4 Resistance to Change

Understanding resistance

Resistance to change is a response to a proposed shift in work, roles, relationships, or expectations. It may be expressed directly through questions, disagreement, or criticism, or indirectly through delay, withdrawal, workarounds, or continued use of old practices.

It is more useful to treat resistance as information about how people experience a change than to label people as “resisters.” Concerns may reveal practical flaws, unmet needs, or risks that change leaders have overlooked.

Why people resist

Several causes may be present at the same time. Identifying the concern helps distinguish what kind of response may be needed.

• Perceived loss: People may fear losing status, autonomy, valued relationships, expertise, job security, or familiar routines.

• Uncertainty and anxiety: People may not know what will happen, how their work will change, or whether they can succeed in the new situation.

• Practical barriers: Insufficient time, staffing, equipment, training, or access can make adoption difficult, even when people support the change in principle.

• Distrust or past experience: Poorly explained, reversed, or unsupported previous changes can weaken confidence in leaders’ promises.

• Exclusion or lack of control: People may object when decisions affecting their work were made without their input or when the change feels imposed.

• Disagreement about the change: Employees may doubt the evidence, question whether the proposed solution addresses the problem, or identify unintended consequences.

• Different personal responses: Some people prefer routine or need more time to adjust. Individual differences in responses to change should not be used to assume that a person’s concerns are merely a personality problem.

A useful initial distinction is whether people do not understand the change, do not agree with it, or are not able to act. These situations call for different responses: clearer explanation, genuine discussion, or removal of barriers and added support.

Listen before responding

Listen before trying to persuade. Ask open questions such as “What concerns you most?”, “What might make this difficult in your daily work?”, and “What have we missed?” Give the person time to answer, reflect back what you heard, and check that you understood.

Separate observable behavior from assumptions about motive. A missed training session may signal resistance, but it may also reflect workload, scheduling, or uncertainty about the training’s relevance.

Listening does not mean promising that every request will be accepted. It means taking concerns seriously, investigating them, and explaining what can and cannot change. When feedback identifies a genuine risk, revise the plan where possible and tell people what changed as a result. This helps show that speaking up can influence implementation.

Make participation meaningful

Meaningful participation involves affected people in decisions about how a change will be implemented. It can include testing a new process, mapping work impacts, identifying transition risks, or adapting procedures to local needs.

For example, when an organization introduces new scheduling software, frontline employees can test common tasks and identify where the proposed workflow adds unnecessary steps. Such input can help improve the plan as well as strengthen understanding and ownership.

Be clear about what people can influence and what is already fixed. Asking for input after a decision is final while implying that it can still shape the decision can deepen distrust. Participation is most useful when people have enough information and a real opportunity to shape practical choices.

Match support to the obstacle

Match help to the obstacle rather than offering the same intervention to everyone.

• If people lack knowledge, explain the reason for the change and what will be different.

• If they lack skills, provide practice, coaching, and accessible job aids.

• If they face workload or resource constraints, adjust schedules, staffing, or tools.

• If they feel uncertain or anxious, offer regular check-ins, clear timelines, and honest updates about what is not yet known.

• If concerns involve fairness or loss, address the impact directly and discuss available options.

Support should continue through the transition rather than end with the announcement or initial training. Check whether people can perform the new work, invite questions, and monitor for recurring errors or workarounds. These may indicate that further instruction or a change to the process is needed.

Use a response sequence

A practical response moves from understanding the concern to checking whether the response helped:

1. Notice concerns and behavior without immediately judging their cause.

2. Ask and listen to understand the person’s perspective and the effect of the change on their work.

3. Diagnose whether the main issue is information, disagreement, lack of involvement, practical barriers, or a need for time and support.

4. Respond specifically with explanation, participation, adjustments, resources, or training.

5. Follow up to learn whether the response helped and whether the plan needs further revision.

If a team avoids a new reporting tool, a manager should first ask what is getting in the way. Employees may not understand the purpose, may have received inadequate training, or may have discovered that the tool duplicates existing work. Each cause calls for a different response; repeating the announcement alone will not solve all three.

Overall, concerns about change may reflect fear, perceived loss, practical obstacles, distrust, exclusion, or informed disagreement. Listening and diagnosis help identify a suitable response, while meaningful participation and support matched to the concern can help improve both the plan and the transition.

• Targeted support