Fight or flight? How our instinctive psychological defences respond to change
It was Dan Brown who said that the human mind has a primitive ego defense mechanism that negates all realities that produce too much stress for the brain to handle. It’s called Denial.
This cannot be more true when it comes to change in organisations. Survival is our innate ancestral objective in life!
Throughout history, the human body’s numerous innate abilities, such as our senses, have aided us in achieving this objective (that of survival), given the number of daily threats we face. From fighting for food and fighting each other, to fight the forces of nature. We’ve had to fight our way through life. Fortunately, our fighting ability was complemented by another powerful ability – flight.
“Fight or Flight”, a term coined by Walter Bradford Cannon, describes this physiological reaction as an acute stress response to perceived imminent danger. These threats exist today, but not in the wilderness; they exist in our daily lives and workplace.
When we “Fight or Flight” change, we exhibit characteristics of a form of resistance to change mentioned in this article link https://bit.ly/3n8Ebzi. Unlike our ancestors, we don’t require brute strength and weapons.
What makes Passive Change Resistance unique is that it can be expressed using the “Fight and Flight” response. How you ask? See if any of these comments sound familiar:
- This change will bring improvement, but we’re not ready for it yet.
- X company tried to implement this with no success. Are you sure it will work?
- I don’t think this change is necessary for my team, but you’re the boss.
- We have x projects currently running. This change may delay them.
At first glance, these comments make sense. But herein lies the deceptive nature of Passive Change Resistance.
The “Fight”.
When we “fight” the new state, our response to the change is disguised by a veil of support. Initially, the change is supported. Soon after, a delay tactic is employed. Arguments against the change arise and often appear logical and sensible. This tends to come from key personnel. It is even harder to spot this as resistance because they may also use business facts to support their argument. The change is perceived as a threat to their job, authority, or way of doing things, so they feel the need to “fight” against it.
The “Flight”.
For the sake of being “professional”, for fear of losing their jobs or being victimized, most people would rather avoid confrontation, especially with their superiors. They tend to catastrophize the change. Rather than voice their concerns, they may miscommunicate the message about the transition to others, causing panic and a lack of support for the change. Even though the change may not be beneficial, they shy away from it rather than confront it. This is the “flight” response.
Change, be it good or bad, will always bring uncertainty. Fortunately, there are ways that Passive Change Resistance can be managed. Firstly, rather than accepting the logical delay tactic arguments, try to understand the reasons behind them. Is it fear of failure? Fear of the unknown? Or lack of confidence in people’s ability to pull off the change successfully? Creating an environment that encourages people to express themselves without consequences is essential. Some individuals may prefer one-on-one sessions, while others may prefer a group setting.
Secondly, do not accept verbal confirmations as the only form of support for the change. Look at subtle cues like lateness, work performance levels, and individual morale.
Lastly, such an exercise can be time-consuming and costly. Having an experienced change management agency that can help you adapt and thrive during disruptive and transformational change is vital. If ignored altogether, it can spell disaster for organisational effectiveness.
