistance.
Why Motivation Matters
The Broccoli Principle
If they won!t eat it,
it doesn!t matter
how healthy it is
9
Broccoli is healthy. You want your kids to be healthy, so you want them to eat broccoli. Unfortunately, your
kids won't eat broccoli. It tastes oogie. It looks wicked gross. And George H. W. Bush made it okay to just
say no to the stuff.
All of that healthy broccoli is of little use if it stays on the plate. That's The Broccoli Principle: It doesn't
matter how healthy it is if they won't eat it.
The Broccoli Principle applies to your proposals, too, and not just to yucky healthy food. No matter how
beneficial you perceive your proposal to be, your impeccable idea will produce little value if people won't
adopt it. And people will adopt or reject your proposal for their reasons, not for yours.
If you want people to adopt your proposals, understand their reasons—that is, their values and expectations
—and relate your proposal to their reasons.
The MARV Model of Motivation
Motivation comes from expectations about:
! Ability: Can I do it?
! Results: What will happen?
! Value: Do I want that?
Motivation
=
Ability x Results x Value
10
The MARV Model of Motivation
•
People will do anything if:
•
They believe they are able
•
They believe they have a reasonably clear idea of what the results will be
•
On balance, they want the results they expect
Each factor is important. If people are convinced that they will not be able to do a given action, they will be
less likely to try, even if they would enjoy succeeding. If they have no idea what might happen, they will be
less likely to try, even if they believe they are able. If they don't want the results they expect, they will be less
likely to do the action, even if they believe they are able.
Not Quite Math
Motivation = Ability " Results " Value.
Don't take this "equation" seriously as being mathematically precise. I use it only as a handy summary of
my Motivation Model. Each factor (confidence in ability, certainty about what will happen, strength of
preference) can be high or low. If any factor is near zero, motivation will be low. And values have not
only magnitude but also valence (or sign)—we may be attracted to a given result (positive valence) or
averse to it (negative valence).
Responses Tell You About Motivations
• People!s responses give
you information about
! Their ability to do what
you ask
! The results they expect
! Their needs
! The gains and losses
they expect
11
Responses about Ability
•
“I don!t know how to do that.”
Responses about Expected Results
•
“It wouldn't work in our environment”
•
“It's not going to help us ”
•
“It takes too long ”
Responses about Value
•
“ Don't tell the testers too much; they'll use it against us”
•
“Why do testers need to know that anyway? ”
•
“I don't get paid enough ”
•
“It takes too long”
•
“I didn!t want dishpan hands”
Working with Expectations about Ability
Offer training and practice
Try it first in a safe environment
Break your request into pieces
and ask for a small step
Offer a small taste
12
My friend Louise invited me many times to go sport kayaking, navigating white water rapids in a one-person
rubber raft called a "duckie." For years, I declined, fearing that I did not have the skill I would need. One day
Louise told me about a company that offered a sport kayaking package for beginners that included training,
life vests, and three expert guides to accompany a group of beginners down an exciting but relatively mild
river. I was intrigued. At long last, I accepted Louise's invitation.
The expert guides strapped us into seemingly unsinkable life vests, showed us to our duckies, and trained
us briefly. Then we set off down the river. Several times during the day, I fell out of my duckie and did a little
freestyle white water swimming. By the end of the day, I was shooting the rapids with at least a little skill,
and I yelled with exhilaration as I splashed through the longest, most treacherous rapids at the end of the
course.
I had declined Louise's invitations for so long not because I was unable to survive the rapids, but because I
had feared I would be unable. My reluctance had come not from my actual ability, but from my expectations
about my ability.
What changed my mind?
Louise offered me training on sport kayaking. The company trained people who, like me, were complete
novices. Part of the training was practice. We practiced on a very small patch of barely moving rapids,
which would give me a small taste before deciding whether to set off down the river.
This trip was designed for beginners. It was on a relatively mild river, which means that it would be a
relatively safe environment for my first experience with sport kayaking. And accompanying us would be
three expert white-water guides, which meant that even if we got into trouble, help would be nearby.
Working with Expectations about Results
Acknowledge each point of agreement
Negotiate ways to test differing expectations
Acknowledge your own doubts
Adjust your expectations
Adjust your request
Offer new information
13
Acknowledge each point of agreement. Often we tend to focus on our points of disagreement. This can
give the impression that we disagree more than we do. Make a point of acknowledging the expectations you
agree with.
Negotiate ways to test differing expectations. My colleague William Pietri says, “When the world knows
something that people disagree about, it's worth asking the world.” Can you run a small experiment or two
that would help sort out which expectations are warranted?
Acknowledge your doubts. Do you have any doubts about the change you are promoting? If so,
acknowledge those. This can increase your credibility.
Adjust your expectations. As you talk with the other person and learn more about their abilities,
expectations, and values, adjust your own expectations based on what you learn. And as you update your
thinking, let the other person know.
Adjust your request. Given what you!re learning through conversation with the other person, does your
request still make sense? If not adjust it accordingly.
Offer new information. This is often the approach of first resort for change agents. I recommend offering
new information only after you!ve heard the other person fully, and after they feel heard. Only then will they
be able to hear your new information.
Working with Value
Acknowledge their concerns
Ask The Value Question:
If you had that, what would that do for you?
Adjust your request to address the concern
14
People resist loss. Change artist William Bridges says, “People don!t resist change, they resist loss.” If
people are resisting, then you know there is something they value, something of concern to them, that they
expect to lose.
So listen carefully for any signs of what losses the person expects. Find out what is of concern for the
person.
Acknowledge their concerns. If people believe that you don!t care about their needs, they will be less
likely to listen cleanly to your ideas. So when people express their concerns, acknowledge them. You don!t
have to agree that the person will suffer a loss (see the next slide), but you must let the person know that
you have heard and understood their concern.
The Value Question. If you don!t what makes some concern that the person has expressed, you can ask
The Value Question: “If you had that, what would that do for you that is important to you?” The answer tells
you about the concern behind the concern.
Adjust your request. Can you adjust your request so that it avoids the loss that the person expects?
Attend to Losses and Gains
Always
Acknowledge the loss
Look for ways to
Show a gain
Prevent the loss
Restore the value
Compensate with some other value
Limit the loss
15
Acknowledge the loss. If there will be a loss, acknowledge it. Be careful not to dismiss the loss as you
acknowledge it. For example, do not say, "Yes, this costs money, but it will also save time." Instead, say,
"Yes, this will cost money," and stop. That way, people are more likely to understand that you hear what they
are telling you and that you are not deaf to their concerns. Once people know that you have heard them, you
can talk about some of the following ways to deal with the loss.
Show a gain instead of a loss. If managers fear that Extreme Programming may decrease their control,
can you show that it might instead increase their control? If people fear that code reviews would delay
product delivery, can you show that they would more likely speed delivery?
Prevent the loss. Can you upgrade the company's e-mail servers on the weekend, when fewer people will
be affected by the down time?
Restore the value after the initial loss. Can you show how time spent now on design reviews will be
repaid by time saved later?
Compensate the loss with some other value. Can you show that even if another week of testing means
delaying revenue, the reduced support cost will more than compensate?
Limit the loss. Can you upgrade only one team to the new development environment, and have that team
bring others up to speed with a shorter learning curve?
Why Communication Matters
To respond effectively
you must understand the other person
To understand
you must communicate effectively
People who understand you
are more likely
to respond to your real intentions
16
Do they understand you?
If people don!t understand what you are asking them to do, they are less likely to do what you want. So: Do
they understand what you are asking? How do you know? How can you find out?
Do you understand them?
You can respond effectively to resistance only if you understand what the person is trying to tell you.
So rather than quickly concluding, “Oh yes, of course I understand them,” pause and check your
communication. How do you know you understand them? How could you find out?
The Satir Interaction Model
Information
Intake
Meaning
Experience
(Stories)
Significance
Response
see, hear, smell,
touch, taste
Interpretation
feelings, needs
defenses, rules for
commenting,
words, behaviors
17
Intake. My internal communication process begins with Intake. Through my five senses, I become aware of
the messages that some person is sending to me through words, gestures, tone of voice, facial expressions,
or other means.
Meaning. My next step is to interpret the message. I give the message a meaning, based partly on
information present in the message itself, and partly on information from my own experience.
Significance. Now that I have interpreted the message, I next assign it a significance. I create a feeling —
happy, hurt, angry, afraid, proud, or any of a thousand emotions — that indicates how the message affects
the things I care about. The strength of the feeling signifies the size of the effect. The pleasantness or
unpleasantness of the feeling signifies whether that effect is good or bad.
In this step, as in the Meaning step, I add a lot of information. The significance I assign comes not just from
the message, but also from the relationship of the message to my goals, concerns, feelings, values, past
experiences, and information about what is happening around me.
Response. Based on the message I've received, the meaning I've made, and the significance I've
assigned, I start thinking of possible responses. I filter these responses through whatever rules I have about
what is okay or not okay to say. Finally, I respond by doing or saying something.
For more information, see [Satir 1991] and [Weinberg 1993].
Test Your Intake
Ask yourself
The Data Question
What did I see and hear?
Is that what the person said or did?
Ask!
“Did you say …?”
18
An Intake Error
Here's an example of how Intake can go wrong. Jennifer, a tester, has spent three days testing the new
customer contact database. She finished the testing, and sent her test report to Robert, the test manager.
The next day, Robert called Jennifer, furious. "You wasted three days testing the contact database? We
tested that already! I told you to test the contract database!"
Test your Intake
When your communications get tangled, first make sure you are getting the Intake right. Ask yourself, "What
did I see and hear?" Then validate your answer with the other person. "Did you say to test the contact
database or the contract database?“
Test the other person!s Intake
When others respond to you in a puzzling way, it may help to check their Intake. You might say, "I'm not sure
what you heard me say," and ask them to paraphrase it back to you.
For more information, see [Weinberg 1993].
Test Your Meaning
Apply
The Rule of Three Interpretations
What are three different interpretations
of what I saw and heard?
Which interpretation (if any)
did the person mean?
Ask!
“Do you mean …?”
19
Think of three meanings
A helpful principle for testing meaning is Jerry Weinberg's Rule of Three Interpretations: If I can't think of at
least three different interpretations of what I received, I haven't thought enough about what it might mean.
Before responding to any one meaning, think of at least two other possible meanings.
Ask
The Rule of Three Interpretations guide you to identify possible meanings. It isn!t about mindreading. The
person may have intended any of the three meanings you though of, or might have meant something else
altogether.
So once you have identified a number of possible meanings, test them. The simplest way is to tell the
sender what meaning you made, and ask whether you got it right.
For more information, see [Weinberg 1993].
Test Your Presuppositions
Apply
a Presupposition Probe
In order for this statement to be true,
what else would have to be true?
Under what circumstances would it be true?
In order for me to believe that,
what else would I have to believe?
20
Miller!s Law
Another helpful communication principle is Miller's Law, which says, "To understand what another person is
saying, you have to assume that it is true and try to imagine what it might be true of.“
Presupposition Probes
To apply Miller's Law, ask yourself, "If what the person said were true, what else would have to be true?
Under what circumstances would it be true? In order for me to believe that, what else would I have to
believe?“
I call these questions presupposition probes, because the answers you get are presuppositions—the
unstated, but implied, meanings in the message. Identifying the presuppositions helps you to fill in the
information that the sender left out of the message.
Ask
As with the other communication techniques, presupposition probes give only possibilities about what the
person meant. Once you!ve identified some presuppositions in the person!s words, check them out. “Do
you mean …?”
For more information, see [Elgin 1995].
Communicate for Learning
Dialogue
The free flow of meaning
between two or more people
Fill the pool of shared meaning
Talk about similarities and differences
21
Our Pool of Personal Meaning
Each of us enters conversations with our own personal pool of meaning—or beliefs, values, desires, and
thoughts. And each person!s pool of personal meaning differs from those of others in the conversation.
The Pool of Shared Meaning
If you want to resolve resistance (or any other kind of conflict), one useful approach is to fill the pool of
shared meaning. Fully express your meaning in a way that the other person can hear. Invite the other
person!s meaning, and make it safe for the other person to express their meaning fully.
Similarities and Differences
Filling the pool of shared meaning is not about sorting out who is right and who is wrong. Instead, focus on
where your meanings are similar and where they differ. It can help to start with an area of agreement, then
expand the conversation to include differences.
For more information, see [Patterson 2002]
Why Relationships Matter
Your relationship enters the room before you do
Our relationships
affect how we listen, interpret, and respond
to each other
22
Resistance and Relationships
Every time I ask a group of people their reasons for accepting or rejecting another!s request, some of the
most powerful reasons are about the relationship between the person asking and the person being asked.
For example:
•
I understood how important it was to the person
•
I trusted the person!s judgment
•
I liked the person
•
Didn!t want requester to look good
•
Didn!t want to set a precedent for being a pushover
Your relationship enters the room before you do
Clearly, as these examples indicate, our relationships affect how we interpret and respond to each other!s
behavior. People who trust and respect you are more likely to listen, understand, and respond as you ask.
You are more likely to attend to the needs of people you trust and respect. These factors greatly influence
your prospect of resolving resistance.
Relationships and Safety
When people feel unsafe
they respond by
forcing or withholding
Forcing or withholding
may mean
“I don!t feel safe”
Two conditions for safety
Mutual purpose
Mutual respect
23
Withholding. People sometimes willfully withhold meaning from the pool of shared meaning. People
withhold when they don!t feel safe putting their meaning into the pool. Withholding can take such forms as
placating, sarcasm, avoiding sensitive subjects, or withdrawing from the conversation entirely.
Forcing. People may try to force their meaning into the pool and others! meaning out. Forcing can take
such blatant forms as name calling and insulting, and more subtle forms such as overstating facts, speaking
in absolutes, or “leading” questions.
Safety. People force or withhold when they do not feel safe creating a pool of shared meaning. If people do
not feel safe, your relationship likely lacks one of two key safety conditions: mutual purpose and mutual
respect.
Mutual Purpose and Mutual Respect. The next four slides give ideas about how to increase mutual
purpose and mutual respect.
For more information, see [Patterson 2002]
Relationships and Listening
Test for listening
To what extent
am I willing to be changed
by the conversation?
Test for understanding
The other person says
“Yes, that!s what I mean”
Test for listening fully
Ask, “Is there more?”
24
Why Listening Matters. You can move forward only when the other person feels fully heard and
understood. The test is not whether I think I!ve heard and understood, but whether the other person feels
heard and understood.
Test for Listening. In any situation in which listening is especially important, my first goal is to make sure I
am prepared to listen. To test how well I am prepared to listen, I ask myself, "To what extent am I willing to
be changed?“ If I enter a conversation intent on persuading the other person to my point of view, unwilling
to change my own point of view, I limit my ability to listen.
Test for Understanding. To test my understanding, I say what meaning I'm making of the person's words
and behaviors, then ask "Is that what you mean?" If the person replies, "Yes, that's what I mean," I've
understood. If not, I haven't.
Test for Listening Fully. To test whether I have listened fully, I ask, "Is there more that you want to say?"
Sometimes the person has more to say, and says it. I use the "test for understanding" to make sure I've
understood the new information and how it fits with what the person said earlier. Then I ask again, "Is there
more?" When the person says, "No, there's no more I want to say," I've listened fully.
Relationships and Listening Fully. Listening fully can be a big step toward repairing a damaged
relationship. Listening fully can build mutual respect, and give you the information you need to build mutual
purpose, and can therefore build safety in the relationship.
Relationships and Empathy
Before persuading, empathize
Focus on needs
Treat forcing and withholding
as requests for empathy
Invite empathy
25
Focus on needs. “No” indicates an unmet need. Listen carefully for any expression of needs, especially
for expectations of loss. Then acknowledge the person!s concerns.
Before persuading, empathize. Acknowledge the other person!s concerns. “It sounds as if delivering on
time is really important to you. Is that right?” Then stop and wait for confirmation or further information.
Requests for empathy. Silence and violence indicate unmet needs. Treat them as requests for empathy.
Seek agreement on needs. Do you share the need that the other person is expressing? If so, clearly
express your own commitment to the need. If not, you may need to ask The Value Question to identify a
deeper concern that you do agree with.
Relate expectations to needs. Once you have agreement on needs, then talk about how your request and
their response related to the shared needs.
Invite empathy. Express your own needs, and ask whether they are a concern for the other person.
Relationships and Generosity
Interpret Responses Generously
What might lead an
intelligent, competent, sincere, well-meaning person
to respond that way?
26
Generous Interpretations. If you find yourself attributing the person!s response to some unflattering
personal characteristic. Maybe you imagine they!re responding that way because they are stupid, or
incompetent, or uncaring. If you find yourself making such ungenerous interpretation, stop and find a more
generous interpretation.
Can you think of a reason that an intelligent, competent, sincere, well-meaning person might respond in that
way to your request?
The Danger of Ungenerous Interpretations. What if you just can!t bring yourself to see the other person
as intelligent, competent, sincere, and well-meaning? What if, for example, you are certain that the person
is incompetent? Then one of two things is true:
•
You!re right, and the person truly is incompetent. In this case, congratulate yourself for your
perception, and then notice this: You are asking the person to do something you don!t think they can
do. This is not a high-payoff strategy, so stop it.
•
You!re mistaken, and the person is actually competent. In this case, your judgment of incompetence
is unwarranted, and is very surely distorting your understanding of their response and their intentions,
keeping you from learning the very information you need to make progress. Again, this is not a highpayoff strategy.
Find a generous interpretation. Do everything you can to give the person!s response a generous
interpretation. An ungenerous interpretation blocks you from making progress. It is only with a generous
interpretation that you have any hope for resolving resistance.
Relationships and Stories
Story
The stuff we bring into the room
that isn!t happening here and now
To change your relationship
change your story
Three stories
My story, your story, the third story
27
Story
Story is all of the stuff we bring into the room that isn!t happening here and now—all of our beliefs and
judgments and expectations, good or bad, about ourselves, the other person, and our history and
relationship. The way we tell the story greatly influences what is possible in the conversation.
The hero and the villain
In the story we change agents tell ourselves about resistance, we!re always the good guys. The “resisters”
are always the bad guys. We may not come right out and say it, or even think it, in such blatant terms, but
below the surface we are making such judgments, and they are influencing our behaviors and our
interpretations.
Three Stories
My story. We already know our story about this change and this resistance. But how would other people
tell the story? In particular
Your story. What if the other person told the story of this resistance? What judgments would they make
about our behaviors and intentions? About their own? Try telling the story from the other person!s point of
view, and notice how it differs from your story. Then ask the other person to tell the story.
The third story. How would a neutral third person tell the story? Try telling the story with only description
and no judgment of any kind about either party!s behavior or intentions. How does this story differ from
yours? From the other person!s?
Why Environment Matters
The Formal
Organization
The Informal
Organization
Technology
Physical Setting
28
Why Environment Matters
The environment can
•
Expand or limit what is possible
•
Support or hinder your change
•
Expand or limit people!s expectations about what is possible.
Limiting Possibilities. If every expense over $25 needs the CEO!s approval, that limits the kinds of
change people can make.
Hindering Possibilities. If people are always working under urgent, high-pressure deadlines, they are less
likely to have time for whatever learning curve your idea requires. Even though it would be possible for them
to take the time to learn your idea, the environment hinders that.
Lowered Expectations. If people are discouraged or cynical, that!s a sign that something in the
organization environment has lowered their expectations about what is possible. Your change might be
possible in the organization, but people don!t believe it is possible.
For more information, see [Porras 1987].
The Formal Organization
Mission, vision, purpose
Goals
Strategies
Formal structure
Administrative policies
and procedures
Formal reward systems
29
I once worked for a large, successful company that made computer hardware and software. The company!s
policy was that it would run on its own hardware and software, not on products made by competitors. This
allowed the company to be a showcase for its own products.
The company issued a new policy: The company would now run on its beta hardware and software. This
would allow product teams to get early, relevant beta feedback from real use of its products.
After a few months, the organization noticed that its system administrators were still running the company on
released products, and not on beta versions. In some cases, the administrators were not even using the
most recent releases, but older versions of the company!s products.
I was asked to investigate: Why were administrators resisting company policy?
I quickly learned the answer. System administrators! pay was based on quarterly performance ratings. The
primary factor in those ratings was system uptime. Installing any equipment or software, whether released
or beta versions, required downtime. Running beta products increased the risk of even more downtime.
The system administrators, caught between conflicting priorities, chose the policy that affected them most
directly.
For more information about the influence of the formal organization see [Porras 1987]. Porras uses the
term “Organizational Arrangements” instead of “The Formal Organization.”
The Informal Organization
Culture
Interaction processes
(interpersonal, group,
intergroup)
Social patterns and
networks
People!s attitudes,
beliefs, values, skills,
feelings, knowledge
30
I once worked for a company that manufactured CAD/CAM systems. The product included a number of
printed circuit boards, also manufactured by the company. The PC boards passed through a series of
inspections and tests before being combined into the final product. I wrote software to track the results of
those inspections and tests, to spot problems in the equipment and processes by which we manufactured
the PC boards.
The company ran into financial trouble and closed the plant where I worked. Several months later I was
invited by one of the other plants to help them understand why the software was no longer identifying
problems.
I learned that inspectors sometimes overlooked certain kinds of defects that were detected only later during
the testing process. The managers had had the software modified to report such instances. From these
reports they identified “good” inspectors and “bad” inspectors.
Inspectors and testers learned of these reports. Testers learned that if they reported certain kinds of
defects, the inspectors—who were their friends—would get in trouble. So instead of reporting the defects,
they corrected the defects without reporting them. As a result, managers could no longer rely on the
program!s reports to identify problems in the processes and equipment.
For more information about the influence of the informal organization see [Porras 1987]. Porras uses the
term “Social Factors” instead of “The Informal Organization.”
Working with the Environment
Adjust the environment
Remove obstacles, add resources
Tap existing resources in helpful ways
Find one small step that is possible
Adjust your request
31
Adjust the environment. If the environment prevents, hinders, or discourages your change, you may be
able to adjust the environment. You many need to set your change project aside temporarily as you focus
on creating a more supportive environment.
Formal structures. Are there policies or reward systems that could be adjusted to accommodate your
change?
Social factors. Can you make use of existing social structures in the organization? For example, are there
influential people in the organization that you could persuade, who could then influence others?
Obstacles. What obstacles does the environment pose? Can you remove them?
Resources. What additional resources does your change require? Can you provide them, or arrange for
them?
One small step. If the environment prevents or discourages people from adopting all of your change, can
you find at least one small thing that people can do even in the current environment?
Adjust your request. If you can!t change the environment to support your change, or find some partial step
that people can take in the current environment, you will have to adapt to the environment. What is possible
in this environment?
For More Information
Dale H. Emery
www.dhemery.com
32
References
Elgin, Suzette Haden. BusinessSpeak. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
Emery, Dale H. Conversations with Dale (weblog). http://cwd.dhemery.com
Emery, Dale H. “Resistance as a Resource.” http://dhemery.com/articles/resistance_as_a_resource
Patterson, Kerry et al. Crucial Conversations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Porras, Jerry I. Stream Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987.
Satir, Virginia et al. The Satir Model. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, 1991.
Weinberg, Gerald M. Quality Software Management Volume 2: First-Order Measurement. New York:
Dorset House Publishing, 1993.