Resistance to change doesn’t arise because people reject change as such, but because the process of change itself creates chaos and threatens their identity. Anyone leading change has to address the emotional side: acknowledge losses, actively involve skeptics, and ask questions instead of delivering more information. That is how real participation develops.
Key Takeaways
- People don’t reject change itself, they reject the process of moving from the old to the new, which creates chaos and shakes their sense of identity.
- Skeptics see risks that the people driving a change overlook because they are too close to the topic. If you ask skeptics regularly, you gain insight into your own blind spots and take away their reason to resist.
- The “Imagine That” technique uses two questions instead of blocks of information: first people name the problems, then they imagine the possibilities. That creates an emotional connection that facts alone never achieve.
- Openly acknowledging what a change takes away, instead of only stressing its benefits, builds more trust than any well-prepared list of advantages.
People Don’t Reject Change, They Reject the Process
Overcoming resistance to change starts with dropping a common assumption: that people simply don’t like change. It doesn’t hold up. Everyone makes decisions in their own life that change things, deliberately and gladly. What triggers resistance is not the destination but the way there.
The transition from the old to the new creates chaos. Even with a change you chose freely, problems come up during this phase. Organizations add a second problem: often the people affected had no choice. They are expected to go through a process that is exhausting anyway, and without having decided on it themselves.
Mary Lynn Manns sums it up in a way that shifts the perspective:
“It’s not that people don’t like change, it’s that they don’t like the process of change.”
(Mary Lynn Manns)
For teams, this means that anyone who wants to introduce a new method or a new tool rarely fights against the idea itself. The friction lies in the transition.
Why People Resist Change: It Comes from Fear
The human mind is always looking for balance. Anything that throws you off balance is hard, even a good change.
Change often touches identity. People who fill a certain role in an organization and define themselves by it lose part of that role when things shift. Even something like agile software development, with all its promises, changes how people behave, and changing behavior is uncomfortable.
There’s another reason: people are attached to the old way of doing things and consider it perfect. During the transition, a lot doesn’t run smoothly yet, because the new approach is still taking shape. That comparison between a supposedly perfect old world and an unfinished new one provides plenty of material for complaints.
Behind most reactions there is fear, above all fear of the unknown. That’s why the title of Manns’ book, “Fearless Change”, doesn’t mean the absence of fear but less of it. A leader has to deal with that fear and help people reduce it.
Overcoming Resistance to Change Is About People, Not Technology
At its core, change isn’t about new processes or technologies but about people: leading them, understanding them, and helping them take an interest in what’s new.
Many organizations make the same first mistake. They explain how the change helps the organization. That’s logical, but it misses the people affected, who want to know how the change affects them personally.
With 10,000 employees, you can’t talk to everyone individually. Leaders can still say a lot more about what the change means for the individual instead of only talking about the benefits for the big picture.
How to Deal with Skeptics: They See What You Miss
Skeptics are a valuable source of information. Whoever leads a change is convinced of its value and overlooks things along the way. Those are exactly the things skeptics notice.
Between the people driving change and the skeptics, a cycle of mutual fear develops. You fear that people will push back and tell you the problems straight to your face. They fear the new thing you’re bringing. This back and forth often ends in a standstill.
The usual reflex is to spend a lot of time trying to win skeptics over. That can take a long time, and sometimes it never works. It makes more sense to bring the skeptics onto the team and ask them regularly what they see and what’s being missed.
That has two effects. Skeptics feel heard and are less likely to work against you behind your back. And you treat them with respect, which can reduce the number of complaints. Once someone is officially given the role of critical observer, plain complaining often loses its appeal.
Information Alone Doesn’t Get People Moving
Change is usually treated as a purely cognitive matter: you provide information, then more information, then even more. That is exactly where it often fails.
People push information away when it contradicts what they believe should happen. In the end, the resigned verdict is that the others are stubborn or just don’t get it. The truth is often different: the information was delivered cleanly, but the next step is missing, which is helping people take an interest in that information.
Change is emotional, and people take it personally. If you only address the cognitive side, you leave the emotional connection unused, and that connection decides whether people come along.
The “Imagine That” Technique: First Feel the Problems, Then the Possibilities
“Imagine That” builds an emotional connection through two questions, without presenting a single argument.
You walk into the room and ask the first question: how are things going, what are you seeing out there? If needed, you narrow it down to a specific area. People start talking about their problems and, in doing so, realize for themselves what isn’t working right now. They feel the fear.
Then comes the second question: what would happen if we did X? X is the change you want to introduce. Now people imagine possibilities and start thinking about something better.
The lever is that you don’t explain anything, you ask. The first question opens up awareness of the problem, the second the idea that things can improve. Both are felt, not just thought.
Stories work in a similar way. A story doesn’t have to be true, as long as that’s clear. It works because people can feel it, retell it and remember it, unlike a series of bullet points on a slide.
A “Shoulder to Cry On”: Acknowledge the Loss
Every change brings a gain and a loss. Most people who lead change overlook the loss.
Leaders usually talk only about the benefits for the organization. The more perceptive ones also talk about the personal benefits. What almost nobody does is acknowledge what people lose.
Often nothing can be done about the loss. But acknowledging it changes a lot. A sentence like “I realize this is a new challenge for you, that you need a lot of time to learn and still have other things to get done, and we appreciate that” is often enough.
You don’t have to push yourself into anything that feels uncomfortable. It’s enough to admit that someone is dealing with real difficulties right now. That treats employees as people with feelings, not as robots.
What to Do if You Are the Skeptic
If you’re the skeptic, it’s easy to get stuck in the problem space. You keep naming challenges and problems and expect the other person to build solutions from them.
That’s exactly what overwhelms listeners. People who are confronted with one new problem after another, without being offered a way out, eventually get irritated and less receptive. You get labeled a pessimist, and communication becomes almost impossible.
The way out is to bring a concrete, or at least halfway concrete, solution. Instead of just saying “Here’s the problem”, you say: “I know I’ve been complaining, and here’s one way we could solve it. What do you think?” That turns the constant critic into a partner in the conversation.
Change Can Start at the Bottom, Not Only at the Top
Influence on change doesn’t depend on formal power. A 19-year-old intern who realizes on day one that something needs to change can often move people’s thinking just as much as a chief information officer.
Manns calls this concept “powerless leaders”. She means people who have not been given any official authority to order change but who simply have good ideas. They can use the same strategies as any leader.
People with power sometimes just order change. Then dissatisfaction hangs in the air, because nobody feels seen. Change that comes from the grassroots works better. The tools from “Fearless Change” are built for exactly that, but they also work from the top down.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do People Really Reject Change on Principle?
No. Resistance is usually directed not against the goal itself, but against the transition from the old to the new. This phase creates chaos, even in the case of changes that people have voluntarily chosen. In organizations, there’s the added factor that those affected often had no choice: they’re expected to go through an already exhausting process that they didn’t decide on themselves.
Why is even a meaningful and desired change so difficult?
The mind constantly seeks balance, and anything that disrupts it requires effort. Furthermore, change affects one’s identity: those who define themselves by a role lose a part of that identity with the transition. During the transition, many things don’t run smoothly yet, while the old way of doing things is remembered as perfect. This comparison provides fuel for complaints.
Why does the argument that a change benefits the organization rarely convince those affected?
Because people ask themselves how the change will affect them personally. The benefit to the bigger picture makes sense, but it doesn’t resonate with the individual. With 10,000 employees, it’s impossible to address everyone individually; nevertheless, leaders can focus much more on the individual level rather than just listing the benefits for the organization.
How do you deal with skeptics in a change initiative?
Instead of spending time trying to convince them, bring them into the team and ask them regularly what they see and what’s being overlooked. Anyone leading a change is convinced of its benefits and has blind spots, and that’s exactly where the skeptics’ contribution lies. Those who are heard are less likely to set up ambushes. An officially assigned observer role takes the sting out of mere complaining.
Why do changes fail even though all the information has been communicated?
Because change is treated as a purely cognitive matter: information, then more information. People reject information when it contradicts what they believe should happen. The information was delivered correctly, but the next step is missing: helping people take an interest in the information. Change is emotional and is taken personally.
How can you spark interest in a change without presenting arguments?
With questions instead of explanations. The “Imagine That” technique begins with the question of how things are going right now and what people see in their area. They identify their problems themselves and feel them. This is followed by the question of what would happen if they did X. Stories have a similar effect because people can feel them, repeat them, and remember them, unlike bullet points.
Should you speak openly about the losses involved in a change?
Yes. Every change brings both gains and losses, and the losses are overlooked by most people who lead change. Often, there’s nothing that can be done about it, but the acknowledgment itself makes a difference. A single sentence that acknowledges the necessary learning time and parallel tasks and expresses appreciation is often enough. This treats employees as people with feelings, not as robots.
What impact can employees without formal authority have during change?
Quite a bit. A 19-year-old intern who realizes on their first day that something needs to change can often influence people just as much as a Chief Information Officer. Mary Lynn Manns speaks of “powerless leaders”: people without official authority but with good ideas who use the same strategies as executives. Mandated change, on the other hand, leaves people feeling dissatisfied because no one feels seen.
