Knowledge base Understanding resistance to change Employee resistance is often identified as a major factor in why change initiatives fail to deliver the expected value. Despite this, we often dont take the time to understand fully the cause and nature of resistance. The Made Smarter Innovation: Centre for People-Led Digitalisation is undertaking research on the subject. Here, Dr Susan Lattanzio examines resistance, and speaks to five experts about their experiences E veryone who has tried to implement change will know what it is like to encounter resistance. Resistance is often portrayed as the negative response of first-level employees, with little time or consideration given to understanding its true characteristics. This is problematic, as without a proper understanding of the cause and nature of the resistance, it can be difficult to manage. In the journey to having a deeper understanding of resistance, three points are key: Resistance is multi-dimensional arising from different areas, in response to different reasons, and presenting in different ways. Resistance is socially constructed meaning that what one person considers resistance another person may not. Resistance is not necessarily bad. New centre The new 5m Centre for People-Led Digitalisation aims to increase uptake and maximise the benefits of digital technology by understanding how people interact with them. The Centre is funded by the Made Smarter Innovation programme, delivered by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). This is part of the governments 147m investment from the UKRI Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF) to transform UK manufacturing through digital technologies. Led by the University of Bath, it is a collaboration that includes the universities of Loughborough and Nottingham, and nonacademic partners including the IAM. The multi-dimensional nature of resistance Although resistance is often attributed to ignorance, laziness, stubbornness or destructive opposition of employees, this is a simplistic view Contrary to what is often portrayed, resistance is not confined to workers or non-managers To appreciate fully the multi-dimensional nature of change, it is useful to consider three questions: ? 1. W ho resists change? Contrary to what is often portrayed, resistance is not confined to workers or non-managers. Managers at all levels and other stakeholders (unions, professional bodies, etc) may also resist change. Indeed, organisations may resist change if it is forced upon them by government or another external force. 2. W hy do people resist change? Although resistance is often attributed to ignorance, laziness, stubbornness or the destructive opposition of employees, this is a simplistic view. The academic literature has identified a multitude of reasons why people resist change, including but not limited to poor management processes and leadership, inadequate rewards, a loss of status, the additional work required to implement the change, and inertia and complacency. 3. H ow does resistance present? The academic literature proposes that responses to change operate across three interconnected dimensions cognitive, emotional, and behavioural. Cognitive responses are expressions of a positive or negative evaluation for example, I can see potential benefits to the change; I dont think that the changes made were the right changes. Emotional responses relay the feelings of those involved: When I think about this change, I feel happy; The change made me afraid that I was going to lose my job. The behavioural response is what people actually do. Behavioural responses are often presented as dichotomous: there is resistance, or there is no resistance. In reality, this is an oversimplification and, rather than an either/or response, resistance is a continuum that starts with enthusiastic support and, in terms of resistance, embraces: apathy/indifference (characterised by lack of interest and an absence of emotion); passive resistance (negative perceptions and attitudes, voicing opposing viewpoints); active resistance (voicing strong opposing views, peaceful strikes and boycotts); and aggressive resistance (spreading destructive rumours, overt blocking behaviour, violent strikes, subversion, sabotage and destruction). A number of studies support the three response dimensions. Perhaps of even more interest than the identification of the three dimensions is the discovery that, often, there is a misalignment between and within them. For example, one person may agree that the introduction of a new technology is necessary (cognitive), but they might be worried about how this will impact their job (emotional) and, as a consequence, actively resist the change (behavioural). Conversely, they may voice that the introduction of a new technology is a bad idea (cognitive), and worry about how this may change their role (emotional), but may decide not to show resistance because of the possible consequences (behavioural). Adding to this challenge is the interrelated nature of change, which can make it difficult to distinguish between opposition to the change as a whole or one aspect of it. The concept that resistance is multi-dimensional is easy to understand. That resistance is socially constructed is perhaps less obvious. Resistance as a social construct Although there are a number of different definitions of resistance to change, ultimately, assessments are based on one persons interpretation of a situation and a belief that another is in opposition. The trouble with this is that there is the opportunity for misunderstanding. For example, one person may interpret anothers comments as resistance, when, in fact, they were just trying to understand what the change entails. Alternatively, a person may show no obvious sign of resistance but, instead, become quiet or withdrawn. When dealing with different cultures, interpretations of resistance can become more problematic, as what may be commonplace and accepted behaviour in one country, can be less so in another. Resistance can be positive Although resistance to change is often constructed as negative, this may not always be the case. In some situations, resistance can be constructive in that it signals problems about the change and reflects the engagement of others. Understanding that resistance is not necessarily bad and something to be stamped out is essential when designing change strategies. For more information, or to be involved in the research being conducted within the Made Smarter Innovation: Centre for People-Led Digitalisation contact Susan Lattanzio, Research and Industry Engagement Manager. FURTHER READING: Smollan, RK, The multi-dimensional nature of resistance to change. Journal of Management & Organization, 2011. 17: p. 828849. Five industry experts share their experiences Dave Clark, Asset Management and Continuous Improvement Manager, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Working to deliver operational transformation in large organisations through digitalisation, I have come to understand that it is the people, not the technology, that require the greatest investment and produce the greatest return. If your people do not have trust in what new capabilities can deliver, along with the belief that the changes will benefit them directly, you have little hope of success. It is always critical to create a pull for change, working closely with those who deliver the organisations core functions, to come to understand their success factors and to satisfy these. The skills needed for digitalisation are not limited to any particular role. Skills for digital leadership are as important as those for digital practitioning, and are often missing in an organisation creating a situation where the technical functions are tasked with delivery of solutions. I have sat on far too many steering groups where everyone is looking at the CIO for the answers. The second area is process. Digital transformation is the perfect opportunity to redesign processes and information around outcomes. Sadly, on many occasions, current processes are merely digitised setting in IT stone the issues that have always been there in simple manual systems, but had been possible to work around. Reflect on your own situation and the tools and information you are given to use. Had enough been done to really deliver transformation? People, process, and only then technology. Doug Marsh, FIAM AMP CEnv MIWater, Technical Director, Sweco UK I have been involved with digital transformation in steel-making, the water sector, air traffic services, airports and consultancy. Resistance to change has been a common theme, but at no time have I personally seen malice, laziness or belligerence as a cause. In my experience, people fundamentally want to know why change is necessary, then they want to be asked and included where change will affect them, then test and be part of the solution. Within my current organisation, Sweco, we are involved in a wide scope of digital and sustainability solutions. To achieve this, we have a high focus on supporting our people where digital is being incorporated into career paths, including through performance reviews, and by defining digital competencies and how these apply to people in all our business functions. The people element is tough, especially so when engineers, scientists, architects, financial professionals and so on are involved, as we tend to look at technical solutions before people ones. To combat this, we have recognised that our cultural transformation is linked to our digital maturity, and, in turn, to our ability to achieve our ambition of transforming society together with our clients. Dr Kat Ibbotson, CEnv, FICE, MCIWEM Director Strategic Advisory, WSP As a leader and practitioner working towards a net-zero economy, digital transformation and uptake are key essentials to ensuring that we live, work and operate in a different environment. At present, the UK is falling behind where we need to be, even covering the use of existing technology, data accessibility and embracing a more efficient and effective way of working. In part, we recognise that this is a peoplerelated, culture and behaviour challenge. Change at any level is challenging and uncomfortable, and individual, groups and organisations react in different ways. To be better at digital transitions and uptake, we need to be better prepared from a people aspect, building trust, transparency and robustness when digital uptake is carried out and needed. Digitalisation is a cross-cutting theme, it is not related to one group, role type or organisation. This is the same for net zero there are many parallels and synergies. For me, being able to look at the people side of digitalisation is extremely important, and will serve multiple purposes, focusing on people, process and perception to enable change to effectively happen and allow technology to be embedded. Karen Alford, Flood and Coastal Risk Manager Digital Data and Information, Environment Agency It is easy to believe that digital transformation is all about technology, but its about improving the ability of people to do their job better through easy access to the right data, information, tools and technology and being prepared for future technological developments. In other words, technology is the enabler. The impact of digital transformation on my personal life has taken away many mundane tasks and provided me with the information I need to be an informed citizen. I feel empowered and have control, although this does involve an increase in personal responsibility. Construction and asset management disciplines traditionally operate within their own expert silos. Any interactions between those disciplines tend to be manual ones, leaving individuals and, indeed, sectors threatened by the opportunities to transform. Many of the technologies to transform are already in existence, which is why we desperately need to understand why, despite the benefits of digital transformation, people resistance seems to be the major challenge the industry faces. The centre will be pivotal in bringing all existing research into one place and, by working alongside the construction and asset management industries, extending and applying the knowledge to alter the human appetite for digital transformation. Derrick Dunkley, FIAM, FRSA Asset Data Life-cycle Manager, National Grid Many in our industries have experienced the corporate rollout of new IT within their organisations. The experience for many is all too similar a swift contact from a project team often furnished by enthusiastic change agents who are drive by a timeline and have limited engagement with subject matter experts. The organisational leaders are engaged with a polished set of well-prepared, over-populated slides, vague on details yet offering solutions to address all the challenges. Everything seems to have been factored in the project, including delivery time, cost and expected outcomes, yet organisations experience extensive failure of digital transformation rollouts according to a number of research reports, up to 70 per cent of digital projects fail. The reality is that many digital transformation projects do suffer resistance, especially when the human element is forgotten. Having been involved in digital transformation for more than 20 years at National Grid, I can honestly say we have evolved to ensure we place people at the heart of our digital transformation. In our experience, projects that are successful and deliver business value and the best outcomes are those that place people at the heart of the change.