How do you deal with resistance to change?

The term can cover very different observations: someone asks many follow-up questions, a team keeps using the old process, or a department warns of a quality problem. These situations may look similar from a project planning perspective. However, they are not the same when it comes to the next decision.

Start by describing what you can observe. “The new channel is not being used for complaints already in progress” can be checked. “The team is blocking change” is already an interpretation. If you start with that interpretation, professional input can easily be read as confirmation of an assumed attitude.

In its guidance for leaders, the University of Iowa recommends, among other things, understanding objections and removing obstacles. You can find the original framework at Supporting Employees Through Change. The distinction below is our own practical guide for a specific work situation.

Ask about a situation in which the intended way of working becomes difficult. What was supposed to happen? What prevented the person from doing it? What consequence do they fear? This kind of description is more useful for designing the process than a general discussion of whether change is necessary in principle.

In a fictional business, the new handover requires complete customer information. However, sales can only provide some of that information after a technical review. Its criticism then points to the sequence of the process. Another motivational session would not make the missing information available.

Record the observation and your explanation separately. You may suspect a lack of knowledge; there may instead be a conflicting target. Test the explanation against a case before commissioning action. Even a very convincingly presented objection can turn out to be incorrect. The way it is checked should therefore be clear and traceable.

The following guide does not classify people. It organises situations so you can choose a suitable response. Several obstacles can exist at the same time. In that case, the classification is a working assessment that can change as new information emerges.

Conflicting objectives deserve particular attention. If a team is responsible for fast processing and is also expected to take on extra checks without allocated time, the expectations may be incompatible. Management then needs to decide on priorities or capacity. The team cannot replace that decision with a more positive attitude.

Begin with the shared issue: “We want to organise the handover so that open cases are reliably taken forward.” Then describe the observation and ask for an example. This keeps the issue workable. Judging people's willingness to change quickly shifts the exchange towards justification.

Show what can still be influenced. The shared channel may be decided, while its required fields and exceptions may still be adjustable. If you offer people a say, that scope must actually exist. Presenting a decision afterwards as an open question, when no change is possible, creates false expectations.

A conversation ends with a next step that can be checked: an exception is tested, authority is clarified, or a requirement is confirmed with an explanation. Name the responsible person and the point at which you will report back. If you do not adopt a suggestion, explain the reasoning. Otherwise, it remains unclear whether the objection was examined or merely heard.

Communication helps when the reason, approach or available support is unclear. Another explanation may then be appropriate. But check whether the person really does not know the rule or is criticising a specific consequence. Someone describing a conflict over quality does not automatically need a better explanation of the project goal.

A decision is needed when two valid requirements collide, authority is missing, or additional work is expected without relief elsewhere. Document which requirement takes priority and how the remaining risk will be handled. When management takes responsibility for this trade-off, the change becomes practical to carry out.

The article on change communication explores how to adapt a message to the relevant work situation. When several initiatives affect the same teams at once, the article on change fatigue addresses priorities and available capacity.

A short survey can show whether people within the team experience clarity or support differently. It can provide a reason to investigate. It does not automatically explain the cause or identify individuals resisting a change. An average value is not a measure of resistance.

Ask about conditions you can influence: “When I have difficulties with the new process, I receive the support I need.” Avoid statements such as “My colleagues are blocking the change”. That would collect assumptions about other people rather than examine a working condition you can address.

Consider the context of free-text responses. An exceptional case described may allow people to draw conclusions about its author even without a name. Clarify in advance who sees feedback and how you intend to discuss it. The Confidentiality page and guidance on co-determination help with this preparation. A survey does not replace any required employee participation.

Examine the original obstacle again. Can the exception now be decided? Is the necessary time available? Is the handover route used in the appropriate cases? A calmer meeting alone tells you little about this. Less visible criticism may also mean that those involved no longer expect their feedback to have any effect.

Consider feedback alongside the workflow. Perceived support may improve while a technical bottleneck remains. An action may then have helped without being sufficient. The article Measuring change management is useful for connecting different sources of information.

If the same contradictions occur across many initiatives, a lasting pattern may be involved. Addressing that is a different task from correcting a single handover. The article on culture change puts this longer-term perspective in context.

Bring together the question about the work, the step affected and the decision made. You do not need a list of supposedly difficult people. Such a list can also cause later input from the same person to be dismissed too quickly.

For example, record: “A transition rule was missing for complaints already in progress; the process owner decided on the following approach.” This keeps the learning useful for future cases. Check later whether the rule works. Documentation should improve the work, rather than fix an assumed attitude to particular people.

EngageBeat Fokus can capture team feedback on clarity and support. Ask your own questions or use prepared questions about change in the short weekly survey. Questions rotate, so a selected question will not automatically appear the following week. Supporting change management shows how it can be used. Individual performance monitoring and automatic resistance profiles are not part of it.