We all know cases of managers, middle managers and, in general, employees who do not want to change. Sometimes the reasons are obvious. The subordinate may be afraid of changing bosses.
They too can be affected by changing positions, let alone moving up, no matter how much the apparent "honor and glory" is enormously attractive. The need to learn new skills, the stress of becoming part of a different team, among others, are reasons that justify this rejection. In other cases, the reason for the resistance is much more unclear. Many people have or can easily acquire a repertoire of skills, they are valuable enough to change easily, they are very attached to the organization, they are authentic when they express their support for change; however, inexplicably, they do not.
What is happening? Organizational psychologists deal with this dynamic hundreds of times. Recent research by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey has led them to conclude that the answer is very simple. Resistance to change does not imply opposition or even inertia. Although they are sincerely committed to change, surely against their will, these people apply their productive energy to hidden divergent vectors. The resulting dynamic equilibrium is a paralysis of the will and what presents itself as resistance is, in fact, a variety of personal immunity to change.
When divergent vectors of subordinates, or colleagues, seemingly irrational and ineffective behavior are discovered, it suddenly appears to us as clearly sensible and reasonable, unfortunately justifying a divergent goal from the one that both the company and the person desire and need. If the director of a project manages you in fits and starts, some divergent vector is prompting you not to finish it promptly and efficiently, surely to avoid being held responsible for the next project - which in your fantasy you will be unable to execute - if it ends successfully the actual. Or we know someone who does not collaborate despite showing their sincere and passionate commitment to teamwork.
Addressing the resolution of divergent vectors may seem easy but it is not because it questions the psychological foundations on which human beings are based. It requires that we rethink the beliefs that we have always held as true. It demands that we admit feelings, to ourselves and to others (which is always very embarrassing), that normally we would never be willing to admit, much less show.
In reality, we will meet people who, overwhelmed by this perspective, will choose not to question their immunity to change, and will prefer to continue poorly living with its divergent vectors.
A good "coach" puts all his sensitivity and empathy into play so that the "coachee" can approach a sincere and honest introspection with the assurance that these revelations will never be used against him. The only goal is to help you be more effective; You won't help your client if you just make her see your shortcomings at work or in character.
Divergent vectors are not just bad for managers. They also frustrate employees. People with absolutely sincere intentions, without wanting to, create Sisyphus situations. When they discover what is happening to them - why they push a rock up the hill that always falls back into the valley that they have to carry again to the top - they feel enormously relieved. Undoubtedly the discovery of divergent vectors gives rise to a set of new questions, but, above all, it provides the hope of answering them.
The cited authors propose a three-stage process to discover divergent vectors. Overcoming immunity to change begins with discovering them. Although they are generally very submerged, an attempt can be made to "float them" by asking several questions - provided that those who answer them are absolutely certain of the confidentiality and that the potentially embarrassing will never be used in public.
When starting his work with a team, managerial or not, the coach can try to facilitate a dynamic in which some volunteers - much better if they are excellent in their respective tasks - can talk about some of their divergent vectors before others.
The first of the stages begins by asking the following question:
"What would you like to change about your job so that it could be more effective or more satisfying?"
Usually the answers to this question come wrapped in some complaint - a form of communication that most managers avoid because they tend to have a negative, unproductive tone. But complaints can be extremely useful, because we only complain about what matters or affects us and the greater our interest, the higher the complaint.
In the second stage the essential question is
"What are the commitments that your complaint implies?"
It is normal that the questioned responds that on his part he is willing to undertake the commitment of the task that is made difficult by said complaint. It is also normal that at this time he can identify to what extent he is responsible for the complaint that only affects others.
The third question may be
"What are you (or are you not) doing that is preventing you from meeting your commitments?"
Our authors claim that people invariably identify in seconds what is undermining their behaviors
The next question
“If you can imagine yourself doing the opposite of that undermining behavior, do you detect in yourself some kind of discomfort, fear or a vague fear?
When this question was posed to a manager, he imagined himself listening calmly and openly to negative information about a project. He replied: "I am afraid to find out about a problem that I am unable to solve, something about which I cannot do anything." Another executive said he feared that if he gave his subordinates more discretion, they would be unable to make the right decisions.
The final step is to transform the passive fear into a proposition that reflects a determined commitment to avoid certain unwanted outcomes.
"By opting for that behavior, what troubling outcome are you determined to avoid?"
The answer is precisely the divergent vector that underlies the background of every person immune to change. For example, "I wish not to be informed of problems that I think I cannot solve." Therefore, the manager intimidated his subordinates so that they would not give him bad news, thus feeling “protected” from the fear of not being able to control the project. The other executive replied, "I want to be sure that my team doesn't make decisions that I don't like."
Undoubtedly, these revelations are embarrassing because divergent vectors are forms of self-protection. What do they want to protect themselves from? Of what in another article we will call: "Mental models"
Harvard Business Review, November 2001
