TL;DR: Being right isn't enough to drive change. Lasting improvement comes from helping people discover their own reasons to change, not from telling or convincing them.
I'm at the fourth annual KaiNexus User Conference in exciting Austin, Texas. We have customers here from many industries, which corresponds with the growth of KaiNexus and the way we've been pulled into other customers outside of our initial home in healthcare.
Today, I'm giving a talk at the main KaiNexus User Conference on themes about personal change and organizational change, building on lessons from Motivational Interviewing.
Some key points include:
- Change is a process
- “Resistance” to change (better labeled as “ambivalence”) is a natural part of the change process
- We can't force anyone to change
- We need to engage with people in conversations about change
- Leader behaviors, words, and actions that trigger “change talk” and evoke reasons for change will increase the chance we see people choose to change and take action
Below are my slides and a webinar-style recording of the talk. I'm curious to hear what you think.
Slides From the Session
PDF via Dropbox or SlideShare
Webinar Recording of a Practice Session:
A few slides and a quote are below. And scroll down for a summary.
Talk Summary: When Being Right Is the Wrong Strategy for Change
In this talk, I explore a hard-earned lesson from years of working in Lean, healthcare, and organizational change: being right doesn't mean others will change.
Many leaders, engineers, and improvement professionals default to telling people what to do–or at least telling them why they should do it. While this approach feels logical and well-intentioned, psychology and experience both show that it often leads to compliance at best, and resistance at worst.
The talk introduces a different way of thinking about change, drawing on Motivational Interviewing, a counseling-based approach that's been proven effective in healthcare, addiction treatment, and behavior change. The core idea is simple but powerful: people are more likely to change when they articulate their own reasons for change, rather than being persuaded by someone else's logic.
Key themes from the talk include:
- Why people don't resist change–they resist being changed
- How labeling others as “resistant” blinds leaders to their own role in creating pushback
- The limits of telling, explaining, and even “coaching” when coaching still means directing
- How ambivalence (wanting to change and not wanting to change) is a normal, human stage of change
- Practical questions leaders can ask to evoke motivation instead of triggering defensiveness
I also discuss the “righting reflex”–our instinct to correct others when we believe they're wrong–and why this reflex so often backfires. Instead, effective change requires collaboration, respect for autonomy, compassion, and conversations that help people talk themselves into change.
Whether you're trying to build a Lean culture, increase participation in Kaizen, improve daily huddles, or lead any kind of behavioral change, the message is the same: do you want to be right, or do you want to help people change?
This talk is an invitation to reflect on our own habits as change agents–and to experiment with approaches that create commitment, not just compliance.
Helping People Change Starts with Better Conversations
Being right about Lean, improvement, or leadership doesn't automatically create change. As this talk explores, people don't resist change–they resist being changed. What looks like resistance is often ambivalence, a normal human response when the reasons to change don't yet outweigh the reasons to stay the same.
Motivational Interviewing offers leaders a practical, evidence-based way to move beyond telling and convincing. By asking better questions, listening for “change talk,” and respecting people's autonomy, leaders can create the conditions where change is chosen–not forced.
Whether you're leading a Lean transformation, trying to increase engagement in Kaizen, or simply working to improve daily behaviors, the real work of change begins with how we talk to one another. The question isn't whether you're right–it's whether your approach helps people move forward.
Related Posts on Motivational Interviewing
Podcast #374 — Mark Valenti and Brittany Wilson, Motivational Interviewing and the Great Mask Debate
If you’re working to build a culture where people feel safe to speak up, solve problems, and improve every day, I’d be glad to help. Let’s talk about how to strengthen Psychological Safety and Continuous Improvement in your organization.
RE: “’Resistance’ to change (better labeled as ‘ambivalence’) is a natural part of the change process.” Ambivalence may be an appropriate characterization for followers. But for leaders (especially VP, president, CEO, and the Board), “resistance” is an appropriate characterization. The reason being is that they have much to lose by embracing Lean management — much of what they lose is real, and some of that is imagined. My recent work has documented the various losses, most of which run deep and are securely interconnected, and lead to a firm commitment to being right — even more so when wrong. So, based on my work, I see change management is a vastly different problem for top leaders than it is for lower-level leaders and followers, where MI can be very effective.
The word “ambivalence” refers to something that person wants to do (to some extent) but also doesn’t want to do.
An executive might be “ambivalent” about Lean… and particular behaviors. They might express “change talk” in terms of “I know I should get input from the next level down on our strategy deployment goals and plan” but they’ll also express “sustain talk” such as “but I don’t have time to do that” or “their input won’t matter.”
If an executive doesn’t have any interest in Lean, they’re not resistant or ambivalent. They’re not even in the “pre-contemplation” stage of change.
If they are interested on some level but “also have too much to lose” that sounds like the textbook definition of “ambivalence.”
This is human nature. Executives are human.
Telling executives “they need to do Lean” isn’t likely to influence them. Again, that human nature and psychology thing. I think it applies to everybody *if* they have some even minimal level of need, desire, etc. When “sustain talk” (like “I have too much to lose”) overwhelms the change talk (“Lean might be good for my business”) then the status quo will win.
One other thought — M.I. can only be effective if the client/patient WANTS to change on some level. M.I. isn’t about manipulating or forcing anyone to change.
One thing I shared during the talk was the ironic risk of me telling people to stop telling and to start evoking.
Telling people why they should change isn’t as effective in drawing out (evoking) motivations from the people you’re trying to help change.
I think the preponderance of evidence over the last 30 years indicates that the level of interest most top leaders have in Lean is only to the extent that it can be used to preserve their vested rights, power, and control (called “inequality maintenance”). So I do not see that as a “textbook definition of ‘ambivalence’.” Instead, it is a determined, purpose-driven sublimation of Lean management into much lesser forms that are acceptable to them. Said another way, Lean does not influence execs; execs influence Lean (i.e. dilute, weaken, degrade, contaminate).
That doesn’t sound like “resistance” either. That sounds like psychopathy. But I’m not a therapist.
No, it’s not psychopathy. Knowingly or not, they seek to preserve the centuries old Western tradition of Natural Rights. Therefore, they resist Lean.