It’s not a change to the practices that’s hard for employees, but a change to relationships.
Developers of AI systems and large companies forecast a global restructuring of work processes due to artificial intelligence.
However, most respondents in Forbes’ survey (77%) express concern that AI adoption will lead to job loss.
So, in the eyes of those who are supposed to implement it, AI may not appear as an opportunity but as a threat. And this is easy to explain. Work is a profoundly meaningful part of a person’s sense of self. No matter how good AI might be for the world in the long term, people care most about having a job that pays well, makes them feel like they belong, and lets them take care of themselves and their families. To all of this, AI is an immediate threat.
Fear of job loss and other factors, such as our innate tendency to stick with the status quo, result in stark resistance to change.
We believe it’s important for businesses and individuals to confront change resistance. Not only does this resistance hinder any potential positive impacts from AI, but it’s also becoming increasingly clear that AI is here to stay and essential for remaining competitive. The trend is shifting towards ethical AI usage rather than complete avoidance of AI.
In this article, we aim to provide helpful guidance for managers and employees on handling resistance to change. We’ll explore insights from the well-known Harvard Business Review article “How to Deal with Resistance to Change” and apply them to the current AI environment.
Harvard Business Review is well-known for its in-depth research on organizational change. One of its influential publications, the article “How to Deal with Resistance to Change,” authored by Paul R. Wallace and published in 1969, offers valuable insights gathered during social research among factory and plant workers. Despite a huge social and economic shift since that time, the key ideas hold true. Here, we outline the key concepts described by Wallace.
To highlight the difference between planning change and implementing it, the author groups everyone involved in the change process based on how hands-on they are with making things happen versus planning.
Depending on the industry and the size of the business, the members of these groups will vary. The main point is that within an organization, it’s often the case that different individuals are tasked with planning and implementing innovation.
Learn more about the definition of change within the domain of IT services in our articles “What is Change Management?” and “Change Management Best Practices and Tips.”
Let’s examine the process of transitioning to using AI in writing website blogs.
The technical changes involve modifying the workflow to include AI apps, buying subscriptions to the needed services, and training employees on the new workflow.
The social changes include the change in social relationships that the writers might experience. Letting AI fulfill the job they’d previously poured their soul into might disrupt their professional identity. Moreover, fear of losing their job may occur. There is a risk that content writers will unintentionally resist the idea and impede the implementation process.
While it may seem trivial that people resist additional effort, let’s dig deeper. How often do we propose changes without considering the social aspect, or simply put, the reaction of the employees who will implement these changes? What if we start viewing change resistance as a “natural” obstacle that we must overcome as part of our job rather than a flaw in the employees?
This idea is precisely what Paul R. Wallace advocates for.
Wallace also mentions that managers themselves can slow down the implementation process due to resistance to change, not just the operators. When managers spend a lot of time working on an idea, they may become so passionate about it that they reject any criticism. As Wallace puts it, “the idea becomes their baby.” Even though operators could provide valuable feedback on their ideas because of their close involvement in the production process, managers might not listen because they’re too attached to the project.
To solve this problem, it’s important to understand why these behaviors occur. Like the operators we discussed earlier, managers are also very committed to their work. Operators resist changes because it affects how they see themselves professionally, and managers ignore feedback because the project is a big part of their professional identity too.
Acknowledging the importance of the social component of any change, the author advocates for a collaborative approach to planning changes. What might this look like?
“People who do not have a feeling of comprehension of what they are doing are denied the opportunity to exercise that uniquely human ability—the ability to use informed and intelligent judgment on what they do.”
Most importantly, Paul R. Wallace underscores that the collaborative approach won’t work if it’s just about getting people to do what you want. Real participation comes when managers understand they need input from those doing the actual work to put ideas to life.
Start your trial with Alloy Software today
