Key Points

Negative responses are expected in any organizational change. However, labeling them “resistance” that needs to be managed may not be your best strategy.
Proactive steps such as clarifying what types of responses are problematic and which are productive and focusing on building readiness can help to enable constructive dialog about change reactions.
When resistance does arise, use a readiness framework to identify and mitigate the sources of pushback. [Examples provided.]

Cynicism, skepticism, withdrawal, aggressive questioning, push-back, non-compliance. These are things you might associate with change resistance. For those introducing or leading a change in an organization, a common goal is to overcome or manage resistance. Alternatively, you might consider what can be learned from that resistance that could help you to improve your change efforts.

In this article, I offer some alternative ways to think about how people respond to change and three steps you can take to mitigate or leverage those responses.

Defining change resistance

A first step in thinking about change resistance is to dig into how you define it. To do so, start by answering the questions below:

What counts as change resistance to you? Is it any thought, emotion, or action that is not overtly or enthusiastically supportive of an organizational change? Is compliance, if done without a smile, considered resistance, or is it an acceptable level of support? How do you classify people who are both supportive and fearful of a change?
Is resistance always bad? How do you categorize people who point out real issues with the solution or implementation process? Helpful troubleshooters or complaining resisters? Is there value in the courage required to dissent openly?
Is resistance the domain of staff or can anyone play? When executives speak in ways supportive of the change but behave in ways that are antagonistic to the change — are they resistors or champions? When staff aim to make changes to benefit the organization but are shut down by management — are they resistors or champions?

If you aren’t sure — you aren’t alone! A review of academic research on resistance concluded that there is no universally “or even widely accepted” definition of resistance.

Managing Change Resistance — Three Steps

When we say resistance, we are trying to represent a complex phenomenon that involves structural, technical, social, psychological, cognitive, and contextual factors. How can we develop effective means of “overcoming” something we can’t clearly define?

For this reason, when preparing for change, instead of focusing on “overcoming resistance,” I recommend that you:

Set realistic expectations about likely responses to change — establish what’s truly a red flag and what’s a normal and anticipated response, even if negative.
Aim to build readiness through good change practices.
Seek to identify root causes of responses to change. These are factors related to your current context that may work for or against the change effort. Tailor your change approach to take advantage of contextual tailwinds and mitigate headwinds.

Step 1 — Set realistic expectations for reactions to organizational change

People can respond to change in a myriad of ways: cynicism, skepticism, withdrawal, questioning, sense-making, readiness, support, commitment. Therefore, instead of thinking about change recipients as reacting in the binary terms of acceptance (good), resistance (bad), it may be helpful to develop a more nuanced view amongst your change team. Some researchers (see Pideret for example) suggest thinking of responses to change as being multi-dimensional — related to how one thinks, feels, and behaves — and on a continuum, rather than all or nothing. For instance, you could be extremely supportive of a change — “That’s a problem we’ve needed to tackle for years!” — but also a bit fearful of it — “But, what will that mean for my job and team?”

Shaul Oreg and colleagues propose a framework that can help us to get more granular about potential change responses. Helpfully, they also suggest how different responses may influence the change process and outcomes. Keep in mind, this is an untested theory, so it’s a suggestion about how this process might work — rather than being indicative of how it actually does work.

Consider the various ways and reasons employees respond to change — there is more than resistance

You could use this, or another framework, to spur discussion on your change team. Openly talking about potential responses is one way to prepare the change sponsor, team, and others to respond productively to employees or other stakeholders during times of change. Not everyone is naturally graceful in the face of challenging questions or knows how to support those who may struggle with a change. Advance work can help those involved in driving the change to tailor their expectations and build relevant skills to successfully engage and support change recipients.

Step 2: Aim to avoid resistance by building readiness

One of the most significant strategies for “overcoming resistance” may be to avoid provoking it in the first place. To do so, I recommend you intentionally design your change approach to build or support readiness. A variety of researchers indicate such an approach would address a number of factors, including:

The Need: Is the change necessary? How do we know? What will be different when we change?
Change Capability: Is the organization/am I capable of implementing this change?
Right Solution: Is the change or innovation proposed appropriate to meet the need? Does it fit the organization (e.g., culture, values)?
Support (Commitment): Does the organization and leaders at all levels support the change (e.g., resources, leadership commitment)?
Impact: How will the change impact me and my team (e.g., benefits, losses)?

Strong change management practices can help to create a change effort that positively addresses many of these areas. In addition, to the change management process, it’s important to also consider the quality and fit of the change itself and contextual elements. Context can include things such as individual characteristics (degree of openness or resilience) or organizational climate (e.g., degree of trust in leaders), which can influence responses to change. Long-standing issues on a team or across the organization may pose significant obstacles that even a great change approach can’t overcome. Longer-term efforts may be required. (This is why analyzing your context is vital at the start of any change.)

Need help applying ideas like these on the job?

Check-out my change leadership coaching services.

Step 3: Identify the root causes of change resistance and address them [Examples]

If you find yourself facing strong headwinds when implementing your change effort, there’s a good chance you’ve missed something important in your approach. Rather than calling these headwinds employee resistance, you may be more successful if you identify the source. I provide some examples below, including actions you might take to respond. (For more examples, I recommend reviewing Erwin and Garman’s practical review of resistance research).