To Loosen Resistance, Paint Vivid Word Pictures
October 28, 2010

If you're trying to lead a person or organization into change, it's important to know that some people believe things should continue to be done as they have been in the past. The Pharisees concluded since Jesus hung around with sinners he must be one himself. Jesus responded to the challenge by referring to a bridegroom. "Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast" (Luke 5:34-35). Jesus was the bridegroom and while he was with his disciples it was appropriate for them to feast and have a good time.

But Jesus understood the matter behind the question. He realized the real issue involved the assumption by the religious leaders that things should continue to be done as they have always been done--and traditionally spiritual people don't eat and drink, they fast and pray. The religious leaders assumed their form of religion was the best and Jesus, and all others, should conform to it. Jesus challenged their assumptions with another vivid word picture they could all identify with.

New Wine and Old Wine Skins

In Luke 5:37-38 he said, "No one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins."

The rules his critics played by didn't allow for any changes in the existing system. Jesus made it clear that the old system could not contain his message and the growth it would produce. Like Jesus' critics, those we lead establish ways of doing things. And like his critics they haven't had anyone challenge the assumptions on which their behavior is based. When you attempt to do so you may encounter resistance. Analogies are helpful because people identify with them and they touch an emotional chord.

Sometimes people feel something to be right long before they mentally process the information. Analogies also allow you to talk about something else (the subject of the story) that presents no threat to those hearing the story. Its purpose isn't to prove the validity of a particular point of view so much as to open up the listener to the possibility that an assumption that has been historically held should be reconsidered.

Learn a Lesson from Sherlock Holmes

Suppose you're trying to persuade some strategic players on your team to reevaluate and reprioritize the core values of the organization you've recently begun to lead.

"We've already done that," someone interjects.

"Besides, core values don't change!" another person points out.

You realize you're dealing with a group of individuals who have assumed once core values are adopted they're no longer subject to evaluation.

"But what if something was missed?" you ask.

"Couldn't have happened," a third person interjects. "Too much time and effort went into developing them."

You pause a moment and then say, "I don't want us to fall into the trap that caught Dr. Watson in one of Sherlock Holmes' cases."

Everyone tilts their head and stares at you with a look of bewilderment. Finally, someone asks, "What do you mean?"

You lean forward in your chair and say, "It was the case where Dr. Watson dismissed a dog as unimportant because it had done nothing on the night of the crime. Sherlock Holmes wisely noted that the significance of the dog was precisely that it had done nothing."

Your small audience is unsure where you're headed but after you hesitate for a moment they urge you to finish the story. You smile and continue, "Sherlock Holmes realized the fact that the dog didn't bark meant the criminal must have known the dog. And that important fact narrowed down the list of potential suspects."

Having told the story, you make your point. "I think it's possible, just possible, that something may have been overlooked in the articulation of the core values. I'd like us to consider reviewing them once more to be sure they still represent us--and we represent them."

The purpose of that analogy wasn't to win an argument, but to overcome the resistance of your team to reevaluate the assumption that stated core values shouldn't be reexamined.

When Jesus told the parables of the bridegroom and the new wine in old wineskins he was challenging his listeners to reevaluate an historical assumption. If they would do that, then they might be open to the changes he was introducing to them.

Because people form opinions, based on previously held assumptions, and then search for information to substantiate them, they tend to ignore anything that contradicts their assumptions. Their minds become like radar screens that are programmed to only identify incoming objects that are friendly.

As a pastor I couldn't count the number of times people have told me, "We've never done it that way before." Of course, in the context of the church, people tend to spiritualize their assumptions and the philosophies, programs and institutions that flow from them. Consequently, not only do they maintain something has never been done differently, they insist their viewpoint is actually God's viewpoint. That means if you disagree with them you're taking on God. And what leader would want to step into the ring with God?

While there are times when a frontal attack is the only alternative--like two gunslingers you may occasionally have to say, "There ain't room in town for both of us!"--it's usually the last alternative. Instead, apply the next week's principal in trying to get them to question their assumptions.