Managers often think that an employee who is critical, who replies, is in the resistance. Rather, there is a lack of empathy.
Accusing someone of resistance is actually a clincher. A false argument. By using the term against an employee, the manager does not in fact respond to the employee’s objections. Object arguments that can be very valid.
If you ask an employee to carry out an assignment in which, for example, safety rules are violated, the objection is legitimate. Even though the assignment is still so important. The employee is not in the resistance. The manager is unreasonable and lacks empathy to empathize with the objections. Often these are simply woven away.
This is not nearly as harmless as it seems. Optimal collaboration between people is based on trust. Understanding for each other situation and views. The moment this is violated, trust breaks and the other person will treat you with increasing suspicion.
The manager sees this as increasing resistance until it escalates. This often leads to increasing absenteeism, burnouts and possibly, ultimately, termination of the employment relationship.
The manager’s actions will not have an effect on the group in which the employee was active. Rather than deescalation by the supervisor, by acknowledging his shortcomings in this, the distance only increases.
What I sketch above is often an extreme situation, but many minor frictions have the same basis.
I propose that all managers remove the word ‘Resistance’ from their vocubulars and that they now intend to really understand what the employee is moving and motivating. What the real source of the objections are.
As a manager, realize that you are often the stumbling block. Your behavior, the way you come across, treating and approaching people, is crucial in the relationship with your employees.