Stop thinking that people are resistant to change

In a fast-changing world, executives and HR managers often assume that employees will resist change. But starting from here can be counterproductive, says Dr. Leandro Herrero.

One of the most persistent and perhaps flawed assumptions of traditional management thinking is that people resist change. This phrase is repeated so often that we take it for granted that it is true. But is this really so?

I have argued against this for years in speeches, articles, books, and consulting work, and I still believe it is deeply flawed. And sad. In fact, this is one of the worst assumptions any leader or manager can start with.

So what makes this statement so problematic when we all know situations where individuals or groups have resisted change initiatives?

The problem is not the observation that resistance arises, but the dangerous generalization implicit in the phrase “people resist change.” The key problem is “is.”

This implies an intrinsic unchanging quality, as if people naturally and inevitably resist change in all contexts. So from now on everything will be a struggle. A rather masochistic start to an initiative for change.

Constant change

Let’s take a look around. Our societies are undergoing rapid transformation: social norms are shifting, political landscapes are shifting, technological advances are redefining our daily lives, and generational shifts are changing workplace dynamics.

If this sounds like a broken record, that’s because it is. Even on a personal level, we are all subject to continuous biological change from birth to death. In fact, adaptability is one of the most important traits for human survival.

In this context, the idea that people resist change seems, to say the least, more than a little strange. If we were truly resistant to change at our core, how could we explain our ability to survive and thrive in the face of constant disruption?

People are change. Our physical, psychological and emotional lives are determined by this. We are born incomplete beings, capable of incredible adaptation throughout our lives.

From developing new skills and habits to changing attitudes and attitudes, we are constantly changing. Our “unfinished” nature is, in fact, the secret of our resilience. We can learn, adapt and grow with the world around us.

So, if people are not naturally resistant to change, why does resistance arise in certain situations?

Sources of resistance

Resistance to change may not be related to the change itself; it’s about the context, the approach and the meaning we give to it. Resistance is not a pre-existing human condition. This is the result.

Resistance can arise when change seems forced, threatening, or unjustified. This occurs when people feel out of control or do not understand the need for change.

Here are some of the main reasons why people resist:

Lack of control: When people feel that change is being forced on them without their input or input, they are more likely to resist. People value autonomy, and when it is threatened, the natural reaction is to resist.

Lack of purpose: If people don’t see a clear reason for a change—if the “why” behind the change isn’t communicated effectively, they’re likely to doubt its necessity. It’s amazing how this is so often overlooked.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous quote, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how,” has been interpreted in many ways, but it has constantly reminded me of the need to always “explain” as much as possible.

In my experience, many people change their attitude when a reason arises. Like it or not, it gives context.

The phrase “We don’t do X” is harsh, decontextualized, and highly likely to be interpreted as an accusation. “We don’t do X, instead we do Y,” meanwhile, completely changes the panorama.

Perceived threats: Change can often be perceived as a threat, be it to job security, status or identity. In these cases, resistance is a defense mechanism rather than internal resistance to the changes themselves. This is similar to the production of antibodies before any danger arises.

Emotional preference for the status quo: Sometimes the known, even if imperfect, seems safer than the unknown. Resistance can be a rational or emotional preference for maintaining current conditions when the alternative seems uncertain or risky.

Breach of trust: When people feel that they have been misled or that their trust has been violated, they resist not the change itself, but the way that change has been implemented.

This is not a scientific list, but an interpretive one. There can be many combinations, and virtually no one knows the relative weight of each of them. Maybe it’s this one thing, or maybe it’s all of the above. Perhaps the list of reasons is endless.

If we look closely at these possible factors, it becomes clear that what we call “resistance” is a reaction, not a condition. Perhaps it is a matter of too poor management of the change process. People—you and I—don’t resist change; they resist loss of control, perceived threats, and failure to communicate the goal.

Wrong start

This is where many change management approaches fail. They assume that people are resistant to change, which creates an adversarial dynamic from the start.

It’s like approaching a mountain and deciding before you start climbing that climbing is impossible.

If the expectation is resistance, all the attention is given to overcoming this perceived resistance, and the real reasons – misunderstanding, lack of trust, uncertainty – are ignored.

Instead of treating resistance as the default standard, what if we started with a different premise? How about we start with the belief that people don’t need to resist change, and when they do, it’s worth finding out why?

What is it about this particular change that is causing opposition? What needs to be resolved, clarified or revised? I’m not saying the answers will be immediately clear, but without question, one thing is certain: by default, “total resistance” will fill the space.

Cultivate Trust

One of the most successful interventions we use with clients is a session (as short or long as necessary, and almost never a one-time session) on preconceived ideas.

In free-form brainstorming, we gather a group of people with all sorts of biases around a table to identify them.

It’s amazing how open people are: these changes will be long or impossible; the leaders won’t like it; middle management will resist, this will not happen in this company, etc.

Sometimes all it takes is someone saying, “I don’t really think so,” to collectively shift gears. But leaving things unsaid and ignoring the understanding of a collective belief system is a terrible idea.

Let’s stop perpetuating the myth that people resist change. Instead, let’s focus on creating an environment where change is seen as an opportunity rather than a threat.

From anticipating resistance to cultivating trust and clarity, we can create a much smoother path to change and transformation.

So here’s a new starting point for any leader: People shouldn’t resist these changes. This is not an obligation. This is not a life sentence. If they do, let’s find out what’s going on. A much better place to start.

HR Shared Services Features on Personnel Today

View More Jobs in HR Shared Services