One of the myths the students and managers in my leading and managing change classes persist in believing is that people don’t “buy in” to a change is because there is something they don’t understand. They are mistaken.
Implicit in this “myth of understanding” is the belief that understanding is the key to agreement, acceptance, and action. No doubt, there are situations in which failing to understanding what another person is talking about, wants, or is proposing results in confusion and contributes to disagreements. This frequently occurs when using unfamiliar terms or assuming the listener has a sufficient background in the subject at hand. Under these circumstances, increased understanding can foster agreement and acceptance.
But increased understanding can also contribute to disagreement and non-acceptance. When something is vague or ambiguous, it allows for multiple interpretations and understandings. In this respect, it is more inclusive of potentially competing or inconsistent viewpoints. Under these circumstances, greater clarity of understanding makes the inconsistencies apparent and fosters greater disagreement and non-acceptance. For example, as managers spend more time explaining and discussing a change in an attempt to increase understanding, the impact and consequences of the change become more apparent and real to people. Some people will react favorably, others will not.
Increased understanding, therefore, is not necessarily the key to agreement and acceptance, or to the action people think will stem from. Understanding conversations are important, but they are only one of four productive conversations that are needed for change.