Thank you for being a reader of Transition Edge. Please feel free to forward it to friends who you think might enjoy it too.

I’m Grant Symons. I convene Transition Edge to help us understand how we can transition to a low carbon sustainable world using leading thinking and practices.

There are people that love change. They love the challenge, the spice, the variety, learning new things, meeting new people, creating news ways of doing things and overcoming problems.

I recall interviewing people in a telecommunications company that had undergone so much organisational restructuring that they had moved beyond fearing it, to living with it and then expecting it – some relished the thought of moving on to something new, in a new team with different responsibilities and objectives.

But that is the exception. Few sectors are that fast moving, and some don’t change much at all. In the case of the telecommunications and information systems sectors they were, and still are, driven by the rapid technology development that delivers our internet and mobile networks.

There are also organisations that are designed to be rigid and resist change. Banks, insurance companies and many government agencies are all required to deliver highly secure, consistent (often due to legislation) and robust services, and doing so limits their appetite for change. The culture and people employed maintain a change-less or highly controlled state in various ways.

And there are organisations that desperately need to, and want to, change but are held back by people that don’t want to or can’t change. Whether it is fear, the need for retention of power, the grief that might come from losing long time work colleagues, the mortgage, or lack of motivation - making change with these folks around is challenging.

Although this article is intended to be somewhat of a humorous take on things, the stakes may be extremely high. It only takes one person to drag down an important venture and when there is a network of them, the chances of making any meaningful change, at all, is about zero. This situation can be career limiting and put the organisation and your own heath and well-being at risk.

Here are some insights into people archetypes we have run into, their motivations and how they operate.

The Killer Ducklings*

This group is known for their relentless wearing down. Imagine laying on the ground and being pecked by this seemingly innocuous threat. The first thirty thousand pecks would probably wear your clothes away and then the next ten thousand would make a mess of your skin, to the point you are so uncomfortable you must leave.

These people exist. Their pecks and snipes are so well calculated as not to raise suspicion. They play the politics immaculately.  Drawing out a process, adding in some new requirements, deferring decisions, spreading rumors, they can turn the simplest of actions into a never-ending nightmare.

They exist in cliques nested within highly political and power-driven environments and get rid of you and your incompatible change agenda with a smile on their face.

*The Killer Ducklings first came up in a conversation with a colleague Clark Ching, who coined the term to explain how waste builds up in a system and constrains progress and improvement.

The Terrorists

Like the killer ducklings the terrorist is opposed to change, and they consciously work against it. They can go to great lengths to maintain the status quo and may be right in your face about their position. The terrorist is less refined than the Killer Ducklings and can’t help but expose themselves when confronted with a change they don’t want. They are easier to flush out.

The terrorist will torpedo a major decision process, overtly rig a steering group, and sometimes come right out and challenge you face to face. They might leverage authority, position and knowledge in ways that initially seem to be helpful, but if you know what to look for you might notice the cards are being stacked against you by a cunning saboteur.

The Permafrost

Like a possum in the headlights the permafrost folks are often just stuck. They don’t know what to do or how to change. Probably scarred by multiple inept change programmes, deployed by remote human resources experts and consultants, they have found it is better to keep your head below the parapet.

They probably exist in organisations that don’t change much anyway and haven’t changed for so long they are frozen in time. It may not be that they oppose change themselves, but this doesn’t stop them becoming pawns to be used by the Killer Ducklings and Terrorists.

What to do?

1. Ask why does this organisation and its people need to change in the first place.
2. If the answer is “an existential threat” then go to point 6
3. If the answer is because a consultant said you should, then go to point 7
4. If the answer is not apparent, go back to point 1
5. If you just want to kick the can, make some money, take a handout from the Government (knowing nothing will change) go to point 7
6. Assess the state and fitness of the organisation to be able to change. Keep in mind that there will be a range of change resisters as outlined above. If there is a group of people committed to positive change, including leaders, then go to point 9
7. If you can stomach hanging around, making some money, and going along with the ‘no change’ or ‘fake change’ agenda then stay. If not then go to point 8
8. Bail out
9. Do the job properly –
   1. Establish who is in charge
   2. Involve people up front and give them a fair and proper opportunity to get with the new programme
   3. Do pilot projects that can’t be interfered with
   4. Restructure out the people that must go
   5. Create a culture that expels or never allows the three archetypes above to get a foot hold.