In many instances, the objections of the Laggard (and the frequent misunderstanding of the Laggard) can be attributed to their differing perspective regarding the innovation. The Laggards often come from subcultures other than our own (as someone who labels them “laggard”). They view the new innovative program as representative of a subculture that is alien to the one they prefer. Managerial “fads” are illustrative. Critics and skeptics regarding professional coaching as a “fad” might be considered Laggards by those who are promoting coaching practices, and firmly believe it will not soon fade away. We can best address these sources of opposition through taking an appreciative approach—recognizing that these alternative perspectives are valuable and that a 21st Century institution needs all of these perspectives if it is to remain viable. The generative and dialogic tools of Appreciative Inquiry are appropriate, as are the tools of polarity management (which I will present when detailing plans for making effective use of evidence).

There is yet another source of Laggard opposition to a new product or service. Their objections, in many instances, don’t arise from the flaws and threats associated with the innovation—after all we all appear to be Laggards with regard to certain new ideas that we consider ill-advised or over-sold. For many true Laggards, the issue is much more personal: these are men and women who were innovators themselves many years ago and were unsuccessful or burned-out with regard to this innovation. They advocated a major reform, but never saw this reform enacted. They championed the use of a major new technology, only to see their colleagues casually dismiss this technology as a gimmick. They devoted many hours to design of a new program that was thrown out only four years after being installed in their institution. If a new professional practice such as coaching is successful than what does this say about the Laggard’s own past failure(s) as an innovator? If nothing else, an important lesson can be learned from the passionate objections voiced by Laggards: when we isolate or dismiss an innovator, then we not only lose this person’s ideas and potential leadership. We also create a Laggard who can be a persistent enemy of innovation for many years to come.

So what should we do about those Laggards who oppose an innovation for these very personal (and usually undisclosed) reasons? We can try to isolate them, but this is rarely effective. Alternatively, we can bring in Laggards as historian and advisor: “What can we learn from you about what happened many years ago? What can you teach us? If you were to plan for the successful enactment of this program to improve professional practices what would you do?” Yes, this is a co-option strategy. Laggards will see right through it if this request isn’t legitimate and if one doesn’t seriously consider the advice they offer and listen patiently to the stories they wish to convey. There are certain repeated patterns (fractals) that are found in most institutions. We can identify these patterns with the assistance of our colleagues, who happen to be Laggards, and can effectively leverage these patterns to our advantage and to the advantage of our institution.