People can be extremely indirect in how they resist change. Not long ago, the executive team of a global media company was observed, reviewing strategic projects that had been initiated by a new CEO. The projects were intended to better leverage the corporate "center" through common processes, sharing of best practices, talent swapping, and the like. Although these made perfect strategic sense, the business unit leaders perceived the shifts as a potential loss of autonomy, power, and control. But rather than expressing this discomfort explicitly, they verbally supported the CEO and found more subtle ways to resist.

Here are a few of the quietly derailing comments in this meeting:

"Before we move into broad implementation, let's collect some more data to make sure that we're not going to regret these changes."

"We have so many other initiatives going on right now that I don't see how we can free people up to concentrate on this."

"This is absolutely the right thing to do, but first we have to create a toolkit to help our people work differently."

These comments exemplify passive resistance, and there are two reasons why such resistance is hard to navigate. First is that the pushback sounds logical and reasonable. It's hard to argue with a manager who can cite ten more critical projects — especially when that manager is closer to the day-to-day realities than you are, and can back up the argument with business justification. Second, because passive resistance is couched in support and logic, it's not always clear where the resistance is coming from: Does the person actually believe that the proposed change is not in the best interests of the business, or is there some personal or subconscious reason such as feeling threatened or anxious about the change?

Since people tend to avoid confrontation, especially with authority figures, passive resistance is more common in organizations than most of us realize. And sometimes it's actually a good thing — it causes managers to avoid impulsive actions, think through implications of change, get people on board, and deal with emotional issues. Most of the time, however, passive resistance undermines a leader's ability to get things done quickly and effectively. In fact it often puts leaders in the untenable position of confidently charging ahead — only to later discover that the team was not fully on-board.

If you find yourself struggling with passive resistance, here are three steps that could break the logjam:

First, ask yourself whether you are fully committed to the change. Pushing through resistance takes a certain amount of capital; make sure that the payoff will greatly exceed your effort.

Smoke out the real reasons for resistance. What lies beneath the logical arguments and delaying tactics. Trying to counter the rational justifications for delay is a losing proposition. Instead find out what's really going on: Do your subordinates distrust your judgment? Are they afraid of their own peoples' reactions? Are they uncomfortable about how things will work after the change is implemented? Are they uncertain about their own ability to pull it off? To get at these issues, encourage your people to honestly share their thoughts, without fear of repercussions. Ask them to envision what success would look like and what it would take to get there. With enough of these conversations, you might enlist them in making the change happen, rather than preventing it.

Instead of dwelling on resistance, focus on your peoples' readiness to move forward. Everyone has some amount of readiness to change, so tap into it. Is there an aspect of the change that your subordinates agree with? Is there one area where the change can be piloted right away? Are there some elements that you can accomplish in the short term? In the global media company mentioned above, the team eventually decided to start strengthening the corporate center by creating two functional communities that could act as virtual centers for sharing best practices and leveraging talent. This step was less threatening to the business leaders — and it also proved the case that centralization could be beneficial.

Although we often don't admit it, passive resistance is pervasive in most organizations. To what extent have you experienced it, and what suggestions can you offer to overcome it?

Source: Harvard Business Review Author: Ron Ashkenas