People don’t resist change; they only resist what they feel is a threat to their safety.
In 2002, Princeton psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Economics Prize. How, you might ask, did a psychologist win the economics prize? It was recognition for 25 years of research Kahneman performed on the human process of decision-making. Kahneman’s thesis is that all decisions are made in the limbic brain on an emotional level, then justified by the neocortex on a logical level. By 2002, MRIs had evolved to sufficient accuracy to confirm Kahneman’s hypothesis.
In 2011, Kahneman published the most sold, least read book in the world. Thinking Fast and Slow is a rambling exposition on Kahneman’s life and research. It contains some brilliant observations obscured in a swamp of repetitive examples. Most importantly, Kahneman tells us that the human mind:
- Thinks fast – intuition — amygdala
- Thinks slow – logic — neocortex
- Is prone to confirmation bias – it seeks information to confirm what it already believes
- Is lazy – wants to feel safe, does not want to waste energy
There are many directions these realizations can take us. In the coming weeks, I will explore several of them to provide a better understanding of how this influences our behavior – both personally and organizationally. Today’s focus is on presenting changes, and how we resist them.
Kahneman tells us that the human brain basically only wants to feel safe. Whenever we are confronted with an unfamiliar circumstance, a part of our brain, the amygdala, is triggered to assess the level of danger. When the danger is detected, the amygdala reacts in one of four possible patterns:
This reaction is not a choice! When the amygdala is triggered, the rest of the brain is not able to make any kind of decision. In emotional intelligence parlance, this experience is called the amygdala hijack. The other thing to know about the amygdala is that it that when the amygdala is activated no learning takes place. There is lots of action but none of that action translates into usable learning which would be accessible later.
Equally important, the amygdala does not know the difference between a physical threat and a social threat. Both are assessed as equally life-threatening. Imagine walking down a dark street, late at night. You hear a dog bark. You turn around. It’s a Chihuahua. What reaction does the amygdala provide — fight, flight, freeze, or appease?
In this case fight. I can beat that puppy. But if you turn around and it’s a Pitbull, you have a whole different situation. Fight is not possible, so the amygdala, without any input from me, instantaneously assesses:
- Flight: can I make it to the porch before the dog gets to me?
- Freeze: I’m just going to stand perfectly still and hope the dog doesn’t see me.
- Appease: the dog wants a bone, preferably not one of mine. What do I have to offer the dog? I have a throat lozenge. Do Pitbulls like throat lozenges?
The same situation takes place in an office meeting. When I walk into the room, my amygdala immediately scans for danger. If someone is acting out and I have more authority than that person, the reaction is fight. I can tell that person to knock off that behavior. If that person has more status than I do, my amygdala automatically considers another course of action, flight: let me out of this room. I’ve got a phone call I’ll be right back. Just get me away from the immediate danger. Freeze: I am again going to shrink and hope that the angry energy in this room does not affect me. Appease: we also call it sucking up. I’m going to do anything I can to make my boss happy
The meeting is finally over. I leave the room. On my way back to my office, I think, “Oh man! What I should have said was…”, because now my neocortex is reactivated. The perceived immediate danger is now past, and I can begin to think logically.
The importance of this realization is that every time we hold a meeting, we are dealing with other people’s fear. The reality is that people do not resist change; they only resist what they feel is a threat to their safety. The size of the meeting is irrelevant. This fundamental precept is not. To create safety in a meeting I first must make certain that everyone in the room trusts that we can have a meaningful conversation. I have to be sure that we are not in an argument or a debate, but that we are in a dialogue. A dialogue is an exploration of all the options.
It is the primary responsibility of the facilitator of the meeting to make it safe for all points of view to be heard. I must be certain that no one person is dominating the meeting and preventing people from having their say. I have an agenda, of course. Otherwise, why would I hold a meeting? That agenda must be transparent, and I must make exploring that agenda the focus of our meeting.
In another book from 2002, The Communication Catalyst, Mickey Connolly and Richard Rianoshek, offer this solution: Whenever we’re introducing change, we must the first talk about what is going to stay the same. By letting people know which aspects of the organization are not changing, there is a much better probability that people will not perceive what is new as a threat.
It is a simple rule. The brain only wants to feel safe. It wants the amygdala to scan for danger, and find it lacking. When the brain feels safe, it can absorb and learn. It can allow the logical part of the brain, the neocortex, to function without warning signs flashing. The basis of feeling safe is trust and the basis of trust is making certain that every person is heard. Try this in your next meeting and let me know how it goes.