See resistance as disguised motivation
We usually describe resistance in negative terms. People are "being difficult," there is "hassle," they "dig their heels in," and the list goes on. It feels like a wall blocking progress.
But resistance never comes without a reason. It arises because a request or change touches something at a person's core, a sensitive psychological nerve. And that is actually positive news. Because it means there is motivation hidden behind the resistance. It matters to someone. And that is a lot more positive than someone being indifferent. A-motivation is the hardest thing to work with.
For example. Suppose you are working on a diversity and inclusion project. You notice that some employees are resisting. A few even send you a direct, critical email: "What business is this of yours? Are you really the right person for this?"
It is understandable to take such a message personally. But if you read it behaviorally, that email tells you something else: someone is experiencing a threat to their autonomy and is reacting to it. Perhaps they feel unsafe, because what unsettling things are about to happen? And: that same person took the trouble to respond. There is energy behind it.
Resistance is therefore not a lack of engagement. It is an expression of it.
What can you do with this in practice? Start by asking the question behind the question. Not "how do I get this person to stop resisting," but "what does this person need to feel safe enough to move along with the change?" That shift in perspective changes how you enter a conversation, how you frame an initiative, and how you respond to criticism.
For example: Someone who reacts negatively to a change is actually giving you information. Use that information. Engage in the conversation, ask follow-up questions, and look for the underlying need. It often turns out that people are not against the change itself, but against the way it is being implemented, or against the feeling of no longer having a grip on their own work. That is something you can work with.
Open the floodgates, and dare to look
Following up on this: anyone who seriously wants to tackle resistance must be prepared to have difficult conversations. Resistance is almost always accompanied by emotion: anger, fear, frustration, or a sense of powerlessness. The tendency is to bypass or soothe these emotions. My advice is the opposite: validate them, and then dig deeper to find the underlying cause.
Why is someone angry? Why is a team not moving? What is really at the root of it?
In practical terms, this means the following. Read internal research, such as employee satisfaction surveys or customer surveys, through a psychological lens. Actively look for signs of resistance. In addition, engage in conversation with the target group itself. Don't talk about them, talk with them. An informal ten-minute chat can sometimes yield a great deal of information.
In those conversations, a few basic principles are of great importance. Ask open-ended questions and allow for silence. Probe further when answers remain superficial. Someone who says "I just didn't feel like it" hasn't said anything about the real reason. By asking follow-up questions, you get to the core. Is it a lack of time or resources? A need for autonomy, the feeling that something is being imposed without input? Fear of the consequences, of the unknown, or of what the change means for their own position? Or has someone simply never had the necessity of the change explained to them properly? All those core reasons require a different approach. That can feel uncomfortable for both sides, but often the most valuable information lies in that discomfort.
There is a limit to this listening, however. In practice, there are always groups that are so deeply entrenched in resistance that conversations go in circles: the same pain points over and over, with the cause always being external. Recognize that pattern, extract what is useful, and then focus your energy on the groups where movement is possible. In many change processes, once a part of the organization starts moving, the hesitant group often follows suit.
Look at the system, not just the individual
One of the most common mistakes in change processes is attributing resistance too quickly to individuals. Employees are expected to "just go along with the change," "offer less resistance," and "be open to the new." But if those same employees work in an environment where decisions are perhaps made over their heads, where they feel that making mistakes is not accepted, or where processes are structurally flawed, their resistance is not a personal trait. It is a logical reaction to their context.
Therefore, look at the system first. Who or what is limiting people's autonomy? Do critical employees perhaps just have a valid point? Are the prerequisites in place to exhibit the requested behavior?
Only when that foundation is in order does it make sense to work on behavioral interventions at an individual level. Not the other way around. It is both the most effective and the most honest sequence.
In short: resistance is not an obstacle to be cleared away. It is information. Those who learn to read it understand their organization better and build change that lasts.
