Davila, Epstein and Shelton stated, “Innovation is a survival issue,” yet often the response to organizational change initiatives are antibodies that slow and eliminate innovation and work against the very things that will allow for survival. Wheatley states, “It’s a paradox: a living organism needs to grow and adapt, yet is resistant to anything that challenges the status quo.” Some consider this self-preservation behavior as merely being intellectually conservative, yet others consider it foolhardy and dangerous. Gary Hamel stated, “I don’t believe any organization should be protected from its own stupidity. If you can’t adapt, you’re going to die.” In a recent blog, I used the term “CAVE people – those who are Constantly Against Virtually Everything.” I discussed this within the context of organizations that refuse to look beyond their current circumstance and fail to sufficiently plan for the future. It can be stressed that planning is a critical trait of organizations that will survive and that the planning must be deeply creative and innovative. However, people must first be willing to be open to changing how things function, and then be willing to embrace the changes and actually do things differently. It’s one thing to say that things need to change, it’s quite another to really do it. Organizations are filled with people who do lip service when initiatives are introduced, but when the rubber meets the road, hold onto their false security of personal preferences that cripple the change efforts and jeopardize the organization’s future.
Resistance to change and innovation antibodies are not new and can be documented throughout history, as well as scholars’ and practitioners’ solutions to the problem. In the most recent generation, Dainty spoke of the importance of helping people to understand the why, what, and how of change that will affect all stakeholders, while Marshak outlined a covert process of dealing with the concealed and irrational factors that lie below the surface of resistance to change. Kegan and Lahey referred to this resistance as the “immunity to change.” Things which changing organizations can use to neutralize antibodies is to continually remind the people of their shared mission, honor their shared heritage, and enthusiastically celebrate their shared accomplishments as they occur.
I have found that if people are “all in” towards the shared mission of the organization, resistance and immunity to change lessens. Change is hard for everyone, even when the changes are agreed to be necessary for organizational survival, but the difficulty can be successfully diluted by focusing on why the effort is necessary, and especially the benefits which will come because of it. Next, it is uber important that leaders honor and respect the shared heritage in an organization. Regardless of current difficulties, organizations have undoubtedly done some things right. It is important for the leaders to remember that good people may have sacrificed a great deal just to keep an organization afloat and that their service must be honored. Finally, the celebration of new accomplishments always helps to neutralize the anxiety of change. As things improve and as an organization is returned to good health, large and small wins along the way should be celebrated. Even the smallest improvement should be noticed and cheered for. People gain a tremendous amount of optimism for the future when they receive recognition and gratitude from their leader. When we cheer on our team, honor the past contributions, and remind people of why we’re doing this in the first place, change antibodies are neutralized and CAVE people are compelled to venture out of the darkness and into the light of a promising future.
Lead well.