“Resistance to change is normal and expected.”
“Actively manage resistance to minimize the impacts.”
We’ve heard it for decades. So much so that these notions have been comfortably ingrained in our thought process regarding resistance, indoctrinated deep into our confirmation biases. But what if what we’ve been fed by the commercial purveyors of change management craft for all these years was not quite accurate? Could all of those slick monographs on “managing resistance” be misguided? In the end, did we just end up making and eating our own dogfood?
Change resistance is typically presented in the change management literature largely as a problem that needs to be overcome, usually through strategies focused on manipulating or coercing change recipients into compliance. Traditional approaches tend to pinpoint resistance solely within the individuals experiencing change, attributing it to psychological factors such as fear, misunderstanding, or some inherent, “natural” aversion to change.
There is also a common tendency to depict resistance as an illogical, emotional response that hinders progress. This framing often ignores the possibility that recipient actions labeled as resistance may stem from thoughtful considerations, valid concerns, or even a genuine desire to contribute to the organization’s success.
Another notable characteristic of this seemingly normative view is the prevailing tendency to absolve change agents of any responsibility for the emergence of resistance. Traditional approaches fail to adequately consider how change agents’ actions, communication styles, and relationship with recipients can significantly contribute to the very resistance they seek to eliminate.
This one-sided portrayal of resistance has several negative consequences. First, by reducing resistance to a simplistic problem residing solely within individuals, traditional approaches fail to grasp the complex interplay of individual perceptions, organizational context, power dynamics, and communication patterns that shape how change unfolds. Framing resistance as an enemy to be vanquished also encourages an adversarial relationship between change agents and recipients, hindering open dialogue and collaborative problem-solving that could lead to a more effective change process. And finally, when viewed through this lens, resistance cannot be considered to offer valuable insights and opportunities to create dialogue, serving as a form of constructive conflict that can lead to more robust solutions and greater commitment to the implemented changes.
This perspective overlooks systemic and structural factors and the role of change agents in shaping how resistance arises and evolves. Ford and Ford (2008, 2009) present a compelling argument for moving beyond the traditional, limited view of resistance to change and offer three key ways to modify and expand the resistance narrative.
Resistance as a Label, Not an Objective Reality
Change agents are urged to reconsider the notion of resistance as an objective, inherent quality residing within individuals. Instead, resistance should be understood as a label applied by change agents based on their interpretations of recipient actions and reactions. Change agents don’t passively observe and report resistance; rather, they participate in creating it through their interpretations, influenced by their expectations, assumptions, and self-serving motivations. Labeling recipient actions as “resistance” can be a way for change agents to explain away unexpected problems, deflect blame, and maintain a positive self-image, even when their own actions might have themselves contributed to the challenges.
This shift helps to move the focus away from speculating about individuals’ internal states and towards understanding the dynamics of the relationships and the communications that cause resistance. It also opens the possibility that individuals might hold positive or ambivalent internal attitudes toward change while still engaging in actions that are labeled as resistance by the change agent.
Acknowledging the Role of Change Agents in Contributing to Resistance
Change agents need to take responsibility for their part in shaping the resistance they encounter. They contribute to resistance not only through their sensemaking and labeling processes but also through concrete actions and communication patterns. Ineffective communication, a lack of transparency, or the failure to provide compelling justifications for change can all create confusion and skepticism. Failing to honor commitments or acting in ways that violate trust can also damage relationships and fuel resistance. Change agents sometimes also exhibit resistance themselves, particularly when they are unwilling to consider feedback or alternative perspectives from recipients. This defensiveness can further escalate conflict and resistance.
Recognizing the Potential Value of Resistance
Change agents should challenge the assumption that resistance is always negative and advocate for reframing it as a potential source of value for the organization. Resistance can serve as a valuable feedback mechanism, signaling areas where the change process needs to be adjusted. When approached constructively, can actually strengthen the change process by forcing more thoughtful planning and communication, leading to a more robust and resilient change initiative. Rather than viewing resistance as a threat, organizations can leverage it to foster greater engagement and ownership in the change process. By inviting open dialogue, creating space for dissent, and actively incorporating recipient feedback, organizations can build a more collaborative and inclusive approach to change.
Once change agents move beyond the traditional understanding of resistance as a purely negative force, resistance can be viewed a valuable resource for change management. Organizational change is not merely about implementing new structures or procedures but about introducing and shifting conversations and patterns of discourse within the organization. New ideas and initiatives need to be communicated, discussed, debated, and integrated into the existing fabric of organizational communication.
But conversations can sometimes struggle to gain traction against established and habitual patterns of discussion. Moreover, conversations tend to be fleeting and their intent can disappear when they are not being actively verbalized. This means that consistent engagement and reinforcement are necessary to keep the conversation about change alive. While often seen as an obstacle, what we call resistance can actually help ensure the continued existence of conversation about change. By voicing concerns, raising questions, and offering alternative perspectives, those resisting change can keep the conversation active and prevent it from fading into the background. This ongoing dialogue, even if initially contentious, can ultimately lead to a deeper understanding of the issues at stake and a more robust implementation of the change initiative.
Resistance should also be considered one possible form of engagement with change, alongside acceptance and ambivalence. Resistance can signal a high level of commitment to the organization when individuals disagree with a proposed change because they believe it threatens something they value about their work or the organization’s mission. Dismissing all resistance as “irrational” overlooks the fact that some resistance is the result of careful consideration and deliberation. Individuals may resist change because they have deeply held beliefs or values that conflict with the proposed change, or because they have concerns about its potential negative consequences. This kind of thoughtful resistance can be a valuable source of insight and feedback for change agents.
Research shows that conflict, when managed effectively, can lead to better decision-making and stronger commitment to the chosen course of action. Resistance, as a form of conflict, can similarly enhance the change process by challenging assumptions, surfacing alternative perspectives, and promoting a more thorough consideration of the issues. The process of resisting persuasion can help individuals develop stronger defenses against future attempts to change their attitudes or beliefs. This is known as inoculation theory, which suggests that exposure to weaker forms of persuasion can help individuals develop counterarguments and build resistance to stronger persuasive attempts later on. While counterintuitive, resistance can actually help strengthen individuals’ commitment to the change by forcing them to grapple with arguments against it and ultimately reinforce their reasons for supporting it.
Reframing resistance as a systemic phenomenon requires a fundamental shift in perspective by change agents. It requires moving beyond simplistic psychology and individual blame to recognizing the complex interplay of factors that contribute to the emergence of resistance within organizations; namely, relationships, power dynamics, organizational history, and communication practices. Embracing a systemic view allows change agents to translate resistance from a perceived obstacle to a valuable resource for organizational transformation.
Sources:
Damawan, A.H. and Azizah, S. (2020). “Resistance to Change: Causes and Strategies as an Organizational Challenge”. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 395:49-53.
Ford, J.D. and Ford, L.W. (2009). “Decoding Resistance to Change”. Harvard Business Review, April 2009.
Ford, J.D. Ford, L.W. & d’Amelio, A. (2008). “Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story”. Academy of Management Review, 33(2):362–377.
Hubbart, Jason A. (2023). “Organizational Change: The Challenge of Change Aversion”. Administrative Sciences, 13(7):1-9.
Jain, P., Asrani, C. & Jain, T. (2018). “Resistance to Change in an Organization”, Journal of Business and Management, 20(5):37-43.
Küçükatalay, T., Vardarlier, P., Vayvay, Ö., & Özsürünç, R. (2023). “Identifying the Factors Affecting Individual Resistance Against Organizational Change”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 4(1):120-140.