In the last video, we talked about the six psychological core needs that people have, and how violation of those needs can lead to change resistance. We are now going to flip around and look at those from the perspective of the Change Manager. What might we do that violates those core needs? And how does that violation then manifests itself in change resistance. This is where we are our own worst enemy when it comes to leading change. These are accidental triggers of resistance, and there's management reasons of why they happen.

So for each of the violations, I'll also put it in context about why managers make these mistakes and why the mistakes are so easily made. The first core need is one of competence. And this is where we violate it so easily because we want that competence quickly. We push for the change without giving sufficient training time. We're overly eager and we may simplify how much is needed to be learned. We also may prematurely hold people accountable for things they're not yet competent to do.

We're overly optimistic in our expectations. Another management error we make. We also may make an error have unrealistic expectations, we push for the change on top of an existing workload. After all, we have to keep the business running. And we're just adding something while there's benefits down the road. There's also some extra work in the meantime, these are many Natural management issues that we do routinely that lead to change resistance.

The second psychological need was one of order to control. And we think about it from our perspective, we are having order and control. But by us, taking the initiative of manifesting order control over the process, we're taking away from those who are being impacted by the change. We provide little direction or alignment as a poor leadership failure. We may describe the change objective very poorly in our communication, so that it's not understood. We understand it, but it doesn't come out so that they understand it.

And some of the change may be hidden. We are incomplete in our planning or we are confused or even Complete in our communication management reasons that lead to resistance because we're violating the order to control the third coordinate is one of enclosure connection. However, this change itself is usually planned within a small core change leadership team. This is done for quickness is done for a ease of understanding the problem. But in so doing, we have a closed communication so that the people that are impacted have been out of the loop. They don't have the context.

We've done it naturally though, because we want speed. And sometimes the problem solving or the problem diagnosis is messy work, and we don't want to confuse others in the organization. Sometimes, there's also Need for confidentiality, in that there may be major implications to the organization that we have to stage when that knowledge is released. But in so doing, we've closed herself off, and we've not allowed others to gain context. For simplicity and speed, we also rush by telling or selling versus taking the time to consult or co create the change process. We also may ignore the informal organization.

We focus the reorganization on filling the boxes in the organization chart, ignoring that the culture or the informal relationships in the organization really drive what's happened. The power the position of power is often used from our side overlooking the impact on the position of power. We may be taken away from others, the changes may be announced without warning as an abuse of positional power, and that we are doing it because we can, we may remove people from the decision making process or informational loop because of confidentiality, but at some point they need to know. The key is how do we allow them inside the information loop without doing it prematurely. The reorganization may also impact a power structure. And then we are moving people around simply by filling in the boxes was easy for us without realizing the unintended consequences that will roll throughout the organization, more management reasons that can be justified from our perspective that creates resistance from those impacted securities.

The fifth psychological core need is oversight. Sorry, we didn't think about that. It's actions taken within the context of what we know. But leaving the fear of the unknown out there. This is a poor communication, in that we release things slowly, we may release things disjointed, there's also a possible implied threat that they need to get on board. This is survival anxiety.

That is a security issue. It may be a shortcut that we take as change managers, just to avoid the issues. We want the problem to go away. So we force a decision to make it go away and implied threat. The sixth and last core issue is one of justice and fairness. We may be out of touch.

We don't think about It from their perspective because we're too focused on it from our perspective as managing the change process. we overlook people that may have expertise, we may overlook those with seniority and create a fairness issue. Sometimes this may be done to favor individuals that we can count on to speed through the process. We all may also reorganize with there's obviously going to be some winners and some losers. But the rationale is quickly. We don't release the rationale.

We just do it. And it's out of context once again, that people don't understand it and they may see it as unjustified or unfair. There may also be some reasonable reasons of confidentiality because people are being moved. personal issues often have to be held confidential, but at the same time, people don't understand those issues as they relate to the change without also understanding the context itself. These are reasonable mistakes that we make every day. Because of the way we do our change management that accidentally creates resistance.

Some of these are also related to specific change objectives. So for example, a merger or an acquisition will impact security control, inclusion, connection, fairness and justice. More than the other two. A reorganization impacts the power the company's inclusion more than the other three. And if you're doing a process reengineering, it's going to impact competence, power and control. So the key takeaway here is that The six core psychological needs aren't always equal.

Different change objectives will impact those six in various levels of importance. So you need to think through the change objective, and which of the six core psychological needs are more likely to be impacted and recognize the management mistakes that we may make ourselves. The existing culture may also emphasize different core needs high tech companies, they're going to have more of a reliance on the competence banky may have more power and control needs. Government, government entities may have more power and control and non governmental organizations may have more of a need for inclusion and fairness. So not only does the change objective, but the culture of the organization itself. May favour the need to focus on different core needs.

The design of the change strategy then must be done that works within the existing culture, even if the culture is the target of the change. While you may need to change the culture, you may need to then adjust some of those core needs to be able to then leverage other changes. How are you triggering resistance?