Why people in your organization reject new things
Understanding complexity and willingness to change through the eyes of the individual.
Introducing new behaviours and practices in organizations are sometimes met with resistance. One reason for this is that the change collides with the identity of the individuals, specifically the social norms that define their interactions and behaviours.
In the previous article, I covered the adoption threshold; a measurement of how inclined a group is to adopt a new behaviour. In this article, we take a look at willingness to change and how peoples’ attitudes towards new behaviours and practices affect the adoption of them.
Willingness to change is a social perspective on change management for changing behaviours, skills or practices. It’s a way of understanding a team's resistance to change and how complex a change initiative will be.
I will cover three scenarios that might happen when introducing new behaviours:
The behaviour fit right in.
People will accept the behaviour but will wait for others to adopt first.
People will reject the behaviour and actively resist the change. At least at first.
Willingness to change
If the individuals in a group are not willing to change, the group will have a low willingness to change. But the groups’ willingness to change is not necessarily the sum of its parts, since people in groups affect each other in complex patterns. Patterns of willingness to change can often be traced in specific roles (e.g. project managers) who identify with each other and set expectations on how to behave. In organisations and teams with a strong culture, the behaviours might be shaped by the shared identity of its members, e.g. "we are an innovative company".
When introducing new ways of working in the organisation, we need to understand these norms and mental patterns, to detect the attitudes towards the behaviours we want to adopt. Simply put: if we understand the specific group’- willingness to make the specific change, we have a higher chance of success.
Moving on, I will outline the willingness to change on a continuum with three zones. This model is freely based upon the research on how ideas that are too far from our current mindset get rejected by groups (Berger 2020) and on the role of social norms and schemas (Bicchieri & McNally 2015) in changing behaviours.
Zone 1: The new practice is socially expected
The first zone covers behaviours and practices that are socially expected by the group. People in the team expect the behaviour and will not raise any eyebrows or think that it's strange in any way. The practice, behaviour or method is new, but it’s not that different, or it’s very different, but it’s long sought for.
Lets, for example, take Charlie, a sales associate at a local dealership. Her manager introduces a new way to store sales documents. She does that sometimes. Maybe Charlie doesn’t see the point to change, but she expects changes like this to happen once in a while, finds it to be business as usual and makes the change.
The new practice most likely requires only minor adjustments to perceived barriers and the team context and can be made without breaking any norms or conflicts with the current group identity.
Zone 2: The new practice is socially accepted (“If it works, then maybe.”)
Ways of working that fall into the second zone are considered to be socially accepted, and people might see how new practices fit their norms and identity.
Let's get back to our sales associate Charlie. Now, someone from the head office had decided to change the sales process to be more "agile" and "lean". Charlie likes it; she has always seen herself as flexible and customer-focused. However, she knows that not everyone in her role feels that way, and she approaches this with careful optimism. She waits until some of her peers adopt before she does, minimising the risk of looking foolish if the initiative fails.
Implementing a behaviour that falls into this zone is still not straightforward. It will require helping people adopt new behaviours. Most likely, the new ways of working don't conflict with current norms, but instead extends its definition and can potentially be part of the teams' identity when implemented. People in the group might not object to it, but they will only do it if enough people do it.
Zone 3: The new practice is socially rejected. - (“Not even if it works.”)
Some behaviours lie outside the groups' identity and will cause friction with the team's current social norms. They are socially rejected or deviant behaviours and might be met with attitudes like "People like me don't do things like that.". Practices that fall into this category will meet significant resistance to be adopted and pose a threat to the change initiative.
After the recent process change, the CEO for the branch Charlie is working for, communicates that from now on, the majority of customer interactions should be automated and handled online. Charlie is furious; she loves meeting and helping people; it is part of who she is and the reason she took this job in the first place. This initiative (no matter if it's great or not) is the direct opposite of that, and she decides (consciously or unconsciously) to resist this change as much as she can. Her attitude affects the rest of the team, and few of them make an effort to change.
When it comes to implementing behaviours and ways of working that have a high level of resistance and goes against the team's culture and identity, it might be easier to select another behaviour entirely or create a whole new social context, than trying to push through the change.
How to deal with willingness to change
When you understand what zone the people in the group are in, there are some techniques for moving forward. In Zone 1 and 2, the focus is on making progress and creating social proofs. While in zone 3, the focus is on scoping and framing behaviours differently.
In zone 1: make it easy
In the first zone, the practices are socially expected by the people in the team. However, there might still be issues that the solution doesn't solve the needs and wants (low perceived problem-solution fit) or barriers in the way of success ( processes, KPIs or incentives etc.).
Go ahead and implement the practice. Focus on removing barriers and making it easier for people to do the behaviour. Pay attention to people's reactions and attitudes, but focus on functional arguments and don't make a big thing out of it.
In zone 2: find evidence
In the second zone, the practices are socially accepted, but people wait until enough of their peers adopt them before they do.
Focus on evidence, providing proof that the new practice works and is socially safe doing.
There are two methods for evidencing the change. The first one is to create the perception of progress through "small wins''. When enough of small wins have been won, people that are uncertain might sway towards the new practice.
The second method is to provide social proof through multiple exposures. When people in the team see that other people have adopted the practice they might, consciously or unconsciously, start considering it. It's rarely sufficient if a single person has adopted the practice to convince these individuals. They need exposure to the behaviour from multiple peers to confirm that it works and is worth doing.
In zone 3: frame and re-frame
The third and most challenging zone is the zone of social rejection. People in this zone feel that the practice or behaviour contradicts their identity and group norms.
The easiest way around this is to pick another behaviour that leads to the same goal but is closer to the team's current identity. It's about decreasing the perceived stretch from the social norms.
If you are not able to choose another practice, try to frame the new practice as conditional and contextual. This means you take upon yourself to figure out when and where the behaviour makes sense from the individuals’ point of view.
For example: even if Charlie, the sales associate rejects the practice of automating customer interactions. She might agree that some interactions or interactions at a specific time could benefit from the method and try them out.
Sometimes the rejection of a practice is based on a few small but important symbolic components. Are there words used that alienate the group? Or parts of the practice that they have bad experience from, that you can easily replace?
Balance effort between initiatives
One of the great benefits of understanding the willingness to change is to be able to focus. Many organizations suffer from change fatigue, with endless change initiatives intertwining and overlapping each other. If willingness to change is high, maybe you can fly below the radar and not even call it change, saving some of that precious change energy for when it’s needed.
[1] Berger, Jonah. The Catalyst: How to Change Anyone's Mind. Simon & Schuster, 2020.
[2] Bicchieri, Cristina and McNally, Peter, "Shrieking Sirens - Schemata, Scripts, and Social Norms: How Change Occurs" (2015). Penn Social Norms Group (PennSoNG). 6.
