HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

TheReal

ReasonPeople Won't Change

Ifs a psychological dynamic called a "competing commitment"and until managers understand how it works and the ways to overcome it,

they can't do a thing about change-resistant employees.

by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey

EVERY MANAGER is familiar with the employee whojust won't change. Sometimes it's easy to see why-the employee fears a shift in power, the need to

learn new skills, the stress of having to join a new team.In other cases, such resistance is far more puzzling. An em-ployee has the skills and smarts to make a change withease, has shown a deep commitment to the company, gen-uinely supports the change-and yet, inexplicably, doesnothing.

What's going on? As organizational psychologists,we have seen this dynamic literally hundreds of times,and our research and analysis have recently led us to asurprising yet deceptively simple conclusion. Resistance

NOVEMBER 2001

to change does not reflect opposition, nor is it merely aresult of inertia. Instead, even as they hold a sincerecommitment to change, many people are unwittinglyapplying productive energy toward a hidden cornpetingcommitment The resulting dynamic equilibrium stalls theeffort in what looks like resistance but is in fact a kind ofpersonal immunity to change.

When you, as a manager, uncover an employee's com-peting commitment, behavior that has seemed irrationaland ineffective suddenly becomes stunningly sensible andmasterful-but unfortunately, on behalf of a goal thatconflicts with what you and even the employee are try-ing to achieve. You find out that the project leader who's

85

The Real Reason People Won't Change

dragging his feet has an unrecognized competing com-mitment to avoid the even tougher assignment-one hefears he can't handle-that might come his way next ifhe delivers too successfully on the task at hand. Or youfind that the person who won't collaborate despite a pas-sionate and sincere commitment to teamwork is equallydedicated to avoiding the conflict that naturally attendsany ambitious team activity.

In these pages, we'll look at competing commitments indetail and take you through a process to help your em-ployees overcome their immunity to change. The processmay sound straightforward, but it is by no means quick oreasy. On the contrary, it challenges the very psychologicalfoundations upon which people function. It asks peopleto call into question beliefs they've long held close, per-haps since childhood. And it requires people to admit to

Helping people overcoine their limitationsto become more successful at work is atthe very heart of effective management.

painful, even embarrassing, feelings that they would notordinarily disclose to others or even to themselves. In-deed, some people will opt not to disrupt their immunityto change, choosing instead to continue their fruitlessstruggle against their competing commitments.

As a manager, you must guide people through thisexercise with understanding and sensitivity. If your em-ployees are to engage in honest introspection and candiddisclosure, they must understand that their revelationswon't be used against them. The goal of this expiorationis solely to help them become more effective, not to findfiaws in their work or character. As you support youremployees in unearthing and challenging their innermostassumptions, you may at times feel you're playing the roleof a psychologist. But in a sense, managers are psycholo-gists. After all, helping people overcome their limitationsto become more successful at work is at the very heart ofeffective management.

We'll describe this delicate process in detail, but firstlet's look at some examples of competing commitmentsin action.

Robert Kegan is the William and Miriam Meehan Professorof Adult Learning and Professional Development and LisaLaskow Lahey is the research director of the Change Lead-ership Group at the Harvard University Graduate Schoolof Education in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They are thecoauthors of How the Way We Talk Can Change the WayWe Work (Jossey-BassAViley, 2001) and the founding princi-pals of Minds at Work (www.windsatwork.com), a consult-ing firm based in Lexington, Massachusetts.

Shoveling Sand Against the Tide

Competing commitments cause valued employees to be-have in ways that seem inexplicable and irremediable,and this is enormously frustrating to managers. Take thecase of John, a talented manager at a software company.(Like all examples in this article, John's experiences arereal, although we have altered identifying features. Insome cases, we've constructed composite examples.) Johnwas a big believer in open communication and valuedclose working relationships, yet his caustic sense of humorconsistently kept colleagues at a distance. And though hewanted to move up in the organization, his personal stylewas holding him back. Repeatedly, John was counseled onhis behavior, and he readily agreed that he needed tochange the way he interacted with others in the organi-

zation. But time after time, he reverted to his old pat-terns. Why, his boss wondered, did John continue toundermine his own advancement?

As it happened, John was a person of color work-ing as part of an otherwise all-white executive team.When he went through an exercise designed to helphim unearth his competing commitments, he madea surprising discovery about himself Underneath it

all, John believed that if he became too well integratedwith the team, it would threaten his sense of loyalty to hisown racial group. Moving too close to the mainstreammade him feel very uncomfortable, as if he were becom-ing"one of them" and betraying his family and friends. Sowhen people gathered around his ideas and suggestions,he'd tear down their support with sarcasm, inevitably(and effectively) returning himself to the margins, wherehe was more at ease. In short, while John was genuinelycommitted to working well with his colleagues, he hadan equally powerful competing commitment to keepinghis distance.

Consider, too, a manager we'll call Helen, a rising starat a large manufacturing company. Helen had been as-signed responsibility for speeding up production of thecompany's most popular product, yet she was spinningher wheels. When her boss, Andrew, realized that an im-portant deadline was only two months away and shehadn't filed a single progress report, he called her into ameeting to discuss the project. Helen agreed that she wasfar behind schedule, acknowledging that she had beenstalling in pulling together the team. But at the same timeshe showed a genuine commitment to making the projecta success. The two developed a detailed plan for changingdirection, and Andrew assumed the problem was re-solved. But three weeks after the meeting, Helen stillhadn't launched the team.

Why was Helen unable to change her behavior? Afterintense self-examination in a workshop with several ofher colleagues, she came to an unexpected conclusion: Al-though she truly wanted the project to succeed, she had an

86 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

The Real Reason People Won't Change

accompanying, unacknowledged commitment to main-taining a subordinate position in relation to Andrew. Ata deep level, Helen was concerned that if she succeededin her new role-one she was excited about and eagerto undertake - she would become more a peer than asubordinate. She was uncertain whether Andrew wasprepared for the turn their relationship would take.Worse, a promotion would mean that she, not Andrew,would be ultimately accountable for the results of herwork-and Helen feared she wouldn't be up to the task.

These stories shed some light on the nature of immu-nity to change. The inconsistencies between John's andHelen's stated goals and their actions refiect neitherhypocrisy nor unspoken reluctance to change but the par-alyzing effect of competing commitments. Any managerwho seeks to help John communicate more effectively orHelen move her project forward, without understandingthat each is also struggling unconsciously toward an op-posing agenda, is shoveling sand against the tide.

Diagnosing Immunity to ChangeCompeting commitments aren't distressing only to theboss; they're frustrating to employees as well. People withthe most sincere intentions often unwittingly create forthemselves Sisyphean tasks. And they are almost alwaystremendously relieved when they discover just why theyfeel as if they are rolling a boulder up a hill only to haveit roll back down again. Even though uncovering a com-peting commitment can open up a host of new concerns,the discovery offers hope for finally accomplishing theprimary, stated commitment.

Based on the past 15 years of working with hundredsof managers in a variety of companies, we've developeda three-stage process to help organizations figure out

Employees are almost always tremendously relievedwhen they discover just why they feel as if they are rollinga boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down again.

what's getting in the way of change. First, managers guideemployees through a set of questions designed to uncovercompeting commitments. Next, employees examine thesecommitments to determine the underlying assumptionsat their core. And finally, employees start the process ofchanging their behavior.

We'll walk through the process fairly quickly below,but it's important to note that each step will take time.Just uncovering the competing commitment will requireat least two or three hours, because people need to reflecton each question and the implications of their answers.The process of challenging competing commitments and

making real progress toward overcoming immunity tochange unfolds over a longer period-weeks or evenmonths. But just getting the commitments on the tablecan have a noticeable effect on the decisions people makeand the actions they take.

Uncovering CompetingCommitmentsOvercoming immunity to change starts with imcoveringcompeting commitments. In our work, we've found thateven though people keep their competing commitmentswell hidden, you can draw them out by asking a series ofquestions - as long as the employees believe that personaland potentially embarrassing disclosures won't be usedinappropriately. It can be very powerful to guide peoplethrough this diagnostic exercise in a group -typically withseveral volunteers making their own discoveries public-so people can see that others, even the company's star per-formers, have competing commitments and inner contra-dictions of their own.

The first question we ask is, What would you like to seechanged at work, so that you could be more effective or sothat work would be more satisfying? Responses to thisquestion are nearly always couched in a complaint-aform of communication that most managers bemoan be-cause of its negative, unproductive tone. But complaintscan be immensely useful. People complain only about thethings they care about, and they complain the loudestabout the things they care about most. With little effort,people can turn their familiar, uninspiring gripes intosomething that's more likely to energize and motivatethem-a commitment, genuinely their own.

To get there, you need to ask a second question: Whatcommitments does your complaint imply? A project leader

we worked with, we'll call himTom, had grumbled,"My subor-dinates keep me out of the loopon important developments inmy project." This complaintyielded the statement, "I be-lieve in open and candid com-munication." A line manager

we'll call Mary lamented people's unwillingness to speakup at meetings; her complaint implied a commitment toshared decision making.

While undoubtedly sincere in voicing such commit-ments, people can nearly always identify some way inwhich they are in part responsible for preventing themfrom being fulfilled. Thus, the third question is: What areyou doing, or not doing, that is keeping your commitmentfrom being more fully realized? Invariably, in our experi-ence, people can identity these undermining behaviors injust a couple of seconds. For example, Tom admitted:"When people bring me bad news, 1 tend to shoot the

NOVEMBER 2001 87

The Real Reason People Won't Change

messenger." And Mary acknowledged that she didn't dele-gate much and that she sometimes didn't release all the in-formation people needed in order to make good decisions.

In both cases, there may well have been other circum-stances contributing to the shortfalls, but clearly bothTom and Mary were engaging in behavior that was af-fecting the people around them. Most people recognizethis about themselves right away and are quick to say,"I need to stop doing that." Indeed, Tom had repeatedlyvowed to listen more openly to potential problems thatwould slow his projects. However, the purpose of this ex-ercise is not to make these behaviors disappear-at leastnot now. The purpose is to understand why people be-have in ways that undermine their own success.

The next step, then, is to invite people to consider theconsequences of forgoing the behavior. We do this by ask-ing a fourth question: If you imagine doing the oppositeof the undermining behavior, do you detect in yourself anydiscomfort, worry, or vague fear? Tom imagined himselflistening calmly and openly to some bad news about aproject and concluded,"rm afraid I'll hear about a problemthat I can't fix, something that I can't do anything about."And Mary? She considered allowing people more latitudeand realized that, quite frankly, she feared people wouldn'tmake good decisions and she would be forced to carry outa strategy she thought would lead to an inferior result

The final step is to transform that passive fear into astatement that reflects an active commitment to prevent-ing certain outcomes. We ask. By engaging in this under-mining behavior, what worrisome outcome are you commit-ted to preventing? The resulting answer is the competingcommitment, which lies at the very heart of a person's im-munity to change. Tom admitted,"I am committed to notlearning about problems 1 can't fix." By intimidating hisstaff, he prevented them from delivering bad news, prt>tecting himself from the fear that he was not in control ofthe project. Mary, too, was protecting herself- in her case,against the consequences of bad decisions."l am commit-ted to making sure my group does not make decisionsthat I don't like."

Such revelations can feel embarrassing. While primarycommitments nearly always reflect noble goals that peo-ple would be happy to shout from the rooftops, compet-ing commitments are very personal, refiecting vulnera-bilities that people fear will undermine how they areregarded both by others and themselves. Little wonderpeople keep them hidden and hasten to cover them upagain once they're on the table.

But competing commitments should not be seen asweaknesses. They represent some version of self-protec-tion, a perfectly natural and reasonable human impulse.The question is, if competing commitments are a form ofself-protection, what are people protecting themselvesfrom? The answers usually lie in what we call their bigassumptions - deeply rooted beliefs about themselves and

the world around them. These assumptions put an orderto the world and at the same time suggest ways in whichthe world can go out of order. Competing commitmentsarise from these assumptions, driving behaviors unwit-tingly designed to keep the picture intact.

Examining the Big AssumptionPeople rarely realize they hold big assumptions because,quite simply, they accept them as reality. Often formed longago and seldom, if ever, critically examined, big assump-tions are woven into the very fabric of people's existence.(For more on the grip that big assumptions hold on people,see the sidebar "Big Assumptions: How Our PerceptionsShape Our Reality.") But with a little help, most peoplecan call them up fairly easily, especially once they've iden-tified their competing commitments. To do this, we firstask people to create the beginning of a sentence by invert-ing the competing commitment, and then we ask them tofill in the blank. For Tom ("I am committed to not hearingabout problems I can't fix"), the big assumption turnedout to be, "1 assume that if I did hear about problems Ican't fix, people would discover I'm not qualified to do myjob." Mary's big assumption was that her teammatesweren't as smart or experienced as she and that she'd bewasting her time and others' if she didn't maintain con-trol. Returning to our earlier story, John's big assumptionmight be, "I assume that if I develop unambivalent rela-tionships with my white coworkers, I will sacrifice my racialidentity and alienate my own community."

This is a difficult process, and it doesn't happen all atonce, because admitting to big assumptions makes peopleuncomfortable. The process can put names to very per-sonal feelings people are reluctant to disclose, such asdeep-seated fears or insecurities, highly discouraging orsimplistic views of human nature, or perceptions of theirown superior abilities or intellect. Unquestioning accep-tance of a big assumption anchors and sustains an im-mune system: A competing commitment makes all thesense in the world, and the person continues to engage inbehaviors that support it, albeit unconsciously, to thedetriment of his or her "official," stated commitment. Onlyby bringing big assumptions to light can people finallychallenge their assumptions and recognize why they areengaging in seemingly contradictory behavior.

Questioning the Big AssumptionOnce people have identified their competing commit-ments and the big assumptions that sustain them, mostare prepared to take some immediate action to overcometheir immunity. But the first part of the process involvesobservation, not action, which can be frustrating for highachievers accustomed to leaping into motion to solveproblems. Let's take a look at the steps in more detail.

HARVARD BUSENESS REVIEW

The Real Reason People Won't Change

A Diagnostic Test for Immunity to ChangeThe most important steps in diagnosing immunity to change are uncovering employees'competing

commitments and unearthing their hig assumptions. To do so, we ask a series of questions and

record key responses in a simple grid. Below we've listed the responses for six people who went

through this exercise, including the examples described in the text. The grid paints a picture

of the change-immunity system, making sense of a previously puzzling dynamic.

John

Helen

Tom

Mary

Bill

Jane

Statedcommitment/am committed to...

...high qualitycommunicationwith my colleagues.

1

... the new initiative.

...hearing from mysubordinates andmaximizing theflow of informationinto my office.

...distributedleadership byenabling peopleto make decisions.

...being ateam player.

...turning aroundmy department.

What am 1 doing, or notdoing, that is keeping mystated commitment frombeing fully realized?

Sometimes 1 use sarcastichumor to get my point across.

1 don't push for top performancefrom my team members ormyself; 1 accept mediocreproducts and thinking toooften; 1 don't prioritize.

i don't ask questions or ask tobe kept in the loop on sensitiveor delicate matters; 1 shootthe messenger when 1 hearbad news.

1 don't delegate enough;i don't pass on the necessaryinformation to the people 1distribute leadership to.

1 don't collaborate enough;1 make unilateral decisionstoo often; 1 don't really takepeople's input into account.

Too often 1 let things slide;I'm not proactive enoughin getting people to followthrough with their tasks.

Competingcommitments

1 am committed to maintaininga distance from my whitecolleagues.

1 am committed to notupsetting my relationshipwith my boss by leavingthe mentee role.

1 am committed to notlearning about things1 can't do anything about.

1 am committed to havingthings go my way to beingin controland to ensuringthat the work is done to myhigh standards.

1 am committed to beingthe one who gets the creditand to avoiding the frustrationor conflict that comes withcollaboration.

1 am committed to notsetting full sail until 1have a clear map of howwe get our departmentfrom here to there.

Bigassumptions

1 assume 1 will lose myauthentic connection tomy racial group if 1 gettoo integrated into themainstream,

i

i assume my boss will stopsupporting me if 1 move towardbecoming his peer; 1 assumethat 1 don't have what it takesto successfully carry out acutting-edge project.

1 assume as a leader 1 shouldbe able to address all problems;1 assume 1 will be seen asincompetent if 1 can't solveall problems that come up.

1 assume that other peoplewill waste my time and theirsif 1 don't step in; (assumeothers aren't as smart as i am,

1

1 assume that no one willappreciate me if 1 am not seenas the source of success; 1 assumenothing good will come of mybeing frustrated or in conflict.

1 assume that if 1 take mygroup out into deep watersand discover 1 am unable toget us to the other side. 1 willbe seen as an incompetentleader who is undeservingof trust or responsibility

NOVEMBER 2001 89

The Real Reason People Won't Change

Because big assumptions are held as fact, they actually inform whatpeople see. leading them to systematically (but unconsciously) attendto certain data and avoid or ignore other data.

Step 1: Notice and record current behavior. Em-ployees must first take notice of what does and doesn'thappen as a consequence of holding big assumptions tobe true. We specifically ask people not to try to make anychanges in their thinking or behavior at this time but justto become more aware of their actions in relation to theirbig assumptions. This gives people the opportunity to de-velop a better appreciation for how and in what contextsbig assumptions infiuence their lives. John, for example,who had assumed that working well with his white col-leagues would estrange him from his ethnic group, sawthat he had missed an opportunity to get involved in anexciting, high-profile initiative because he had mocked theidea when it first came up in a meeting.

Step 2: Look for contrary evidence. Next, employeesmust look actively for experiences that might cast doubton the validity of their big assumptions. Because bigassumptions are held as fact, they actually inform whatpeople see, leading them to systematically (but uncon-sciously) attend to certain data and avoid or ignore other

data. By asking people to search specifically for ex-periences that would cause them to question theirbig assumptions, we help them see that they havebeen filtering out certain types of information-

information that could weaken the grip of thebig asstunptions.

When John looked around him, he con-sidered for the first time that an African-American manager in another depart-ment had strong working relationshipswith her mostly white colleagues, yet

seemed not to have compromised her per-sonal identity. He also had to admit that

when he had been thrown onto an urgenttask force the year before, he had worked

many hours alongside his white colleagues andhad found the experience satisfying; he had feltnone of his usual ambivalence.

Step 3: Explore the history. In this step, weinvite people to become the "biographers"of theirbig assumptions: How and when did the assump-tions first take hold? How long have they beenaround? What have been some of their criticalturning points?

Typically, this step leads people to earlier lifeexperiences, almost always to times before theircurrent jobs and relationships with currentcoworkers. This reflection usually makes peoplefeel dissatisfied with the foundations of their bigassumptions, especially when they see that theseideas have accompanied them to their current ptvsitions and have been coloring their experiencesfor many years. Recently, a CEO expressed aston-ishment as she realized she'd been applying thesame self-protective stance in her work that she'd

developed during a difficult divorce years before, just ascommonly, as was the case for John, people trace their bigassumptions to early experiences with parents, siblings, orfriends. Understanding the circumstances that influencedthe formation of the assumptions can free people to con-sider whether these beliefs apply to their present selves.

Step 4: Test the assumption. This step entails creatingand running a modest test of the big assumption. This isthe first time we ask people to consider making changesin their behavior. Each employee should come up with ascenario and run it by a partner who serves as a soundingboard. (Left to their own devices, people tend to createtests that are either too risky or so tentative that theydon't actually challenge the assumption and in fact reaf-firm its validity.) After conferring with a partner, John, forinstance, volunteered to join a short-term committeelooking at his department's process for evaluating newproduct ideas. Because the team would dissolve after amonth, he would be able to extricate himself fairlyquickly if he grew too uncomfortable with the relation-

90 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

The Real Reason People Won't Change

ships. But the experience would force him to spend asignificant amount of time with several of his whitecolleagues during that month and would provide him anopportunity to test his sense of the real costs of being afull team member.

Step 5: Evaluate the results. In the last step, employeesevaluate the test results, evaluate the test itself, design andrun new tests, and eventually question the big assump-tions. For John, this meant signing up for other initiativesand making initial social overtures to wbite coworkers. Atthe same time, by engaging in volunteer efforts within hiscommunity outside of work, he made sure that his ties tohis racial group were not compromised.

It is worth noting that revealing a big assumptiondoesn't necessarily mean it will be exposed as false. Buteven if a big assumption does contain an element of truth,an individual can often find more effective ways to oper-ate once he or she has had a chance to challenge the as-sumption and its hold on his or her behavior. Indeed, Johnfound a way to support the essence of his competing

commitment-to maintain his bond with his racialgroup-while minimizing behavior that sabotaged hisother stated commitments.

Uncovering Your Own ImmunityAs you go through this process with your employees, re-member that managers are every bit as susceptible tochange immunity as employees are, and your competingcommitments and big assumptions can have a significantimpact on the people around you. Returning once moreto Helen's story: When we went through this exercise withher boss, Andrew, it turned out that he was harboringsome contradictions of his own. While he was committedto the success of bis subordinates, Andrew at some levelassumed that he alone could meet his high standards, andas a result he was laboring under a competing commit-ment to maintain absolute control over his projects. Hewas unintentionally communicating this lack of confi-dence to his subordinates-including Helen-in subtle

Big Assumptions:How Our Perceptions Shape Our Reality

Big assumptions reflect the very human manner in which

we inventor shape a picture of the world and then take

our inventions for reality. This is easiest to see In children.

The delight we take in their charming distortions is a

kind of celebration that they are actively making sense

of the world, even ifa bit eccentrically. As one story goes,

two youngsters had been learning about Hindu culture

and were taken with a representation of the universe

in which the world sits atop 3 giant elephant, and the ele-

phant sits atop an even more giant turtle. "I wonder what

the turtle sits on," says one of the children. "I think from

then on," says the other,"it's turtles all the way down."

But deep within our amusement may lurk a note of

condescension, an implication that this is what distin-

guishes children from grown-ups. Their meaning-making

is subject to youthful distortions, we assume. Ours repre-

sents an accurate map of reality.

But does it? Are we really finished discovering, once

we have reached adulthood, that our maps don't match

the territory? The answer is clearly no. In our 20 years

of longitudinal and cross-sectional research, we've

discovered that adults must grow into and out of several

qualitatively different views of the world if they are to

master the challenges of their life experiences {see

Robert Kegan, In Over Our Heads, Harvard University

Press, 1994).

A woman we met from Australia told us about her

experience living in the United States for a year."Not

only do you drive on the wrong side of the street over

here," she said,"your steering wheels are on the wrong

side, too. I would routinely pile into the right side of the

car to drive off, only to discover I needed to get out and

walk over to the other side.

"One day," she continued,"! was thinking about six dif-

ferent things, and I got into the right side of the car,

took out my keys, and was prepared to drive off. I looked

up and thought to myself,'My God, here in the violent

and lawless United States, they are even stealing steer/ng

wheels!'"

Of course, the countervailing evidence wasjust an

arm's length to her left, but-and this is the main point-

why should she look? Our big assumptions create a dis-

arming and deluding sense of certainty. If we know

where a steering wheel belongs, we are unlikely to look

for it some place else. If we know what our company,

department, boss, or subordinate can and can't do, why

should we look for countervailing data-even if it is just

an arm's length away?

NOVEMBER 2001 91

The Real Reason People Won't Change

Getting Groups to ChangeAlthough competing commitments and big assumptions

tend to be deeply personal, groups are just as susceptible

as individuals to the dynamics of immunity to change.

Face-to-face teams, departments, and even companies as

a whole can fall prey to inner contradictions that "pro-

tect" them from significant changes they may genuinely

strive for. The leadership team of a video production

company, for instance, enjoyed a highly collaborative,

largely flat organizational structure. A year before we

met the group, team members had undertaken a plan-

ning process that led them to a commitment of which

they were unanimously in favor: In order to ensure that

the company would grow in the way the team wished,

each of the principals would take responsibility for ag-

gressively overseeing a distinct market segment.

The members of the leadership team told us they

came out of this process with a great deal of momentum.

They knew which markets to target, they had formed

some concrete plans for moving forward, and they had

clearly assigned accountability for each market. Yet

a year later, the group had to admit it had accomplished

very little, despite the enthusiasm. There vi/ere lots of

rational explanations: "We were unrealistic; we thought

we could do new things and still have time to keep

meeting our present obligations." "We didn't pursue new

clients aggressively enough.""We tried new things but

gave uptooquicktyiftheydidn't immediately payoff"

Efforts to overcome these barriers-to pursue clients

more aggressively, for instance-didn't work because

they didn't get to the cause of the unproductive behavior.

But by seeing the team's explanations as a potential

window into the bigger competing commitment, we

were able to help the group better understand its pre-

dicament. We asked, "Can you identify even the vaguest

fear or worry about what might happen \f you did more

aggressively pursue the nev* markets? Or if you reduced

some of your present activity on behalf of building the

nevi/business?" Before long, a difi^rent discourse began

to emerge, and the other half of a striking groupwide

contradiction came into view: The principals were

worried that pursuing the plan would drive them apart

functionally and emotionally.

"We now realize we are also committed to preserving

the noncompetitive, intellectually rewarding, and

cocreative spirit of our corporate enterprise," they con-

cluded. On behalf of this commitment, the team mem-

bers had to commend themselves on how "noncompeti-

tively" and "cocreatively" they were finding ways to

undermine the strategic plans they still believed were

the best route to the company's future success. The

team's big assumptlons?"We assumed that pursuing the

target-market strategy, with each of us taking aggressive

responsibility for a given segment, would create the 'silos'

we have long happily avoided and v ould leave us more

isolated from one another. We also assumed the strategy

would make us more competitively disposed toward one

another." Whether or not the assumptions were true, they

would have continued to block the group's efforts until

they were brought to light. In fact, as the group came to

discover,there were a variety of moves that would allow

the leadership team to preserve a genuinely collaborative

collegiality while pursuing the new corporate strategy.

ways. In the end, Andrew's and Helen's competing com-mitments were, without their knowledge, mutually rein-forcing, keeping Helen dependent on Andrew andallowing Andrew to control her projects.

Helen and Andrew are still working through this pro-cess, but they've already gained invaluable insight intotheir behavior and the ways they are impeding their ownprogress. This may seem like a small step, but bringingthese issues to the surface and confronting them head-onis challenging and painful-yet tremendously effective. Itallows managers to see, at last, what's really going onwhen people who are genuinely committed to changenonetheless dig in their heels. It's not about identifying

unproductive behavior and systematically making plansto correct it, as if treating symptoms would cure a disease.It's not about coaxing or cajoling or even giving poor per-formance reviews. It's about understanding the complex-ities of people's behavior, guiding them through a pro-ductive process to bring their competing commitments tothe surface, and helping them cope with the inner conflictthat is preventing them from achieving their goals. '0

Reprint ROIIOETo order reprints, see the last page of Executive Summaries.

To further explore the topic of this article, go towww. hbr.org/explore.

92 HARVARD BUSiNBSS REVIEW

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009

Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for

the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material

in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may

not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any

other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on

learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning

management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content

available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.