Imagine you've just explained a new process to your team.
Someone says, “We tried something like this before. It didn't work.”
You can feel the conversation slipping. There's a deadline, you've already explained the benefits, and you'd hoped people would get behind it.
The thought arrives quickly: they're resisting change.
Maybe they are. But what do you actually know yet?
They've told you an earlier attempt failed. You haven't found out what failed, whether the same problem still exists, or what they think will happen this time.
Before you decide how to handle resistance to change, get specific about the concern. Otherwise, you might respond to an attitude you've assumed rather than an obstacle you could address.
Start with what happened, not what you called it
“They're negative” doesn't give you much to work with.
“They asked how they'll complete the new reporting requirement while maintaining the existing one” gives you somewhere to start.
Try separating three things:
- What you observed: the words someone used or the action they took.
- Your interpretation: the meaning you've attached to it.
- What you need to check: the missing information that could change your response.
In our hypothetical example, the observation is that someone mentioned an unsuccessful earlier rollout. Your interpretation might be that they don't want to try. The question to check is what went wrong and whether this plan addresses it.
You don't have to abandon your judgement. Just give it something firmer to stand on.
This is where asking “What's the story I'm telling myself?” can be useful. Follow it with something less comfortable: “What would I need to hear to reconsider that story?”
Don't assume every concern needs the same response
Research offers a useful reason to avoid treating resistance as one simple thing.
In a study of 177 employees experiencing organisational change, Shaul Oreg examined people's feelings, thoughts and behavioural responses separately. Both individual dispositions and the organisational context were associated with reactions to the change. It was a survey in one defence-industry organisation, not an experiment proving what causes resistance in every workplace. Read the original study.
The practical question is: what is this person actually responding to?
For example, someone might agree with the purpose but doubt the deadline. They might understand the process but lack access to the system. Or they might be able to do the work and still disagree with the decision.
Those are different conversations.
Here are three checks to help you work out which conversation you're having. They are a practical guide, not a diagnostic test.
1. Is the concern about the change itself?
Ask: “Which part of the plan do you think won't work, and what are you basing that on?”
Look for something you can examine: a customer requirement, a dependency, an earlier result or a trade-off the proposal hasn't addressed.
Suppose a team member says a new handover process will leave urgent customer requests sitting unassigned. Ask them to walk you through a realistic case. Where would the request arrive? Who would see it? Who would be responsible?
If the concern holds up, amend the plan or take it to the person who can. If it doesn't, explain what addresses the risk rather than telling them to be more positive.
2. Is the concern about being able to carry it out?
Ask: “What would prevent you from doing this as planned?”
Check the practical conditions: time, access, knowledge, equipment and competing commitments.
If you've added a reporting task, ask which existing task will stop. If the answer is “none”, make that trade-off visible. It may still be necessary, but it deserves an honest decision.
Be wary of turning every implementation problem into a mindset conversation. Someone who needs system access doesn't need a more inspiring explanation of why the system matters.
3. Is the concern about how the decision was made or communicated?
Ask: “What about the way we've approached this needs addressing?”
You may hear that people were asked for input after the decision was final, or that an earlier commitment hasn't been followed through.
Listen without promising to reverse something you can't change. Be clear about what was decided, who decided it and what remains open.
If your communication was misleading, correct it. If you don't know why a commitment was missed, say you'll check rather than inventing an explanation.
A theoretical paper by Jeffrey Ford and colleagues argues that the people leading change can contribute to the reactions they label resistance. It also proposes that objections can offer useful information. That's a conceptual argument, not a tested promise that every objection improves a rollout. Read the paper.
It's still worth checking your part in the situation before deciding the problem sits entirely with someone else.
Show what the concern changes
Listening is only part of the job. You also need to make a decision about what happens next.
Let's return to our hypothetical rollout. You learn that the previous attempt required people to enter the same information twice, and no one removed the old report.
Instead of repeating the benefits, you could say:
“The duplicate reporting is a fair concern. I'll confirm which report we can retire before we start. The move to the new system is decided, but the transition steps are still open.”
That response separates the fixed decision from the part you can influence.
If a safe, limited trial is appropriate, agree what it needs to tell you. In this example, you might test one handover, check whether the required information reaches the right person, and identify any duplicate work before expanding the process.
Don't call it a trial if nothing about the result could change your approach. Say what is genuinely open to review.
Where there isn't room to change the decision, you can still explain the reasoning, acknowledge the cost and clarify the support available. Understanding a concern doesn't mean agreeing to every request.
Keep accountability specific
You may have listened, checked the obstacle and provided the agreed support, yet the required work still isn't happening.
At that point, discuss the behaviour and expectation directly. You don't need to settle a debate about whether the person is “resistant”.
What action was agreed? What happened instead? What is still preventing it? What needs to happen now?
For example:
“We agreed the handover would go through the new process from Monday. Two requests came through the old route yesterday. Talk me through what happened.”
That leaves room to discover a remaining problem while making the expectation clear. If the issue needs a formal performance or safety process, use the appropriate organisational process rather than treating this conversation as a substitute.
Try this before your next change conversation
Choose one concern you've been describing as resistance. Write down:
- What the person actually said or did.
- What you've assumed it means.
- The specific question you need to ask.
- What you can change, and what you can't.
After the conversation, record the next action, who owns it and when you'll check back. Include your own commitments, not just theirs.
For more on the broader habit of questioning your first interpretation, see Why the Best Leaders Ask Better Questions.
You might discover that the team needs support to move forward. You might discover that the plan needs work. You may still need to hold a firm expectation.
The useful shift is to find out before you label it.
Work on the conversations your team is having
The Human Advantage keynote uses mentalism, psychology and practical frameworks to explore assumptions, teamwork and leadership through change. The Leadership Mindset workshop gives leaders space to apply that thinking to real challenges and practise their responses.
If your managers are working through a change, share the challenge with Andy to discuss a relevant keynote or workshop.
