There is resistance stemming from the fact that there isn’t enough information yet, and there is resistance that seems to be resistance for the sake of resistance, despite the abundance of explanations. It’s simply about being against it. It’s like a teenager, as one leader described his team. And the classic way to resolve this is through providing information, offering explanations, articulating a vision, and so on. But that doesn’t work.
So what should we do with those who oppose things just for the sake of opposing them? During a panel discussion among leaders, it was said that they should be removed from the system. Perhaps it’s impossible to work with people like that. Yes, that’s naturally the first reaction—to kick them out.
But isn’t that just responding in kind—or, in other words, opposition to opposition? A protest against the protester. Acting in the same way because “the leader has a responsibility,” and we consider it the leader’s sacred duty to expel such “poisoners” from the system. I think, however, that this isn’t always the best solution.
I, too, once thought that protesters should be sent away. Now that I’ve seen deeper layers of the issue and gained other experiences, I’ve noticed that the rebels are for something, not against something. We see opposition in their behavior and words, BUT….
… resistance is taking a stand for something, defending something that still has value within the system, but which we seem to be discarding in the midst of major changes. No one wants to be malicious, and often the opposition of those who resist is not driven by personal interest, but by the interest of the system.
When we turn our backs on something (by opposing it), our faces are turned toward something else. Perhaps the question is: what are these opponents looking toward? What is it in the past or present that is valuable and important—and worthy of a kind word? This reminds me of a quote from one of my teachers, Jan Jacob Stam: “Improvement begins with the current situation, not the past.”
This sentence aptly sums up a common mistake in change management: the past is not acknowledged but rather criticized, and things are not accepted as they are; furthermore, changes aimed at the future are communicated by criticizing the past.
And every reaction triggers a counter-reaction—in other words, these very opponents are the response to criticism of the past. Because in initiating change, we ourselves have opposed the way things are and were, and the value we placed on them. We fail to acknowledge, to give thanks, or to sincerely care about how things were before. After all, there was a reason for all of that, and it was all valuable and precious.
Only when a leader reflects on the past, articulates those reflections, evaluates them, acknowledges them, and honors the present with respect can they begin to move toward the future.
Resistance to and criticism of the past breed resistance. When we listen to those who oppose us with deep empathy, we realize that what we see reflected back is simply our own resistance and protest against the past—which we mask with messages of a beautiful future.
Resistance to the past engenders resistance in those who created that past, and this, in turn, engenders resistance in the creator of the future toward those who criticize his future. In other words, resistance is a reflection of oneself.
