How do you deal with cynics and cynicism?

If we seek real change, we will invite opposition. One of its most common faces is cynicism.

Most people's default response when faced with the cynicism of others is to try and persuade why it is unjustified. To cajole them into accepting why they are wrong and why the new idea deserves their full support. To win the argument, so to speak.

This is counterproductive.

The reason cynicism feels such a threat is because it has power. It has power because most would recognise it as carrying some truth.

To reduce its power we must therefore speak out its truths, collectively own them and making a choice to move forward in spite of them. Not to pretend they aren't there and attempt to defeat them by overwhelming them with alternative perspectives.

These conversations around doubts and reservations are going to happen whether you want them to or not. So you might as well own and use them. Not doing so will relegate them en masse to private conversations where people can politic and divide.

Common truths could be the unfulfilled assurances of those who've led us, corporate values exercises not feeling completely lived out internally or past change projects not delivering as promised. This is why leadership and comms teams cajoling people into change is so damaging. Not only do the promises of these  experience often fail to live up to themselves, the fact they had been over sold negatively impacts on employees' willingness to trust future efforts. Cynicism is an understandable response to all these failed attempts to solve the inherent problems facing organisations. It is this validity that gives cynicism such power - it speaks for and from all of us.

The first step to working with cynicism is therefore to recognise we are all cynics to greater or lesser degree. From here we can then recognise what our own doubts and reservations are and explore why we are choosing to proceed in spite of those. This allows us to empathise with the other and to invite them to do the same. And, wherever possible, to allow them to do so on their terms.

An order of dialogue might go something like this:

• Acknowledge fears and reasons for hesitation - these fears and beliefs are real and valid.
• Share your own doubts and reservations - there is cynicism in all of us and by sharing our vulnerability, we take back the power that cynicism wields.
• Don’t make promises of certainty - we will most likely not be able to live up to them despite our best intentions, and broken promises erode trust.
• Give them a choice, but don’t force it - you cannot rely on forced change or persuasion. The most authentic change has to come from the individual’s own decision to choose it. Give those with concerns the chance to choose whether or not to pursue this pathway. This ensures they shoulder the consequences of their decision. Our role is not to convince them but to make the point we believe this future is worth pursuing (see: "Why change now?" and "Why is the status quo not up to the 21st Century Challenge?")
• Recognise that change is about innovation and that those who choose this are opting for adventure over security; another reason not to make promises (see: "What price must we pay for our freedom?")
• There is a wealth of data that speaks to the power of thinking more purposefully (see: "What data?"). But real change doesn't come neatly packaged with statistical certainty to back it up because every context is unique. You will have particular challenges - and opportunities - that the data and case studies cannot solve for you. Change is always pioneering to a degree. The degree of uncertainty you are willing to carry demonstrates how pioneering you are: how much the change or an early mover advantage really matters to you. But we certainly know enough: we are aware that things can’t stay as they are, and there are plenty of stories of people having taken strong steps forward (see: "Why should I believe that a new way of working will succeed?")
• Remind them of the joy of exploration and the excitement, creativity and purpose this brings to the human spirit. It will be fun!

If people have this conversation and still refuse to be a productive and participatory citizen then, at the very least, it is consciously chosen and everyone can see it. It removes the ability for people to withhold full participation in order to later point the finger in a "see, I told you so" fashion as they too have had to make a choice. It shares responsibility and accountability more widely than the standard approach, which mostly shoulders it those who do the persuading.

It is also worth remembering that we don’t need to eradicate cynicism to move forward - we only need about 25% of a group to create sufficient momentum. Directly discussing and acknowledging cynicism as part of the process stops it becoming a blockage.

Picture any historic turning point where humanity has had to make choices. It has always had risk or adversity as part of that equation. Embracing it gives us some our finest moments and speeches to match. JFK’s intention to put a man on the moon for example. He knew America didn’t even have the technology needed to fulfil the mission. It would have to be invented. So he gave America a choice. He suggested a path worth pursuing.

And so is a reimagined organisation.

“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

John F. Kennedy