Resistance. When we’re in the midst of rolling out a change project and this word comes up, we tend to think of troublemakers – people who want to get in our way. Just like that. Because they don’t feel like changing. That does happen, of course. But far more often, resistance has a cause that is not only valid but whose resolution can actually lead to better outcome.
Instead of being based on “I won’t,” resistance is much more often rooted in “I can’t.” The reasons for this lack of implementation can be many. Perhaps someone couldn’t attend the training, or didn’t understand the content presented there. Perhaps they can’t apply the change in their specific situation. Maybe they lack the necessary tools or the time. Maybe their direct supervisor doesn’t support the change – a particularly problematic but also widespread issue. After all, it is well known that middle management is the group most frequently identified in studies as being skeptical toward change processes. Not because they’re unwilling, but because they’re structurally caught in the middle – responsible for implementation without having been properly informed, supported, or included in the design of the change itself.
To understand the true cause of resistance, we have to look closely. And we can only do so if the people who know the nuances of the situation are willing to let us see them. Often, it’s not about technology, processes, or tools. It’s about the micropolitical climate within an organization – those power structures that don’t appear on org charts or in RACI matrices. They only become visible when people trust you enough to talk about them.
An example I encountered fairly early in my professional life is the following: There was a man working in a factory who was largely socially isolated. He spoke little, didn’t belong to any group, and wasn’t particularly skilled at anything – with one exception. He was the only person who could operate a specific, technically demanding machine that no one else could handle. For that, he was respected. It was his function within the team, his reason for being there, his quiet place in the social order. Had this very machine been replaced as part of a change initiative, he would have lost not only the one task that regularly gave him a sense of pride, but also his place in the group. I’m convinced his colleagues would have noticed. Some of them – even though they themselves were meant to benefit from the change – would have opposed it on his behalf. Not out of self-interest, but out of loyalty. Out of human intelligence. Out of an instinct to protect a fragile balance.
Resistance is often a reflection of such social shifts. It shows us where roles fall apart, where belonging is lost, where self-worth is put at risk. Those who understand change purely as a technical or organizational matter will fail to recognize these dynamics – and run the risk of seeing a million-euro project fail because of factors often dismissed as “soft.”
Resistance is not a flaw in the system. It is an invitation to examine what has been overlooked, what is missing, what might be at risk. This is where the People Side of Change becomes essential – not as a side note, but as a strategic success factor. And this is where the elements often considered secondary unfold their full effect: a workshop that listens more than it persuades. A team activity that fosters trust. A change vision that doesn’t remain on paper but becomes tangible in everyday work. These seemingly soft measures offer orientation – and create the foundation on which real transformation becomes possible.
If we understand resistance as an invitation to listen to one another and to dare to build trust, then true and lasting change will grow from it. Vive la Résistance!