When the team pushes back, it is usually right

Resistance is the visible reaction to a change that someone does not understand, does not want or cannot manage. Those are three very different causes, and they need three different answers. Whoever lumps them together and says "the people just don't want to" has stopped leading.

Not understanding means: the person does not know why something should change, or does not see the connection to the whole. Not wanting means: the person sees a loss for themselves, of influence, of routine, of standing, of security. Not being able means: the person lacks a skill, a tool, time or backing.

The ADKAR model describes these stages as awareness, desire, knowledge, ability and reinforcement. I use it less as a method than as a question: at which stage is this person stuck right now? The answer decides whether you need to explain, negotiate or enable.

Resistance rarely shows itself as an open no. In plants and offices I mainly encounter these forms:

• Loud objection: someone argues openly against it, often with experience from earlier programmes. Uncomfortable, but the most honest form. Here you have a counterpart.
• Silent agreement: everyone nods, nothing happens. The most dangerous form, because it looks like success until you go to the line.
• Over-compliance: the team follows the new procedure so literally that it fails. "We only did what you said."
• The detour via third parties: the works council, the boss, the neighbouring department are brought in instead of talking to you.

A plant with several assembly lines wanted to standardise the shift handover. The shift leaders had agreed in the meeting. Two weeks later the handover logs were filled in, but always only after the shift, retrospectively, from memory. Formally fulfilled, worthless in substance. Only in conversation on the line did it come out: the template did not fit the sequence at shift change, and nobody had dared to say so.

The reflex is understandable: you are right, the matter is important, so you push it through. That works exactly as long as you are standing next to it. Behaviour that only takes place under observation is not a new standard, but theatre. And people remember that their objections were not wanted. At the next initiative they no longer voice them at all.

On top of that comes a second effect. Whoever gives in under pressure feels like a loser. Losers look for an opportunity to be proved right. Every small error in the new procedure becomes proof: "See, it didn't work." You are then no longer fighting resistance, but an interest in failure.

Kotter describes the first step of every change as creating a sense of urgency. That is often misunderstood as pressure from above. Something else is meant: those involved should see for themselves why it cannot go on like this. Urgency that you only get told about remains the boss's urgency.

Before I respond to resistance, I ask myself three questions. They cost a few minutes and save months.

First: what does this person lose if the initiative comes? There is almost always a real loss. The experienced setter loses his status as the only one who knows the machine. The clerk loses her self-built Excel list, which has given her security for years. Whoever does not see the loss cannot compensate for it.

Second: what does this person know that I do not know? Resistance from people who operate the process daily almost always contains a factual core. The new board hangs in a place nobody passes at shift change. The new approval stage lengthens exactly the procedure it was supposed to speed up. You only find that out if you ask.

Third: what have I neglected? Often the resistance is the bill for an earlier mistake: a change that was announced and never implemented; a promise that was not kept; a decision made over people's heads. You have to settle that bill before you start something new.

There is no technique that makes resistance disappear. But there is a way of working that makes it productive. In my projects this sequence has proved itself:

• Problem before solution. Show the problem where it arises, with the people it affects. A gemba walk, a joint value stream mapping, a look at the in-tray. Whoever has seen the problem for themselves needs no persuading.
• Solution with, not for. The standard the team wrote itself is lived. The standard from the plant manager's office is filled in. Participation is not a loss of time, but the shortest route to implementation.
• Name the losses. Say openly what gets worse for whom, and what you offer in return. Honesty about the price of change makes you credible.
• Involve the critics. The loudest opponent is often the best tester. Give him a role in which his experience is needed, for instance as pilot user or reviewer of the new procedure.
• Start small, make it visible. One area, one procedure, one line. Results that can be seen convince more than any presentation.
• Stay with it. The new procedure will tip over several times in the first weeks. That is normal. What matters is that you ask why every time, and improve instead of punishing.

In the order processing of a mechanical engineering company, the team resisted a new ticket system for months. The breakthrough came not through another training session, but when the department head asked the two sharpest critics to design the procedure for their own department themselves. The process that emerged was leaner than the one originally planned. And it was used.

Sometimes resistance is simply right. The initiative is wrongly sized, comes at the wrong time or solves a problem that does not even exist at this point. A manager who treats resistance as a disruption as a matter of principle will never find that out.

That is why every change needs an honest feedback channel. Not the employee survey after a year, but the short conversation on the line in the first week. If three experienced people independently voice the same concern, that is not resistance. That is a diagnosis. Take it seriously, adjust, and say out loud that you have done so. Nothing strengthens the readiness for the next change more than the experience that one's own voice made a difference.

And if, after honest examination, you stick with the initiative: say that clearly too. People can live with decisions they do not share, as long as they were heard and know the reason. What they cannot live with is the experience of not counting.