"Why People Resist Change"

Por que aquilo a que chamamos resistência à mudança acontece como um comportamento perfeitamente normal.

"The "autotelic self""

E aplicar o que segue a empresas? Atentas ao contexto, prontas a abraçar a mudança, e sentindo-se ao volante,  estabelecem indicadores e objectivos, monitorizam o desempenho e tomam decisões com base no feedback. Não porque seguem uma receita, mas porque vivem.

"A person who is healthy, rich, strong, and powerful has no greater odds of being in control of his consciousness than one who is sickly, poor, weak, and oppressed. The difference between someone who enjoys life and someone who is overwhelmed by it is a product of a combination of such external factors and the way a person has come to interpret them - that is, whether he sees challenges as threats or as opportunities for action. [Moi ici: Recordar as reflexões sobre os que resistem à mudança versus os que a abraçam - Abraçar ou resistir à mudança? ou Resistir versus abraçar]

The "autotelic self" is one that easily translates potential threats into enjoyable challenges, and therefore maintains its inner harmony. A person who is never bored, seldom anxious, involved with what goes on, and in flow most of the time may be said to have an autotelic self. The term literally means "a self that has self-contained goals," and it reflects the idea that such an individual has relatively few goals that do not originate from within the self [Moi ici: Recordar as reflexões sobre o locus de controlo interno e externo - Isto é mesmo um desafio digno de Hercules e Calimeros - não obrigado!].  For most people, goals are shaped directly by biological needs and social conventions, and therefore their origin is outside the self. For an autotelic person, the primary goals emerge from experience evaluated in consciousness, and therefore from the self proper.

The autotelic self transforms potentially entropic experience into flow. Therefore the rules for developing such a self are simple, and they derive directly from the flow model. Briefly, they can be summarized as follows:

1. Setting goals. To be able to experience flow, one must have clear goals to strive for. A person with an autotelic self learns to make choices-ranging from lifelong commitments, such as getting married and settling on a vocation, to trivial decisions like what to do on the weekend or how to spend the time waiting in the dentist's office--without much fuss and the minimum of panic.

...

As soon as the goals and challenges define a system of action, they in turn suggest the skills necessary to operate within it. If I decide to quit my job and become a resort operator, it follows that I should learn about hotel management, financing, commercial locations, and so on. Of course, the sequence may also start in reverse order: what I perceive my skills to be could lead to the development of a particular goal that builds on those strengths - I may decide to become a resort operator because I see myself as having the right qualifications for it.

And to develop skills, one needs to pay attention to the results of one's actions-to monitor the feedback. To become a good resort operator, I have to interpret correctly what the bankers who might lend me money think about my business proposal. I need to know what features of the operation are attractive to customers and what features they dislike. Without constant attention to feedback I would soon become detached from the system of action, cease to develop skills, and become less effective.

One of the basic differences between a person with an autotelic self and one without it is that the former knows that it is she who has chosen whatever goal she is pursuing. What she does is not random, nor is it the result of outside determining forces. This fact results in two seemingly opposite outcomes. On the one hand, having a feeling of ownership of her decisions, the person is more strongly dedicated to her goals. Her actions are reliable and internally controlled. On the other hand, knowing them to be her own, she can more easily modify her goals whenever the reasons for preserving them no longer make sense. In that respect, an autotelic person's behavior is both more consistent and more flexible."

"resistance is an emotional process"

"When we ask for help, we want both a solution to the problem and confirmation that everything we have done has been perfect.

A colleague of mine, Neale Clapp, mentioned one day that people entering therapy want confirmation, not change. On the surface, it would be ridiculous for a client to bring in a consultant for help, and then tell the consultant that no change was desired and the client did not really want to learn anything. This would not be rational. But that is the point: resistance is an emotional process, not a rational or intellectual one.

...

Not surprisingly, organizations that are in serious trouble tend to be the most difficult clients. They need to change the most and are least able to do it. For low-performing organizations, the tension of failure is so high that they are unable to take one more risk, and so instead they hold on to their unsatisfactory performance. In these extreme cases, there is probably not much consultants can do to surface the resistance to change. We may just have to accept it."

Julgo que já escrevi sobre este tema, Procrastinação e falta do sentido de urgência, sobre empresas que adiam a aplicação de micro-mudanças ao longo do vector tempo, ampliando o gap entre o que são e o que deveriam ser, até que só uma grande mudança a pode ajudar, mas não há experiência sobre como mudar, e há um medo tremendo de falhar ... mudar significa avançar para algo desconhecido, mudar significa medo.

Trechos retirados de "Flawless consulting: a guide to getting your expertise used" de Peter Block.

"Just do it!"

 Na segunda-feira publiquei aqui no blogue, "a hypothesis waiting to be tested":

"There's a failure to understand that you can run an organization thinking like a scientist. By that I mean, just recognizing that every opinion you hold at work is a hypothesis waiting to be tested. And every decision you make is an experiment waiting to be run.

So many leaders just implement decisions. It's like life is an A/B test, but they just ran with the A, and didn't even realize that there was a possible B, C, D and E. Too many leaders feel like their decisions are permanent."

 Entretanto, li mais uns trechos retirados de "How Big Things Get Done" de Bent Flyvbjerg e que julgo que encaixam bem com os sublinhados acima:

"A preference for doing over talking -sometimes distilled into the phrase "bias for action" - is an idea as common in business as it is necessary. Wasted time can be dangerous. "Speed matters in business," notes one of Amazon's famous leadership principles,

...

however, that Bezos carefully limited the bias for action to decisions that are "reversible." Don't spend lots of time ruminating on those sorts of decisions, he advises. Try something. If it doesn't work, reverse it, and try something else. That's perfectly reasonable.

...

When this bias for action is generalized into the culture of an organization, the reversibility caveat is usually lost. What's left is a slogan - "Just do it!"

...

we found that managers feel more productive executing tasks than planning them," ... "Especially when under time pressure, they perceive planning to be wasted effort." To put that in more general behavioral terms, people in power, which includes executives deciding about big projects, prefer to go with the quick flow of availability bias, as opposed to the slow effort of planning."

"a hypothesis waiting to be tested"

"There's a failure to understand that you can run an organization thinking like a scientist. By that I mean, just recognizing that every opinion you hold at work is a hypothesis waiting to be tested. And every decision you make is an experiment waiting to be run.

So many leaders just implement decisions. It's like life is an A/B test, but they just ran with the A, and didn't even realize that there was a possible B, C, D and E. Too many leaders feel like their decisions are permanent. [Moi ici: E ignoram aquela lição de vida - O que é verdade hoje, amanhã é mentira - as alterações do contexto tornam obsoletas as boas decisões do passado] As opposed to saying, "We're going to test and learn."

...

If you have a skeptical or resistant audience, it's not effective to go into prosecutor mode. It just invites the other person to bring their best defense attorney to court, and then we're just butting heads and nobody learns or opens their mind or changes anything. I think there are some good alternatives, including motivational interviewing, which is to just say, hey, I'm excited about this change. I'm anticipating some resistance. And I'd love to know what would motivate you to try this? Is there anything that would make it worth considering for you? And then you actually learn what motivates people by interviewing them as opposed to trying to shove your idea down their throats."

Trechos retirados de "Why CEOs Should Think Differently- and Experiment" publicado no WSJ do de 23 de Fevereiro último.

Por que engonhamos tanto?

Na capa do JN de ontem:

O futuro em Portugal anda à velocidade de um caracol. Estamos em Fevereiro de 2023. 

Aqui no blogue em Abril de 2007 - "Estava escrito nas estrelas ...". Depois, em Abril de 2008 "Um caminho para a farmácia do futuro?" e esta série até Janeiro de 2018 - A farmácia do futuro (parte VII).

Por que engonhamos tanto? Tanta gente a defender o passado, tantos responsáveis com medo de abraçar o futuro. Tanto tempo perdido, tantos recursos desperdiçados, tanta gente prejudicada.

Sermos a mudança que queremos ver

""The truth about culture is that the only way you can change it is by changing the way individuals work with one another. If you can change that, then you will find the culture has changed."

To change the way people work together, Martin argues, leaders must model the behaviors they want to see. "Literally the only way that I've seen culture change in the 42 years since I graduated from business school is when a leader sets out to demonstrate a different kind of behavior and makes that behavior work. Other people take their cues from that behavior, and, slowly but surely, the culture changes," he says. "Kremlin-watching does not happen only in Moscowit's an incredibly powerful force. People watch the leadership and do what the leadership does."

A notable aspect of this approach is that it does not require a major initiative or investment. Instead, the culture change depends on micro-interventions: small adjustments to the to the structure, dynamics, or framing of interpersonal interactions, applied consistently over time."

Trecho retirado de "When it comes to changing culture, think small"

"Transforming An Obstacle Into A Design Constraint"

  "Transforming An Obstacle Into A Design Constraint" 

Li esta frase ontem, durante a minha caminhada matinal junto ao Atlântico (finalmente acabou o Verão, e tenho a praia só para mim) aqui. 

Julgo que é esta a diferença entre os que resistem e os que abraçam a mudança, um tema recorrente aqui no blogue:

• Abraçar ou resistir à mudança? (Setembro de 2021)
• Resistir versus abraçar (Março de 2021)

Julgo que foi esta abordagem que a tripulação do UA 232 seguiu:

"There is almost no reference in the cockpit to the resumption of normal flying after the hydraulics are lost. Instead, the crew of UA 232 define themselves as being in a new, distinct situation that requires a very different mode of operating. Their resilience is embodied in making do with the few resources they have left.

...

The crew of UA 232 kept revising their explanation of what is happening and what is next." 

E ainda:

"Instead, they are dealing with possibilities. “In a contingent world, real-time improvising in the face of what people cannot fully anticipate [is necessary because] having designs that work as planned is only one of the many contingencies we prepare for." 

Talvez a maioria de nós perante um obstáculo comece logo por o ver como uma desculpa para não fazer, para não mudar, para pedir ajuda ao papá-pedo-mafioso aka o estado. 

Abraçar ou resistir à mudança?

Abraçar ou resistir à mudança? Esta mudança é a mudança que ocorre no exterior, com maior ou menor velocidade. É independente da vontade das organizações, está-se marimbando para as organizações. 

Ao longo dos anos escrevo aqui sobre abraçar ou resistir à mudança. E sobretudo, sobre o papel das lideranças associativas em predispor as mentes para abraçarem a mudança e procurarem oportunidades. 

"Human beings are resistant to many kinds of change. However, we are also a species driven by curiosity and programmed to seek out novelty. The difference between embracing and resisting change is rooted in our brain-body hardwiring. Evolution has resulted in a two-channel system, which is responsible for much of our response in times of uncertainty. The Survive Channel is activated by threats and leads to feelings of fear, anxiety, and stress. These triggers activate the sympathetic nervous system and, when working well, direct all attention toward eliminating the threat. By contrast, the Thrive Channel is activated by opportunities and is associated with feelings of excitement, passion, joy, and enthusiasm. These triggers activate the parasympathetic nervous system, allowing our mind to broaden its perspective and collaborate in new ways.

Creating smart, fast change means preventing the Survive Channel from overheating while activating the Thrive Channel in sufficient numbers of people, leading to more innovation, adaptation, and leadership.

Reflecting on recent stories of organizational change, no single lesson comes across as clearly as one related to leadership — specifically, the need for more of it from more people. Leadership as a behavior, not a position, has the capacity to meet the change challenge of today. There is a strong need to reconstruct the modern organization and create an environment that fosters more autonomy, participation, and leadership.

The relative strength of the Survive Channel, combined with the emphasis on reliability and efficiency reinforced by traditional management systems, leads to organizations that generally overheat the Survive Channel and under-activate the Thrive Channel. Organizations that can pivot and change quickly require leaders who can both calm an overheated Survive and amplify Thrive, for themselves and others."

Trechos retirados de "Is Your Organization Surviving Change — or Thriving in It?"

E conjugar isto com o sensemaking que Karl Weick refere nos seus textos:

"The very first image that appeared in this book described experience as a ’sea of ceaseless change.’ I argued that organizing is about creating some patterned recurrence into that ceaseless change."

"your methods suck"

Algo que intuí há algum tempo e que exemplifiquei aqui "Causas e 5 porquês":

"E contei-lhes um caso real desta semana: numa pequena localidade do centro do país, entrei num pequeno café que tem um pão d'avó muito bom para almoçar uma sandes. Reparei que estavam duas mulheres com pinta de ucranianas a falar entre si e a interagir com os telefones. Depois, entra um sr. Alberto que veio para ler o jornal do café, depois entra uma outra mulher para tomar um café e beber um copo de água. De repente os quatro começam a falar sobre as "queridas" da encarregada da fábrica têxtil em frente, que tinham sido seleccionadas para fazer horas-extra no Sábado e que só depois de terem confeccionado 700 peças é que descobriram que as tinham feito mal."

Em sintonia com estes trechos retirados de "Change is more like adding milk to coffee":

"There is no such thing as Resistance to Change - only smart response to dumb method
...
"People don´t resist change."
Can you say that to yourself, in your head? Now that is a start. But what is behind the behavior, then, that we are observing all the time, in change efforts, if it is not resistance to change? Take a step back and you will see that people act consciously and intelligently (overall), to other things than the change itself. They may resist loss of status and power - which is quite intelligent. They may resist injustice, stupidity and being changed. Which is also intelligent. The change may also cause need for learning that is not properly addressed. And these are the things that we have to deal with in change: power structures, status, injustice, consequence, our own stupidity, top-down command-and-control, and learning.
.
"The more resistance to change you observe, the more likely it is that your methods suck."
.
Instead of watching out for the possibility of resistance, we should watch out for common mistakes in implementing change and deal with the perfectly natural reactions to (our) poor interventions."

"Uber", Mongo e a educação (parte III)

Parte I e parte II.

Outra peça para trabalhar este desafio, "How can schools best prepare students for the future? Give them real work to do": "Prepare our Kids for Life, Not Standardized Tests".

"Uber", Mongo e a educação (parte II)

Parte I.

Mais uma peça para a construção de uma reflexão sobre o futuro da educação em Mongo em "Young Americans need to be taught skills, not handed credentials":

"One recent survey found that 43 per cent of college grads are underemployed.
.
This certainly mirrors what I hear from chief executives, many of whom tell me they cannot find the skills they need either at the top or the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Ivy League colleges are great for those who can afford them but most education has become completely disconnected from the needs of both students and the labour market.
.
There are plenty of MBAs who can read a balance sheet but have neither operational nor soft skills. Four-year business administration graduates are settling for low wage gigs, while $20-an-hour manufacturing jobs go unfilled because employers can’t find anyone with vocational training.
.
Desperate companies are trying to plug the gap — telecoms group AT&T has set up an internal online course to train the 95 per cent of those in its own technology and services unit that have inadequate ability in Stem subjects — Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths. Walmart Academy has trained thousands of workers, including in basic skills they should have learnt in high schools.
...
Perhaps the most successful and scalable bridging of the skills and credentials gap thus far has been the P-Tech high school, initially started by IBM as a way to create a middle-market talent pool and now said to run with 500 other industry partners in 110 schools in eight states."

Voltaremos ao século XIX? A escola pública existe para servir os funcionários,

2/2 voltaremos a ver a genuína escola comercial oliveira martins no porto, suportada pelo sector e independente do ministério da educação?

— Carlos P da Cruz (@ccz1) October 6, 2015

"Então, veio-me à mente a conversa deste mês de Agosto com estudante da FCUP do curso de Ciências de Computação. Segundo ele, o curso foi objecto de reformulação há dois anos. No entanto, continua a não dar toda uma série de linguagens de programação que as empresas precisam mas que os professores não dominam, nem têm motivação para aprender (esse estudante passou parte do mês de Agosto a estudar programação para Android nos cursos da Udacity).
.
Se a FCUP optasse por contratar professores para darem aulas sobre essas linguagens os professores incumbentes sofreriam."

Daqui, de onde também recordo:

"Há uma frase feita qualquer acerca das organizações que se aplica como uma luva neste caso:
Quando a velocidade da mudança no exterior, no contexto, no entorno de uma organização, é muito maior que a velocidade a que essa organização consegue mudar... temos outra Torre de Babel:"

“That’s how we’ve always done it.”

Este exemplo:

É um caso concreto de:

“That’s how we’ve always done it.”

"The other “commandment” is to become very suspicious anytime you ask, “Why do we do this like that?” and you receive the answer, “That’s how we’ve always done it.” If no one in the organization can explain why a certain practice is the best, or why the product has to offer certain features, that may reveal a bad habit. I suggest several activities the leaders of organizations can do to get to the bottom of this puzzle. First, write down key business processes and ask yourself if you understand why the organization is doing it this way. Then ask others in the company if they understand why. Finally, ask newcomers to the company — after they have been with the organization two or three months — what processes they have seen in the organization they do not understand.
...
You propose that an organization implement “change for change’s sake.” Why?
.
There is value in the process of change itself. Many organizations are attached to certain processes and do not realize that when these processes become less relevant or do not work as well, it is time to change. I suggest not waiting for trouble; be proactive about making changes.
.
When processes become routinized, silos develop across firms, communication and cooperation fade away, and certain departments begin to command a disproportionate amount of resources. If the company waits for these things to emerge, it is often too late and too difficult to change. Instead, the company should adopt minor but proactive changes on a consistent basis."

Trechos retirados de "How — and Why — You Need to Break Bad Business Habits"

"only 54%"

"Since the mid-2000s, organizational change management and transformation have become permanent features of the business landscape. Vast new markets and labor pools have opened up, innovative technologies have put once-powerful business models on the chopping block, and capital flows and investor demand have become less predictable. To meet these challenges, firms have become more sophisticated in the best practices for organizational change management. They are far more sensitive to and more keenly aware of the role that culture plays. They’ve also had to get much better on their follow-through.
...
the success rate of major change initiatives is only 54 percent. This is far too low. The costs are high when change efforts go wrong—not only financially but in confusion, lost opportunity, wasted resources, and diminished morale. When employees who have endured real upheaval and put in significant extra hours for an initiative that was announced with great fanfare see it simply fizzle out, cynicism sets in."

Agora imaginem o quanto o mundo muda e muda a uma velocidade mais forte, o quanto essas mudanças requerem novas estratégias, o quanto essas estratégias são apenas hipóteses que têm de ser testadas e afinadas ou revistas, o quanto a execução de uma estratégia assenta na implementação e integração de projectos de mudança em processos... projectos de mudança?

54% nos Estados Unidos! E por cá?


Trechos retirados de "10 Principles of Leading Change Management"

"the rapid testing of many modest innovations"

Fantástico!

Que memórias!

Chegar ao Twitter e apanhar uma ligação para um artigo, "All Management Is Change Management". Ler o título e perceber que o nome do autor é Robert H. Schaffer.

Fico logo em pulgas. Será que é o mesmo Robert H. Schaffer que escreveu "The Breakthrough Strategy"?

Leio o artigo e no final vejo a foto do autor e confirmo que é o mesmo Robert H. Schaffer que tanto me ensinou e que citei nestes postais:

• A dança da chuva e outros rituais (Julho de 2006)
• Simplex (Abril de 2006)

Quando não sigo o principal conselho de Schaffer arrependo-me: concentrar um problema grande numa cascata de problemas mais pequenos e capazes de serem resolvidos mais rapidamente.

E o que diz Schaffer neste artigo?

"all management is the management of change.
.
If sales need to be increased, that’s change management. If a merger needs to be implemented, that’s change management. If a new personnel policy needs to be carried out, that’s change management. If the erosion of a market requires a new business model, that’s change management. Costs reduced? Productivity improved? New products developed? Change management.
.
The job of management always involves defining what changes need to be made and seeing that those changes take place. Even when the overall aim is stability, often there are still change goals: to reduce variability, cut costs, reduce the time required, or reduce turnover, for example. Once every job in a company is defined in terms of the changes to be made (both large and small), constant improvement can become the routine. Each innovation brings lessons that inform ongoing operations. The organization becomes a perpetual motion machine. Change never occurs as some sort of happening; it is part of everyday life.
...
Leaders should view change not as an occasional disruptor but as the very essence of the management job. Setting tough goals, establishing processes to reach them, carrying out those processes and carefully learning from them — these steps should characterize the unending daily life of the organization at every level. More companies need to describe their work in terms of where they are trying to go in the next month or next quarter or next year.
.
How do you transition into such a company? The simple answer is to skip the months spent creating a comprehensive plan to make the company more change-oriented. Instead, focus on some important goals that are not being accomplished. Have teams carve out some sub-goals they will aim to achieve in a few months. [Moi ici: Este é o velho Schaffer!] They should be asked to test innovative steps they think will make a difference and to learn from the process. Maintaining a short time frame for these experiments permits the rapid testing of many modest innovations. Of course, these are steps to advance major strategic goals, but the emphasis should be on executing specific changes — with each success followed by a new round of more-ambitious goals to tackle."

Sindicatos. “É um absurdo” proibir o corte de árvores durante 15 anos

Com base numa ideia do @joaomiranda no Twitter:

A propósito de "Sindicatos. “É um absurdo” proibir a pesca da sardinha durante 15 anos"

'Playing Not to Lose Syndrome'

Mateus 25, 14:30

"His business suffered from slowing growth, systemic service problems, and aggressive and new competitors.
.
However, he seemed unable or unwilling to alter his course. He was worried about changing too much and possibly making things worse. So, he chose to stay the course. Now, here he was having dinner with me, losing his company and unemployed.
...
This senior executive is a perfect example of a person who has the 'Playing Not to Lose Syndrome.' Instead of striving to win and thrive in business, he was merely hoping not to lose and make it through one more day.
...
The real problem with doing just enough to get by and no more is that, like a person treading water, it ultimately doesn't work. At some point, you must swim to shore, or you will drown.
.
People believe that if they keep their heads down, nothing will change. Yet they lose anyway and what they are trying so hard to protect gets blown up in the end. And yet, the human tendency is to hold tighter and tighter to the status quo as though it were a security blanket--not understanding that it's smothering them!"

Trechos retirados de "How Avoiding Harsh Realities Cost These Leaders Their Business"

"To discover that the unfamiliar is the comfortable familiar they seek"

"People will do a bad (a truly noxious) job for a long time because it feels familiar. Legions of people will stick with a dying industry because it feels familiar.
.
The reason Kodak failed, it turns out, has nothing to do with grand corporate strategy (the people at the top saw it coming), and nothing to do with technology (the scientists and engineers got the early patents in digital cameras). Kodak failed because it was a chemical company and a bureaucracy, filled with people eager to do what they did yesterday.
.
Change is the unfamiliar.
.
Change creates incompetence.
.
In the face of change, the critical questions that leaders must start with are, "Why did people come to work here today? What did they sign up for?"
...
The solution is as simple as it is difficult: If you want to build an organization that thrives in change (and on change), hire and train people to do the paradoxical: To discover that the unfamiliar is the comfortable familiar they seek. Skiers like going downhill when it's cold, scuba divers like getting wet. That's their comfortable familiar. Perhaps you and your team can view change the same way."

Trechos retirados de "In search of familiarity"

Facilitar a mudança

"Forget efficiency. Motivating true change requires unhurried, face-to-face, one-on-one conversation. Email doesn’t do it, nor do memos or webcasts. If a specific work group or person is very important to your organization’s future, and they are resisting needed change, you have to take the time to talk with them in person, and to do it under as little time pressure as possible.
.
Focus on listening. No matter how brilliant your plan or persuasive your argument, you must make everyone feel understood. That starts and ends with listening. When you’re in these conversations, make sure to take up no more than 20% of the airtime, and when you do speak, try to repeat back what you’ve heard as much as possible.
.
Be open to change yourself. A resistor who senses you are listening only so you can get what you want won’t open up and definitely won’t get onboard. You must have an open attitude — be ready to learn something new and, if necessary, modify your plans. Show that resistors’ opinions and feelings matter to you and will shape your thinking and actions.
.
Have multiple conversations. We’ve found that effective dialogue with resistors typically requires a minimum of two conversations. In the first conversation, you listen and diagnose the roots of the resistance. In the second conversation, your goal is to make clear that you have reflected on what you heard; to outline what will be different, or not, in your approach to the change based on that conversation; and to explain why. Even if you’re not changing your overall plan, we’ve found that anyone who truly listens to opposition will have their thinking changed in some way. So you can at least be genuine about that.
The time in between these two conversations is critical. We recommend at least two days, depending on the scale of the change. If you respond immediately, either during the initial talk or within a few hours, resistors won’t believe, perhaps rightly, that you’ve fully considered their point of view. But don’t wait more than seven days, because at that point the person feels dismissed and forgotten.
Effective change management is critical to the vitality and progress of every organization. Where most people trip up is in failing to manage resistance effectively. Doing so requires an ability to listen to your opposition, diagnose their antipathy, consider their thoughts and feelings, and explain how it has changed your thinking, if not your plan. This is a time-consuming but effective process."

Trecho retirado de "Overcome Resistance to Change with Two Conversations"