Re: Resistance to change LO658

Gerry Starnes (gstarnes@bga.com)
Mon, 3 Apr 1995 09:24:49 -0500

Jack Hirschfeld replies to Susan Keeler in LO645:

>Susan, thanks for your response to me post regarding training executives
>in the us of "aikido" as a strategy for meeting resistance to change. I
>agree with your method, and that was what was intended in working with
>these executives. But when the practice you describe is posed as a
>methodology for overcoming resistance to change, the implication is that
>the change is good and the resistance is bad. No matter how much energy
>you put into understanding the other person's point of view, there is a
>mental model interfering with genuine inquiry, namely, that the change is
>desirable and the other person's point of view is an obstacle.

A basic problem with the Aikido analogy is that, in Aikido, the challenger
always gets thrown (assuming the technique is done correctly <grin>). The
acknowledgment and blend express respect and understanding, but in the
end, the challenger/resistor is always thrown. This may lie near the root
of the "manipulation" accusation.

In some situations, this may be appropriate: the change is required or
inevitable, and I agree that change is the natural state. However, it may
also be true that the nature of the change may be wrong or at least not in
the best long-term interest of the org. In this regard, the resistance may
be a part of the process of change .... perhaps the challenger should not
fall here, but over here, or perhaps we should start this exercise over
again....

Having practiced Aikido for some time, I have seen all of the above at
work. And having applied the concepts to ongoing change within my
organization, I can see where the analogy works and fails at various
points.

gerry starnes
director, communication
planning and market research
texas hospital association
austin, tx

Internet: gstarnes@bga.com
CompuServe: 76233,2266
BellNet: 512/465-1515