There is often more than one way, more than one "direction" to solve the same problem. Wary Will will probably not help us climb the cliff if he prefers to stay and fight the alligator. Once we agree on the problem, we often bump into Layer 3 (see Fig. 20-3). What happens in Layer 3 is that each party tries to convince everyone else to go their way. Each party insists that their direction for the solution is better than everyone else's and stubbornly refuses to hear anyone else out. If no one agrees on the direction, there is no point in detailing any of them.

FIGURE 20-3 The TOC layers of resistance to change.

If we anticipate such trouble, we had better come prepared. We need to invest in putting together a list of criteria for what would be considered a good solution. This list may include items such as achieving the opposite of some of the main undesirable effects, meeting the important needs of the involved parties, and avoiding significant negative ramifications. After we present the criteria and agree on them, we should review the directions for the solutions that people have put forth. Since we have invested in identifying the core problem and devised a good solution for it (and we are the ones who wrote the list of good criteria), we have a far better chance of meeting the criteria than our counterparts. And what if we haven't? Well, perhaps we should realize that their direction for the solution is better than ours is, and proceed accordingly.

It might seem like putting together a list of criteria for a good solution is just a hassle. Why not simply discuss each solution to judge its merit? Many times putting this list together is indeed an "overachievement," where an intuitive discussion would suffice. But sometimes taking this extra step can make or break our problem solving. It is easy to imagine scenarios involving, well, human nature: If we start comparing solutions, the discussion bears the risk of becoming personal (and emotional) fairly quickly ("mine is bigger than yours!"-sound familiar?). The more we compare and judge, the harder each participant will hold on to and fight for their solution, which makes it much harder to maintain a civil discussion, let alone reach a consensus. A list of good criteria upon which everyone agrees in advance before reviewing any of the solutions serves as a logical fencepost to which we can all refer back. Looking at each solution alongside the list of criteria will help us conduct a practical, rather than personal, discussion. This way we hope that we can let go of the directions that are less desirable and get consensus on one direction. Once we are in agreement on which direction we should take, Layer 3 is peeled away and we can move on.

Layer 4. Disagreeing on the details of the solution

It's important to peel away Layer 3 (the direction for solution) and Layer 4 (the details of the solution) separately when we are facing a change on a large scale that probably has more than one direction for solution and in which there are many details involved in each direction. With smaller, simpler changes, the direction and the details tend to merge into one discussion about the solution, and trying to keep them separate becomes superficial.

In this Layer we may hear people say, "Your solution is not good enough," "It does not address the entire problem," "This is a terrible solution! It doesn't cover x, y, or z." People agree to our direction for a solution, but claim the solution is not yet complete; it does not achieve all the desired results. Instead of spelling the doom of our project, such objections actually enable us to check whether we have constructed a comprehensive solution to the problem or we have missed something. We should swallow our resentment toward the other party for poking holes in our precious solution, and instead evaluate their comments as openly (and neutrally) as possible. If their concern is not valid, we should further explain our solution until they see that it is designed to achieve the benefit they pointed out. And if they were right, we should thank them for opening our eyes at this early stage and alter our solution in accordance with their suggestions.

What if we fail to resolve the other party's issues? If it seems that our plan will fail to achieve a significant benefit, we have to be open enough to re-evaluate our solution and see if it is as good as we thought it was. Maybe we should go back to Layer 3 and choose a different direction for the solution. If we want the other side to evaluate the merit of our suggested change objectively, then we, too, must be objective about it, not blinded by our enthusiasm or sense of ownership.

The other party may bring up more than one desired outcome they suspect is missing. If we are determined to get the other party's full collaboration (and get the most out of the change), we should listen to what they have to say, determine which significant benefits are missing, and discuss how to modify the change in order to achieve these outcomes as well. One way to systematically overcome this Layer is by first getting consensus on all the benefits (or the "desired effects") that the change should bring. To do this, simply write down the opposite of each undesirable effect that was brought up during the discussion of the problem. Then review each desirable effect to determine whether the change is designed to attain it. If one or more of these significant benefits was indeed neglected, we should alter the change to address it. The TOC thinking tool that may assist us here is the Future Reality Tree (FRT).

Layer 5. "Yes, but..." The solution has negative ramifications

Once we agree on the solution and believe we have covered all its angles, we are eager to start talking about the implementation steps. This is why we have to take a deep breath when we hear the next expected response-the "yes, but" concerns. "Yes it all sounds good, but you do realize that if we go ahead with this we will end up suffering from...," they say. I have yet to see one buy-in effort where the initiator did not spend a considerable amount of energy dealing with this Layer. If the other party feels our solution might cause damage, there is little chance they will be willing to collaborate. We must take the time to understand what their concern is and why they claim it is an unavoidable result of our suggested solution. If their concern holds water, we had better address it, and if it does not we should clarify why that is. The TOC tool that is designed to help at this stage is the Negative Branch (NBR).

The other party may bring up more than one negative ramification they suspect the change will have. The bigger the change and the more people involved, the more "vulnerable" we are to objections at this Layer. In our haste to complete the buy-in effort, we might look into and address one concern, assume that one small adjustment is enough to overcome this Layer, and move on. This is a grave mistake. If we have not addressed every objection raised at this stage, the solution will seem harmful and woefully inadequate to the task of solving the problem. Needless to say, the other party will not buy it. There is no getting around it: We must spend as much time and effort as it takes on this Layer until everyone agrees that the solution does not have any significant negative ramifications.

Speaking of negative ramifications, the other party may bring up another type of "Yes, but..." at this point. In this scenario, they may claim that implementing our solution will require them to give up something positive that they already have. Wary Will may realize that by joining us in climbing the cliff, he will have to leave his beloved mermaid behind. No one said a win-win solution was perfect. Sometimes in order to gain new benefits we need to give up ones we have previously enjoyed. At this point in the process, we probably will have already resolved this issue with ourselves and decided that the advantages of the solution are worth giving up some positives. But we cannot make that decision for the other party. Thus, if we truly need them on our side we must convince the other party that the advantages of our solution are worth the price they will pay.

At this point, we already agreed with the other party on what the problem is, and we agreed that the solution we proposed is a good solution. According to TOC, a good solution is defined as one that adequately solves the problem without creating new significant problems. In Layers 3 and 4, we verified that our solution will properly address the problem and Layer 5 took care of the negative ramifications. Only now does it make sense to move forward to discuss the implementation.

Disagreement on the Implementation

Layer 6: Yes, but... we can't implement the solution

"Yes, but you'll never make it," "It is all fine and dandy but impossible to implement," "It's a terrible solution, you'll never get past x, y, or z." At first it is difficult to tell Layer 6 from Layer 5 because they both sound the same. However, the objections in those two Layers are very different from one another. In Layer 5, we have not yet agreed that the solution about which we are talking is a good solution. We are still debating about whether it has negative ramifications. In Layer 6, we have already agreed that this is a good solution and we are contemplating how to implement it. People tend to confuse these two Layers more than they confuse any of the others, which results in an ineffective bouncing between objections and a frustrating delay in the buy-in effort. The logical order in which to address these two layers is clear: There is no sense discussing obstacles in the implementation before we agree that this is a change we wish to implement. So, once we go into the "Yes, but..." phase, we need to tune our ears to identify to which Layer the objection belongs, agree with the other party to first address all the negative ramifications, and only then talk about obstacles to the implementation. The way to distinguish between the two types of "Yes, but..." is to ask ourselves, "Is this something that might happen if we implement the change?" (negative ramification), or "Is this blocking me from achieving the change?" (obstacle).

Needless to say, if the other party doesn't believe that our solution is practical, then there is little chance that they will give us their blessing, so we have no choice but to address all of the obstacles they bring up. As in Layer 5, we have the option between cursing them silently for being a pain or thanking them for making us plan better and face less unpleasant surprises once we go into action. Usually the bigger the change, the more obstacles we face. And once the obstacles start to mount, we need to sort them out-which obstacles can be tackled in parallel and which have to be dealt with in sequence. The TOC tools that might help at this stage are the Prerequisite Tree (PRT) or, in large projects, the Strategy and Tactic Tree (S&T).

Layer 7: Disagreement on the details of the implementation

As in the case of Layers 3 (direction for solution) and 4 (details of the solution), Layers 6 (obstacles to the implementation) and 7 (details of implementation) should be addressed separately when planning large-scale changes. In small changes, they tend to merge into one Layer that covers our attempt to reach an agreement on the implementation plan. At Layer 7, we discuss and get consensus on the little details: schedules, due dates, assigning roles and responsibilities, budget, resources, etc.

Deciding "who does what" is something we all do fairly well. However, we should not neglect the "why." Explaining the logic behind our decisions is not only helpful in convincing people that our plans make sense, it also facilitates high performance. We can be as nitty-gritty as we possibly can, detailing exactly what to do where and when, but reality may not turn out the way we expect it to and these details might be worthless. Change holds considerable uncertainty and the effective way to handle it is not by presenting tiny specifications but by providing the "why." If people understand why we want them to do something, what each step is aimed to achieve, and why they need to do it before moving to the next step, they will be in a much better position to improvise successfully when reality doesn't turn out the way we expected it to. The TOC tool that may be helpful in conveying the "why" of the various Implementation steps is the Transition Tree (TRT). Delegating tasks in this way tends to motivate people, which also has a positive impact on their willingness to collaborate.

Layer 8: You know the solution holds risk

As we go through Layers 6 (obstacles to the implementation) and 7 (details of the implementation), the other party may become aware of possible risks that we take if we decide to go ahead with the change. Wary Will realizes that we want him to climb up a shaky ladder and he immediately responds, "I don't know about that, I might break a leg." As long as the other party believes the risk is not worth it, we are in trouble. It is up to us to discuss each risk they bring up and think how we can lower it by making some changes (e.g., fixing the ladder for Will) or creating safety nets (e.g., placing a mattress below the ladder). If we can't find a way to lower the risk, we need to reconsider the way we decided to implement the change (maybe there is an available zeppelin in the area?). If we can't find a way around that risk, we might end up in a position where we need to weigh the risk against the potential damage of canceling the plans for implementing our solution and see what will be the best course of action. Needless to say, if we want the other person's collaboration, we had better convince them that we have made the right decision.

Going through this buy-in process significantly improves the odds of convincing the other party to go along with us. The logical order and the intuition to know where to pause and how to handle each type of objection provides us with a way to better master this dialogue. Utilizing the Layers of Resistance also gives us much more control than we would have if we conducted such discussions in the intuitive way. In the intuitive way, after we present the change we usually resort to addressing whatever objections the other side raises, so we are actually giving them control over the discussion. Utilizing the Layers allows us to know which layer we are in and what we should talk about, so that when they raise another objection we can tell if it belongs to an earlier Layer or to a later one. We then know if we need to go back, or we need to show the other party we heard them (preferably write their objection down), and explain why it makes sense to postpone dealing with it until a later stage. This way we remain in a better position to steer the conversation.

And what if we got this far, covered all eight Layers, and the other party still resists? Here again we have to listen very carefully to what they say. The first thing we have to consider is that we may have lost them at an earlier stage and they are still stuck there. If this is the case, evidently we need to go back and pick up the ball from where we dropped it. Another cause for resistance at this point is that they simply need time. Often people are not comfortable with giving their blessing right away. They need to take their time to think it over and after they get used to the idea they will most probably come back to us with a positive answer. If it is not a problem at an earlier layer and it's not the need to digest, resistance at this point means we clashed against Layer 9.

Layer 9: "I don't think so"-Social and psychological barriers

The Layers of Resistance provide order to the objections that relate directly to the change at hand (i.e., inherent objections). However, we cannot ignore the fact that people may also resist due to reasons that are not inherent to our change (i.e., external reasons). As was mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, people may possess personality traits that make them more prone to resist change. People may feel pushed out of their comfort zone and resist the excessive (perceived) uncertainty. People may resist because of social pressure or because they conform to social norms that our solution challenges, or because of various other reasons. Whatever the external reason is, it may stand in our way from the very beginning of the buy-in process, but as long as we haven't addressed the inherent objections, we should not focus on it (see again Fig. 20-3). As tempting as it may be to cling to it, all it does is lead us to blame the other party instead of take the responsibility to buy them in.

Think, for example, of a case where we would need to present an innovative change that contradicts the way things have always been done. Let's assume that we detect fairly quickly that the other party objects because they prefer to stick to tradition and conform to the way others in the field behave. One way to react is to call them "conservative" or even "primitive" and . . . and then what? Another way to handle the situation is to have faith that this external reason might not block us but merely slow us down. We should acknowledge it might take more effort, but nevertheless attempt to buy them in. If conservatism is their only reason for resisting the change, often we find that these people eventually come around; they realize there is a problem in the current state of affairs and even if our solution contradicts the traditional way of doing things, it is in fact the right thing to do.

The earlier we detect an external reason for resisting, the better we can fine-tune our approach in order to overcome it. We use the Layers of Resistance while keeping the external reason in mind. For example, if we realize we are pushing people out of their comfort zone we should continually ask them what information they are lacking, and discuss how to make things easier for them in the implementation stage by using demonstrations, pilots, etc. Or, if we realize we are talking to a person who needs to be in control (and we can't go around them or shoot them), we have to alter our approach to give them more control-both in the buy-in discussion and in the implementation of the change.

When we bump into Layer 9, it means that we have done our best to take the other party through the Layers that deal with objections inherent to our change, and we are now convinced that the reason they still resist is external to our change. In this situation, we should identify the external reason for resistance if we haven't done so earlier, and attempt to address it. The purpose of this chapter, however, is not to cover a comprehensive list of external causes for resistance to change, as there is plenty of literature on the subject.

Sense of Ownership: The Key to True Buy-In

There is one type of change people are truly excited about-their own initiatives. As we are well aware, psychological ownership ("this is MINE!") plays a key role in people's enthusiasm and commitment. Thus, the more important the change is to us and the more collaboration we need from the other party, the more we should invest in making them feel this is "their" change too. The problem is that when we initially ask for their collaboration, they have no sense of ownership; they feel as if they have nothing to do with this change. How do we cultivate this feeling? A sense of ownership may emerge through various related routes (see, for example, Pierce et al., 20012).

Using the Layers of Resistance can be an excellent way to build a sense of ownership; that is, if we are truly willing to share the ownership of our change with others. The way to go about this is to set aside our egos and learn to welcome inquiries and objections. After we present our ideas in each Layer, we need to encourage the other party to ask questions. This is not about asking questions for the sake of asking questions. This is about encouraging the other party to speak their mind so we know what is truly bothering them. Discussing what is bothering them and clarifying the missing details is what will help them become familiar with the change. In addition-and this is the key to the whole thing-we have to evaluate their objections objectively. Keeping an open mind, we will find that at least some of their concerns hold water. If we accept their reservations and ask for their input of how to overcome them, we give them control over current decisions and future actions. The more we acknowledge their (valid!) reservations and incorporate their suggestions into the change plans, the more it will become their change too. Even if we have effectively identified the problem and come up with a reasonable solution, the other party will most probably raise valid concerns in Layer 5 and real obstacles in Layer 6. Instead of trying to dispute these concerns, we should view them as excellent opportunities for building the other party's sense of ownership. When such a discussion is done well, the other party feels more involved and more willing to participate once we get to Layer 7. If at that point they assume responsibility and start taking charge in reviewing the little details, we know we have made it.

Another issue that should be discussed here is the issue of fairness. The other party may have resisted our change all along because they have been trying to get more out of it for themselves. They might believe they deserve more because they have invested a lot in the past and feel they weren't adequately compensated, suspect they will be asked to invest a lot in implementing the change, or might believe that others receive more. The issue of fair compensation for their efforts or fair distribution of the expected outcome from the change might be especially complicated if we are dealing with a group of people-the ones who expect to invest more in the implementation of the change and claim they deserve more based on their contribution, the ones in the middle who will advocate the equality principle, and the weak ones who expect to contribute the least and will claim they deserve more because of their special needs. The issue of what is fair and not fair is a muddy swamp. If we go there, we are much more likely to drown than float. What might help is to build peoples' sense of ownership in the change. If they offer to help or they decide they would like to invest more, the issue of fairness may not come up.

Apart from promoting a sense of ownership, there is another big advantage to welcoming objections and evaluating them objectively. We have all implemented changes we were excited about just to find out later that they were "half baked" and did not yield all the desired results. If we truly listen, there is a good chance that other people might be on to something that we have missed-thus, they increase our chances of implementing a well-planned change and fully enjoying its results.

Bottom Line

Reading about this buy-in process might give the impression that persuading people is a complicated task that takes a lot of work. Well, sometimes it does, but let's put things in perspective. Most everyday changes are local, small changes that require no more than a good open discussion. In this type of change, we usually encounter no more than three or four Layers. By being aware of them, the discussion tends to be more focused and the buy-in effort actually takes less work.

When we face a large-scale change, things are different. Here, we might need to invest a significant amount of time in preparing our presentation and planning how to conduct the buy-in discussion. When faced with these preparations, we might think that it is too much effort and decide to "wing it." The perception of this effort being "too much" comes from comparing the time we need to prepare to the time it will take to "wing it." But if we look at the big picture, what we should compare is the time it will take to prepare our analysis and discuss our arguments to the time, effort, and agony we will go through convincing the other side to say yes (and we may never even hear that blessed word!) if we don't prepare. Try to recall a time when you have encountered resistance and how hard you worked to get the other party to collaborate. If only you had done a little more homework before you had leapt in ....

References

Goldratt, E. M. 1984. The Goal. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.

Goldratt, E. M. 1996a. "My saga to improve production: Part 1," APICS-The Performance Advantage. 6(7)(July): 3235.

Goldratt, E. M. 1996b. "My saga to improve production: Part 2," APICS-The Performance Advantage. 6(8)(August): 3437.

Goldratt, E. M. 2003. "My saga to improve production." In Production: The TOC Way. Revised Edition. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.

Goldratt, E. M. 2009. The Choice. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., and Dirks, K. T. 2001. "Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations," The Academy of Management Review, 26(2)(April): 298310.

About the Author.

Dr. Efrat Goldratt is an organizational psychologist who specializes in the Thinking Processes (TP) according to TOC. She has played an active role in the development of the TP, especially in applications for individuals. She has been teaching the TP for both business and education worldwide.

Dr. Goldratt has a PhD in organizational psychology and conducted her dissertation research on employees' reactions to positive organizational change.

CHAPTER 21.

Less Is More-Applying the Flow Concepts to Sales

Mauricio Herman and Rami Goldratt