A series of studies about rebutting science deniers suggests that providing supportive facts and challenging deniers’ tactics can limit the deniers’ impact on other people. I found parallels to dealing with change resistors, based on 30 years of fostering process and culture change.
An article on the studies in Nature Human Behavior explains deniers differ from skeptics. Deniers will not change their minds even when presented with strong evidence against their positions. Skeptics are open to changing their minds, and are healthy for science (and change efforts) because they make backers come up with high-quality evidence—and push backers to change their minds if they can’t. Organizational change projects may face both type of resistor.
A German research team conducted six surveys online, with separate German and United States subjects, and then re-ran the numbers as if the surveys were a single study (a “meta-analysis”). They tested people’s attitudes toward vaccination or climate change action before and after seeing an interview with a science denier. In each survey, some people also saw a supporter of the action provide contrasting facts; respond to the tactics the denier used; or do both.
Most viewers’ attitudes toward the action became more negative when they saw the denier talk. When a supporter of the science also talked, however, that negative change usually didn’t happen or was trivial. So ignoring deniers of an org change’s benefits is not a good strategy: better to engage with them, not because you can change their minds, but because you can neutralize their impact on people who witness the debate.
This research found no evidence of “backlash,” in which a viewer’s negative opinion is hardened when hearing opposing facts. (My master’s thesis on persuasion found strong evidence that facts can be persuasive when coming from a credible source.) But equally valuable was attacking the techniques used by deniers. Using both had no additional effect, so you can choose either or both.
You probably won’t hold a formal debate with change benefit deniers, but being ready for their techniques during employee forums and management meetings is valuable. The study authors say most deniers wield just five. The first of these is, “Selectivity,” in which the denier only reports facts supporting their position. Having a “cheat sheet” of all of the facts supporting the change, with the sources of those facts, can allow you to quickly counter that tactic. (But if the denier’s selective fact is correct, admitting that will increase your credibility.)
The next is, “Impossible expectation.” The journal article gives the example of a vaccine denier insisting a drug be 100% safe before approval. The vaccine supporter points out no drug is 100% safe, including aspirin, so no drug could ever be approved by that standard. An org change denier might say the change should only be attempted if the company is 100% sure the project will achieve its objectives. The change manager (CM) could point out no business decision could ever be made based on that standard, and then list all the facts making success seem likely.
Third is, “Conspiracy theories.” These can be hard to predict, but the CM could think through some obvious possibilities and prepare for them. For example, the introduction of artificial intelligence may already have spawned the theory that your company’s managers only want AI so they can get rid of workers. A Web search turns up similar comments about industrial machines, motorized vehicles, and the personal computer. Acknowledge it is true that some workers may be affected, but overall employment and wages rose after each of those changes.
The fourth technique is, “Misrepresentation or false logic.” In my experience as an Agile Coach, I found deniers often repeat common myths about Agile, claiming for example that it is “only for software teams.” I eliminated that objection by recounting the full history of the principles we now call “Agile”—starting in manufacturing decades before the Agile Manifesto—plus examples where Agile methods have worked outside of software.
Finally, deniers may bring up, “False experts.” Question the credibility of the experts they identify versus the ones supporting the change. During a tool adoption in your company, a denier might say a friend ran the tool at their company and it caused problems. The CM can question whether that makes them an expert on its use everywhere, much less in your company. Maybe the proposed tool was wrong for the friend’s company, or was implemented poorly, or was hard to administer but provided benefits across their company. Seek out sources that draw on many opinions or objective reviews, like the Gartner Magic Quadrant ratings.
Well-executed change efforts require a lot of preparation. This study indicates preparing for “change deniers” should be added to the list, but can pay off by reducing resistance among others in the organization.
Source: Schmid, Philipp, and Cornelia Betsch, ‘Effective Strategies for Rebutting Science Denialism in Public Discussions’, Nature Human Behaviour, 3.9 (2019), pp. 931–39, doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4.