We are now going to turn our attention to mitigation, the anticipation for the reasons that resistance might occur so that we can build a plan to reduce or possibly eliminate those resistance drivers from even occurring. These are the systematic approaches we started in discussing in the last lecture. We're now going to be turning though, to the proactive approaches, we're no longer going to be reactive, but proactively anticipating and moving forward. Number two on the list is planning for resistance and actually embracing it. We're going to get into this a little bit more detail and the value of resistance but for this time, let's talk about the training communication strategy to win people over. This is building the rational case for change that is really the knee jerk reaction that all change initiatives do.

But let's go a little bit further and identify the change champions, those people that will really get behind us, the early adopters, and how to use them in the change and allow them to lead the emotional charge that is required to get people excited about change, and not let them get excited against the change. We also need to talk about the support systems, the things that you can do structurally within the organization, managing what you can manage, anticipating the possibilities in your contingency planning. This lays the foundation then for identifying possibilities of where resistance will occur, and then dealing with them in advance. Also, we're going to be talking a little bit more detail later about engagement of resistance. People who are resistance are actually more engaged than those are passive outside of the process. And there's some benefit of having engagement, even if it involves some resistance.

We're also now going to be shifting to the number one, the CO opting of the sources of resistance. This is building the bigger tent involving the people who may resist in the process itself, enabling them to add something to the change objective and to the change project methodology. You're involving them so that they are part of the change process. They are not being changed. We're also the need to prioritize the effectiveness. We're going to use a framework here of effectiveness, the higher on the chart The more effective the lower the least effective.

Also it gets into a timing situation. Are you going to start your prioritization of focus on resistance late in the change process? Or are you going to be more proactive and really focus on the change resistance early on in how you plan your objective and the process for implementing the change. fifth, and sixth we talked about in the last lecture is you basically manipulate or coerce use force or a number five, you manage the problem. These are done late in the change process, because you're running out of time, you're under pressure, things have to be done. And because you didn't do the early on anticipation, and the mitigation, you're now dealing with the problem is not effective, but it may become required.

Quired at that stage of the change process, in the middle is addressing things ad hoc as they occur, ignore them otherwise deal with them as they arise or negotiate the non essential elements, focusing on the key drivers that must be in place for the success and negotiate around the edges. The two that we just talked about, then are the bringing in of people into the process or the planning. The key then is you're going to have change resistance and some point. Are you going to deal with it early? Are you gonna deal with it later? That becomes a question that you will have to address as well as the rest of the leadership team to determine where you want to spend your time and how effective you will be in that time.

Mitigation in the identification and the planning for reaction. There's always consequences involved with the change. This requires thinking through not only the end state of the change, but all the little things that have to be changed along the way, as well as the ripple effect, that things will change because of the primary actions that are taking place. Who might be impacted? How might they react? how might that ripple through the organization?

Because of the people that they interact with on a daily basis? What are the public reasons that they might give to you, while keeping their private reasons to themselves? And what reasons might they psychologically have that they can't articulate to you but will surface in resistance? How much power to the people hold within the organization and more importantly, who else in the organization is may follow their lead in resistance. And what is the degree of impact of their resistance? Is it going to be major?

Or is it going to be minor that you can deal with or negotiate with around the edge. Let's now turn our attention to the group dynamics that are involved with change. As we talked about before, all change happens individually, but it's done within a collective relationship of other people. We now need to talk about resistance in the context of how people are reacting and the dynamics of them to others of their peer group as well as manager subordinates in the organization. The left hand side here is a negative positive scale of personal attitude and individuals attitude toward change. The lower access is really their trusted people.

Here's those that are around them, whether it be negative or positive. Ideally, you want the individual to be positively motivated and you want their peers to be positively motivated. That is where we really want the organization to be. Too often though, what we end up with though, is a negative reinforcement, in that an individual is negatively inclined, and that is being reinforced through the negative feedback that that person is getting from the peers. There's also the possibility that if someone is negative, that their peers can win them over. This is the change champion that can cheerlead the change process.

You get the organization involved, that will bring in the few people that are resistant. There's also the possibility of a person that may Initially, be highly motivated with positive feelings toward the change. But you're embedded in a group with negative feelings. We would like to think that they could win over the negative people, but too often they're drowned out and their support will wane over time, the negativity will be sucking the positive out of them. So we need to be careful that if we find a small group of individuals that are excited about the change, that we don't throw them into a group of negative thinking, that can basically move them away from their positive attitudes. The key then, is how to manage this middle area, the movement of people from a negative to a positive and the interactions that may happen within their peer group.

We try to move people that are open to persuasion, but also keep the people from being drawn back into a negative attitude. The key then, is where in the change process? are you addressing resistance? Are you being more effective by dressing it up front? Or are you being reactive and addressing it later in the change process when things become more critical