Immunity to Change

Immunity to Change Plot Summary

Introduction

Why do we struggle so much with change? Even when our very lives depend on it, making lasting change proves elusive. Medical studies show that when heart doctors tell seriously at-risk patients they will die without lifestyle changes, only one in seven successfully makes these changes. If people cannot change when their lives are literally on the line, how can organizations expect meaningful change when the stakes aren't nearly as high? The answer lies in what the authors call our "immunity to change" - a hidden dynamic that actively works against our conscious desires for transformation. This immunity manifests as a system of competing commitments where we simultaneously hold one foot on the gas and one on the brake. Throughout this theory framework, we discover that resistance to change isn't about willpower or knowledge deficits, but rather about the unconscious ways we protect ourselves from perceived dangers. By systematically uncovering these hidden barriers and constructing immunity maps, we gain access to a powerful approach for achieving adaptive change - one that engages both our thinking and feeling dimensions, ultimately allowing us to unlock our fullest potential for growth and development.

Chapter 1: Uncovering Your Immunity to Change

Immunity to change represents a hidden system of self-protection that prevents us from making the very changes we genuinely want to achieve. At its core, this theory reveals why making meaningful change is so difficult - we hold competing commitments that directly contradict our stated improvement goals. These competing commitments aren't signs of weakness or insincerity, but rather intelligent psychological defenses designed to protect us from perceived threats. The immunity mapping process begins by identifying a sincere improvement goal - something we genuinely want to accomplish but have struggled to achieve. Next, we take a fearless inventory of all the things we do or don't do that work against this goal. These aren't just bad habits, but behaviors that serve a crucial protective function. The third step involves uncovering our hidden competing commitments - what we're committed to protecting or avoiding that makes our obstructive behaviors perfectly sensible, even necessary. This system is held in place by "big assumptions" - deeply held beliefs about how the world works and what might happen if we changed. These assumptions aren't necessarily true, but we treat them as absolute truths that govern our behavior. For example, a manager might want to delegate more (improvement goal) but continually takes on work herself (obstructive behavior) because she's committed to maintaining control and preventing mistakes (competing commitment), based on the assumption that "if I don't do it perfectly, I'll be seen as incompetent." Consider Sarah, an executive who wanted to speak up more in meetings. Despite her sincere desire, she consistently remained silent during important discussions. Her immunity map revealed a competing commitment to avoiding disapproval and maintaining harmonious relationships, based on the assumption that disagreement would damage her professional relationships. Only by testing this assumption through small experiments could she discover it wasn't universally true, allowing her to gradually overcome her immunity. Understanding this framework shifts our perspective on change resistance. Rather than seeing ourselves as inconsistent or lacking willpower, we recognize we're caught in a perfectly coherent system designed to protect us from perceived threats. By making this system visible, we gain access to the true levers of transformative change.

Chapter 2: The Competing Commitments Behind Resistance

When we struggle with change, we're not merely dealing with insufficient motivation or lack of clarity about what to do. Instead, we're facing an intricate defensive system where we simultaneously commit to opposing goals. These competing commitments form the emotional core of our immunity to change, and understanding them requires looking beneath surface behaviors to uncover what we're truly protecting. Competing commitments emerge from our fears - specifically, what we're afraid might happen if we successfully achieved our improvement goals. These fears often involve vulnerability, loss of control, rejection, or failure. For example, a team leader genuinely committed to delegating more might simultaneously hold a competing commitment to maintaining control over outcomes, protecting their reputation for excellence, or preserving their identity as the indispensable problem-solver. The competing commitment isn't a conscious choice but an unconscious self-protective response. Interestingly, the same improvement goal might trigger completely different competing commitments in different people. Consider weight loss: one person might discover their overeating serves a commitment to avoid feelings of emptiness, while another might be committed to maintaining cultural connections where food equals love, and yet another might be protecting themselves from unwanted romantic attention. Though the surface behaviors appear similar, the underlying emotional motivations differ dramatically. These competing commitments operate like an anxiety management system, brilliantly designed to keep uncomfortable feelings at bay. When we attempt change without addressing them, we're effectively challenging our psychological immune system without providing an alternative form of protection. This explains why willpower alone consistently fails - we're fighting against a system that believes it's saving our lives. The process of uncovering competing commitments requires looking at our obstructive behaviors with curiosity rather than judgment. By asking what fears arise when we consider doing the opposite of these behaviors, we can trace a path to the hidden commitments that make our resistance perfectly sensible. This insight shifts the change conversation from "why won't I change despite knowing better?" to "how am I protecting myself through this behavior, and what would make it safe to change?"

Chapter 3: Big Assumptions That Hold Us Back

Big assumptions are the deeply held beliefs that form the foundation of our immunity to change. These aren't casual opinions but core convictions about how the world works and what would happen if we behaved differently. We don't experience them as assumptions at all, but rather as unquestionable truths that require no examination. This unexamined quality gives them extraordinary power over our behavior and keeps our competing commitments firmly in place. Big assumptions typically follow an "if-then" structure: "If I delegate important tasks, then mistakes will be made and I'll be held responsible." "If I speak up with my real opinions, then people will think less of me." "If I pursue my own goals, then I'll be seen as selfish." These beliefs feel absolutely true because they're not merely intellectual positions but are woven into our emotional experience of reality. They often emerge from significant life experiences that taught us what's "safe" and what's "dangerous." The power of big assumptions comes from their hidden nature. Since we don't recognize them as assumptions, we never consider testing them against reality. They operate beneath consciousness, filtering our perceptions and shaping our behaviors without our awareness. For instance, a manager with the assumption "if I don't maintain tight control, chaos will ensue" will continually find evidence that confirms this belief while missing abundant counterevidence that might challenge it. Consider Michael, a talented executive who couldn't delegate despite multiple failed attempts. His immunity map revealed a big assumption that "leadership without doing is overhead and worthless." This assumption traced back to his blue-collar family background, where hands-on work was valued and management was viewed with suspicion. Until he could question this assumption, his sincere commitment to delegate would always be undermined by his deeper belief that doing so would make him "worthless" and disconnected from his roots. Big assumptions aren't necessarily wrong - they might be true in some contexts or have been true in the past. Their limitation lies in their absoluteness and our failure to recognize them as testable beliefs rather than fixed realities. They create artificial boundaries that limit our behavior and keep us feeling stuck, even when part of us desperately wants to change. Understanding our big assumptions doesn't immediately dissolve them, but it creates the essential opening for transformation - the ability to look at beliefs we've previously only looked through.

Chapter 4: Designing Tests to Challenge Your Immunity

Once we've mapped our immunity to change, the path forward involves systematically testing our big assumptions through carefully designed experiments. This isn't about proving ourselves wrong or immediately changing behaviors, but rather gathering information that might qualify or expand our understanding of reality. Through this process, we begin transforming absolute certainties into more nuanced perspectives. Effective tests share several key characteristics. They should be safe and modest, designed to yield meaningful information without risking catastrophic consequences if our assumptions prove partially true. They should be actionable in the near term, allowing us to gather data quickly rather than creating elaborate plans that never materialize. Most importantly, they should explicitly target the big assumptions that sustain our immunity, rather than merely trying to force behavior change through willpower. The testing process follows a specific structure. First, we identify a big assumption we want to examine and design an experiment that might yield information about its accuracy. For example, someone with the assumption "if I speak up in meetings, people will think I'm stupid" might design a test where they make one prepared comment in a supportive meeting. Next, we run the test while carefully observing both our internal experience and external responses. Finally, we interpret the results, asking what this new information suggests about our assumption. Consider Elena, a talented professional who believed "if I don't exceed expectations on every task, I'll be seen as a failure." Her first test involved deliberately doing a good-but-not-perfect job on a low-stakes report. She observed that not only did no one criticize her work, but her boss actually praised its timeliness. This single data point didn't completely dissolve her assumption, but it created a crack in its absoluteness, encouraging her to design more ambitious tests over time. Through successive testing cycles, our relationship to our big assumptions gradually shifts. What began as unquestioned truth becomes an object of curiosity and eventually a more flexible understanding of situational realities. This shift doesn't happen all at once - it's an iterative process where each new piece of evidence helps us construct a more nuanced view. The goal isn't to abandon all caution, but to develop a more accurate assessment of when our protective strategies are necessary and when they merely limit our growth.

Chapter 5: Overcoming Individual Immunities

Overcoming our immunity to change involves a journey that transforms both our mindset and behavior. This isn't about applying quick fixes or temporary willpower, but rather engaging in a developmental process that allows us to see and operate from a more complex understanding of ourselves and our world. The journey follows a predictable path, though the specific timeline varies for each individual. The process begins with diagnosis - creating an immunity map that makes visible what was previously hidden. This diagnosis must engage both our intellectual understanding and emotional awareness, as our immunities are simultaneously cognitive structures and anxiety-management systems. When we see our competing commitments and big assumptions clearly, we experience both the "aha" of insight and the emotional discomfort of confronting our contradictions. As we move into active testing, we begin collecting evidence that challenges our big assumptions. Each piece of contradictory data creates a small disruption in our meaning-making system. For example, a manager who believes "if I'm not constantly available, my team will fail" might observe that during a brief absence, team members actually stepped up and handled problems competently. These observations accumulate over time, gradually shifting our relationship to our assumptions from "this is absolutely true" to "this is sometimes true in specific circumstances." The transformation deepens as we develop new behaviors that were previously unavailable to us. A professional who was unable to delegate discovers she can trust others with important work. A team leader who avoided conflict learns to facilitate productive disagreements. These behavioral changes aren't merely surface adjustments but reflect a genuine evolution in how we understand ourselves and our capabilities. The energy previously trapped in maintaining our immunity becomes available for more creative and productive purposes. Perhaps most significantly, overcoming our immunity often leads to developments beyond our initial improvement goal. The manager who wanted to delegate more discovers not just new time availability but a whole new leadership identity as a developer of talent rather than just a doer of tasks. As our mental complexity increases, we gain access to a wider range of responses across multiple life domains. This broader perspective allows us to hold contradictions more comfortably and navigate ambiguity with greater confidence. Throughout this journey, progress isn't linear but moves through periods of breakthrough followed by consolidation and occasional regression. The goal isn't to eliminate all protective mechanisms but to develop more sophisticated ones that accurately match current realities rather than outdated threats.

Chapter 6: Building Organizational Immunity Maps

Organizations, like individuals, develop immunities to change that prevent them from achieving their most important goals. These collective immunities operate through shared assumptions and cultural practices that, while intended to protect the organization from perceived threats, ultimately sabotage progress on critical objectives. By creating organizational immunity maps, teams can uncover and address these hidden barriers to growth. The mapping process for organizations follows the same structure as individual maps but incorporates collective perspectives. It begins with identifying a shared improvement goal that genuinely matters to the group but has proven resistant to change despite multiple attempts. Next, team members honestly inventory the things they collectively do or don't do that work against this goal - not blaming individuals or subgroups, but acknowledging patterns in which everyone participates. The core insight emerges when exploring the group's competing commitments - what they're collectively protecting or avoiding that makes their counterproductive behaviors sensible. For example, a leadership team committed to becoming more innovative might discover a competing commitment to avoiding the risk of public failure. A university department wanting to improve mentoring of junior faculty might harbor a competing commitment to protecting senior faculty privileges. These competing commitments aren't signs of hypocrisy but reflect genuine conflicts between stated aspirations and unstated fears. Underlying these competing commitments are big organizational assumptions that become embedded in the culture: "If we experiment and fail, we'll lose our reputation for excellence." "If we give too much voice to customers, we'll lose control of our product vision." These assumptions often remain undiscussed yet powerfully shape decisions and behaviors throughout the organization. Consider a hospital unit struggling to implement a new patient care protocol despite universal agreement about its importance. Their immunity map revealed a competing commitment to maintaining predictable workloads and avoiding the interpersonal conflicts that might arise during change. By making this dynamic visible and designing safe tests of their assumptions, the team developed new approaches that honored both their commitment to improved care and their need for workload management. The collaborative creation of organizational immunity maps serves multiple purposes: it creates psychological safety for discussing difficult topics, builds shared understanding of complex challenges, and shifts conversations from blame to systemic analysis. Most importantly, it transforms abstract resistance into concrete assumptions that can be tested and refined through collective action.

Chapter 7: Creating a Culture of Adaptive Learning

Creating a culture that supports adaptive learning means developing an environment where overcoming immunities to change becomes part of the organization's DNA. This involves more than implementing occasional workshops or leadership programs; it requires fundamental shifts in how the organization approaches learning, development, and the emotional realities of change. A culture of adaptive learning begins with leadership that explicitly values development, not just performance. Leaders model the process by working on their own immunities publicly, demonstrating vulnerability and a genuine commitment to growth. When a CEO acknowledges her competing commitments around delegation or a team leader shares insights from testing his assumptions about control, it sends a powerful message that this work is valued and safe. These leaders shift from merely sponsoring development to actively championing it through their own participation. The organization's learning structures also evolve to support adaptive work. Rather than relying solely on episodic training events disconnected from daily operations, learning becomes embedded in intact work teams where people face real challenges together. These teams develop the capacity to shift between operational and developmental modes, creating regular opportunities to explore immunities as they emerge in actual work. The question "What's getting in our way here?" becomes as natural as discussing project timelines or resource allocation. Communication norms within the organization transform to incorporate the language of immunities. Teams develop shared terminology for discussing competing commitments and testing assumptions without shame or blame. When someone says, "I think we might have a competing commitment here," or "I wonder what assumption is driving this decision," it opens new avenues for understanding rather than triggering defensiveness. This common language creates bridges between personal development and organizational effectiveness. Perhaps most critically, the culture evolves to treat anxiety not as something to be eliminated or hidden but as valuable information about where growth might be needed. Leaders recognize that all significant change involves some measure of discomfort as people move beyond familiar protective patterns. The organization develops practices for supporting people through this discomfort rather than trying to engineer it away through purely technical solutions. Organizations that successfully create these cultures experience multiple benefits: they implement strategic changes more effectively, they develop talent from within rather than constantly searching outside, and they demonstrate remarkable resilience during industry disruptions. Most importantly, they become environments where people experience their work not just as productive but as genuinely developmental - places where accomplishing organizational goals and furthering personal growth become harmoniously aligned.

Summary

The immunity to change framework reveals that our resistance to change stems not from opposition or insincerity, but from a brilliantly designed self-protective system that prioritizes psychological safety over transformation. By understanding the competing commitments and big assumptions that drive our behavior, we gain access to a powerful approach for adaptive change - one that honors both the intellect and emotions involved in genuine development. The ultimate significance of this theory extends far beyond individual self-improvement or organizational effectiveness. It offers a pathway for enhancing mental complexity throughout adulthood, challenging the outdated notion that our fundamental ways of making meaning stop developing after adolescence. As we learn to overturn our immunities to change, we don't just solve specific problems; we expand our capacity to navigate complexity, hold contradictions, and contribute more fully to a world that increasingly demands these capabilities. The immunity-to-change approach stands as a profound invitation to continuous growth - demonstrating that with the right understanding and support, we can not only change our behaviors but transform the very way we make meaning of our lives and work.

About Author

Loading...

Robert Kegan

Robert Kegan is a developmental psychologist, consulting in the area of adult development, adult learning, professional development and organization development.He taught at Harvard University for 40 years until his retirement in 2016.The recipient of numerous honorary degrees and awards, his thirty years of research and writing on adult development have contributed to the recognition that ongoing psychological development after adolescence is at once possible and necessary to meet the demands of modern life. His seminal books, The Evolving Self and In Over Our Heads, have been published in several languages throughout the world.

Read more