What Are the Types of Resistance to Change at Work?

The types of resistance to change at work can be sorted into five kinds by what's driving each one. They are waiting it out, anxiety, resentment, confusion, and exhaustion. A response that helps with one kind can make another worse, so work out which kind you're facing before you choose a response.

You answered the objection in the meeting and sent a follow-up with the details, and the objections got more specific. On the same rollout, you gave a quiet team time to adjust, and a month later they still hadn't started.

What Is Resistance to Change?

Shaul Oreg described resistance to change as a negative attitude toward a change, made up of three parts (Oreg, 2006, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology).

• How a person feels about the change, such as angry or anxious.

• What they think of it, such as whether it's needed and whether it will help.

• What they do or intend to do about it, such as complaining or trying to convince others the change is a bad idea.

Types of resistance to change are groups of reactions to a workplace change, sorted by what's driving each reaction, that tell the person leading the change which response is likely to help.

Why Do People Resist Change at Work?

People resist a change at work for different reasons, and one person can have more than one. John Kotter and Leonard Schlesinger named four common ones (Kotter and Schlesinger, Harvard Business Review, 1979, reprinted 2008).

• They expect to lose something they value.

• They don't understand the change or what it means for them. This happens more often when they don't trust the people making it.

• They've looked at the change and concluded it doesn't make sense for the organization.

• They have a low tolerance for change.

Why Does Handling Every Kind of Resistance the Same Way Fail?

Kotter and Schlesinger also described the most common mistake in handling resistance as using one approach, or a small set of them, whatever the situation (Kotter and Schlesinger, Harvard Business Review, 1979, reprinted 2008). They tied the choice of approach to how much resistance there is and of what kind, who holds power, who has the information the change needs, and what's at stake.

More explanation is one response whose effect can depend on who receives it. Oreg surveyed employees at a defense-industry company that was merging two of its core units. Employees who rated the information they'd received about the change as more timely and useful also reported more resistance to it, both in what they thought of the change and in what they intended to do about it (Oreg, 2006, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology). One explanation Oreg offered was that when people have something to lose, more detail gives them more reasons to object. Because the study was a single survey in one organization, it can't establish which came first.

Across the six decades of studies that Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis later reviewed, information about a change usually went with more positive reactions to it. The same review suggested, as a question for future research, that information may add to frustration when people have no way to influence the change (Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis, 2011, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science).

How Do Researchers Sort Resistance to Change?

Two published sorts look at where resistance comes from. One is Kotter and Schlesinger's four reasons. Ron Meyer, writing for TIAS School for Business and Society, groups resistance by three drivers. Interests drive what he calls political resistance, views drive cognitive resistance, and feelings drive emotional resistance (Meyer, 2023, TIAS). He splits each driver in two, one form about letting go of the current way and one about taking hold of the new one.

A third way is to sort by what's driving one person's response right now. That gives five kinds. They are waiting it out, anxiety, resentment, confusion, and exhaustion. The same person can move from one kind to another as a change goes on.

What Does Waiting It Out Look Like?

Someone waiting it out has mixed views about the change and doubts it will last, so they hold off on committing to it. You see delays that come with reasons, the least effort that still counts as taking part, and a friendly yes with nothing after it. You may hear some version of "do I have to?"

Piderit argued that ambivalence may be the most common first response to a change (Piderit, 2000, Academy of Management Review). A person can think a change makes sense, feel uneasy about it, and plan to go along with it, all at the same time. She warned that calling objections resistance can be a way of dismissing potentially valid concerns. She also proposed, as an idea for future research, that more data about a change may not help someone whose mixed reaction is mainly emotional.

Reichers, Wanous and Austin linked cynicism about change to a record of change programs that didn't consistently succeed, and to a lack of adequate information about the change (Reichers, Wanous and Austin, 1997, Academy of Management Executive). Someone who has seen earlier changes dropped partway through has a reason to expect the same of this one. In Oreg's 2006 study, trust in management was linked to how people felt about the change, what they thought of it, and what they intended to do. It was the only context factor he tested that was linked to all three.

The response that makes this kind worse is restating the vision more often or more forcefully. It doesn't check whether anyone has done their part, which supports their expectation that this change will be dropped too.

What Does Anxiety about the Change Look Like?

Anxiety here is fear of getting the new way of working wrong where colleagues can see it. It shows up as frequent check-ins, the same question asked several ways, a lot of messages about small steps, and strong reactions to small problems.

Kotter and Schlesinger's low tolerance for change includes a related fear. Some people fear they won't be able to develop the new skills and behavior a change requires, even when they believe the change is a good one. Amy Edmondson described psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, and wrote that asking for help or admitting an error can make a person look incompetent (Edmondson, 1999, Administrative Science Quarterly). A new way of working puts people back in the position of learning a task with their colleagues watching.

The response that makes this kind worse is general reassurance, such as "you'll be fine." It doesn't address their worry about getting the new way wrong in front of colleagues.

What Does Resentment about the Change Look Like?

Resentment comes from seeing the change as a cost to them that mainly benefits someone else. It shows up as cynicism, objections raised in the open, and some version of "this helps them and costs me."

Kotter and Schlesinger's first reason for resistance is the expectation of losing something of value. The review by Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis found that whether people saw a change as helping or harming them personally was a key factor in how they reacted to it.

The response that makes this kind worse is selling harder. Listing more benefits tells this person you haven't heard what the change costs them. Piderit proposed, as an untested idea, that overselling a change's benefits may not win the support of people who already accept it has some benefits and think it needs to be looked at from another angle.

What Does Confusion about the Ask Look Like?

Confusion means the person can't tell what the change asks of them. It shows up as repeated questions about scope, and questions that go to peers.

Kotter and Schlesinger's second reason, misunderstanding the change and lacking trust in the people behind it, fits here. Meyer's cognitive resistance includes confusion.

The response that makes this kind worse is treating the questions as pushback. A question answered with a defense of the change leaves the person still unsure what to do, and their next question goes to someone else.

What Does Exhaustion from Too Much Change Look Like?

Exhaustion builds when new changes keep arriving before people have finished adjusting to earlier ones. It shows up as withdrawal, sarcasm, and "tell me what to do."

Kotter and Schlesinger noted that a change can require people to change too much, too quickly. Bernerth, Walker and Harris developed a short measure of change fatigue in people who have been through multiple organizational changes. They drew on data from change consultants and from one US manufacturer that had made several changes over three years. Change fatigue went with exhaustion, and exhaustion went with lower commitment to the organization and stronger intentions to leave (Bernerth, Walker and Harris, 2011, Work & Stress).

The response that makes this kind worse is more urgency. New deadlines and escalations add more of what exhausted them.

What Are the Signs of Resistance to Change?

Kotter and Schlesinger described responses to a change that range from passively resisting it, to trying to undermine it, to embracing it. Piderit proposed, as an idea for future research, that people with mixed feelings about a change may express them through humor or other indirect ways, or avoid the subject.

These checks help you find the signs early.

• List everyone whose work changes. Next to each name, write the first thing they were expected to do differently, the date, and whether it happened.

• Note who has stopped coming to meetings about the change or stopped replying about it.

• Note questions about the change that reach you secondhand, and who asked them.

• Ask each person one direct question about their part, such as "What would get in the way of your team starting on the date?"

To identify resistance to change at work as the rollout goes on, run these checks again at each date in your plan.

Can the Way a Change Is Run Create Resistance?

Jeffrey Ford, Laurie Ford and Angelo D'Amelio argued that people leading a change contribute to the resistance they meet (Ford, Ford and D'Amelio, 2008, Academy of Management Review). They named broken agreements and violations of trust. They also named communication breakdowns, such as failing to explain why the change is legitimate, misrepresenting its chances of success, and failing to ask people to act. Some of these happen at a level above the person running the rollout, as when a promise made in the announcement turns out to be one the rollout can't keep.

They argued that calling a response "resistance" shapes how the people leading the change respond to it, and that the label can become self-fulfilling. They also argued that complaining and criticizing, which often get labeled resistance, can keep a change under discussion and give more people a chance to take part in it.

They traced some misrepresentation to optimism. People leading a change can oversell its chances, and when it doesn't go as promised, the people affected see the gap as broken trust. Their remedy is to tell the truth about the change, including what you don't know yet.

How Do You Reduce Resistance before Announcing a Change?

Kotter and Schlesinger wrote that few managers take time before a change to assess who might resist it and for what reasons. They added that an accurate assessment is often not obvious and takes careful thought.

Before the announcement goes out, make a list with three columns.

• Each group the change affects.

• What each group will lose or find hard, such as a decision they no longer make, more work, or a new process to learn.

• What your announcement needs to say to each group about it.

Then put the answers in the announcement, including what each group still controls, what support they'll get, and when. Tell managers ahead of time which concerns their teams are likely to raise and what to say. If people will need new skills, set up training before the date they're expected to work the new way.

How Do You Respond to Resistance to Change?

Kotter and Schlesinger described six approaches. For each one, they gave the situations it's commonly used in, its advantages, and its drawbacks.

• Education and communication. Explaining the change and the reasoning behind it before it happens, through one-on-one discussions, presentations to groups, or memos and reports. It's commonly used where information is missing or inaccurate. Once persuaded, people often help put the change in place. It can take a lot of time when many people are involved, and it depends on a good relationship between the people leading the change and the people resisting it, who may otherwise not believe what they hear.

• Participation and involvement. Bringing the people who might resist into designing the change or putting it in place, and using their advice. It's commonly used where the people leading the change don't have all the information they need to design it, and where others have considerable power to resist. People who take part tend to be committed to putting the change in place, and what they know goes into the plan. It can take a great deal of time, and if it isn't managed carefully, it can produce a poor plan.

• Facilitation and support. Training in new skills, time off after a demanding period, or listening and emotional support. It's commonly used where people resist because of problems adjusting to the change. They wrote that no other approach works as well for those problems. It can take time and money and still fail.

• Negotiation and agreement. Offering incentives to people who resist or might resist, such as a higher wage in return for a change in work rules. It's commonly used where someone will clearly lose out and has considerable power to resist. It can be a relatively easy way to avoid major resistance. It can become too expensive if it prompts others to ask for something in return for going along.

• Manipulation and co-optation. Manipulation is the selective use of information and the deliberate arranging of events. Co-optation gives a person, or a leader of a group, a desirable role in designing the change or putting it in place. The people leading the change want the co-opted person's endorsement. In participation, they want the person's advice. It's commonly used where other approaches won't work or cost too much. It can be quick and cheap. It can cause problems later if people feel manipulated, and a reputation for manipulating people can undercut the other approaches.

• Explicit and implicit coercion. Making people accept the change by threatening, openly or by implication, the loss of jobs or promotion chances, or by firing or transferring people. It's commonly used where speed is essential and the people leading the change hold considerable power. It's fast and can overcome any kind of resistance. It's risky because it can leave people angry at the people who forced the change.

Before you choose an approach, check what it needs. Negotiation needs something to offer, such as pay, benefits or budget. Facilitation and support can need money for training and time away from other work. Participation can mean changing a plan that a sponsor or steering group approved. When an approach needs a decision or a resource that belongs to someone else, take it to the sponsor or manager who holds it. Tell them who is involved, what that person or group stands to lose or needs, which approach you're proposing, and what you need them to decide or provide.

How Do You Deal with Stakeholders Who Block or Stall Your Project?

Some resistance comes from one person whose decision, sign-off or work your project needs.

When a stakeholder blocks the project. Kotter and Schlesinger wrote that when people expect to lose something they value, such as status or power, their resistance often turns into politics that are usually subtle and happen out of public view. They also wrote that people who assess a change differently from the people leading it are sometimes right, because the people leading it may not have all the facts. Ask the stakeholder what the change would cost them or their team, and what would have to be true for them to go ahead. Have that conversation one on one, because a stakeholder who blocks your project may not name what they'd lose in front of other people. If their answer shows a problem with the plan, take that problem to the sponsor.

When a stakeholder stops responding. Make the next ask one they can answer in a single reply. Name the decision you need, the options, the date you need it by, and what moves in the schedule if it isn't made by then. If the stakeholder stopped responding after they raised a concern, answer the concern in the same message. Send it to the person who can make the decision. If the date passes with no answer, ask your sponsor who else can decide.

When a stakeholder has competing priorities. Ask what your project's work is competing with in their week. Offer the smallest first step that still moves the project forward. If even that doesn't fit, ask the person who sets their team's priorities to decide what moves.

How Do You Deal with a Resistant or Disengaged Project Sponsor?

Katherine Klein and Andrew Knight reviewed research on getting people to use a new tool or practice once it has been adopted (Klein and Knight, 2005, Current Directions in Psychological Science). They wrote that without strong, visible support from managers, employees are likely to conclude that a change is a passing interest that will go away if they ignore it.

When the sponsor resists. Kotter and Schlesinger's four reasons can hold for a sponsor too. Ask for one specific action with a date, such as telling the affected teams in their next staff meeting that the change is a priority. If it doesn't happen, ask the sponsor directly what concerns they have about the change.

When the sponsor goes quiet. Silence from a sponsor doesn't tell you whether they're busy, have doubts, or have moved on to other priorities. Ask one question they can answer quickly, such as whether the project is still a priority this quarter, and name the one action you need from them and by when. If the priority has changed, ask who now decides on the project.

Why Doesn't Agreement on a Change Turn into Action?

Agreement in a meeting can fail to become action for more than one reason.

Some people agree while keeping doubts to themselves. Frances Milliken, Elizabeth Morrison and Patricia Hewlin interviewed employees about times they had a concern at work and didn't raise it with a supervisor (Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin, 2003, Journal of Management Studies). The reason given most often was fear of being seen negatively and, as a result, damaging relationships they valued.

Others mean it and still don't act. Paschal Sheeran and Thomas Webb reviewed research on the gap between what people intend and what they do, and concluded that the gap is large (Sheeran and Webb, 2016, Social and Personality Psychology Compass). In getting started, people forget to act, miss chances to act, or put it off. Once they've started, other goals that need the same time and effort can pull them away, and old habits can take over.

Before a decision meeting ends, ask each person whose work changes to name their first step and the date. Send that list to everyone who was there the same day, and check in the first week whether each step happened. When you announce a change that's already decided, say which parts are decided and which are still open, and ask for input only on the open parts.

Why Do Teams Go Back to the Old Way after a Change Goes Live?

Klein and Knight separate the decision to adopt something new from implementation, the period in which the people expected to use it become skilled, consistent and committed users. They list reasons implementation is hard.

• New technology can be unreliable or awkward to use.

• People have to learn new skills, which can be tedious or stressful.

• The decision is usually made by people above the users, and the users may be comfortable with the old way and doubt the new one is worth it.

• People have to change their roles and routines.

• Implementation takes time and money and slows work down at first, so users and their managers may put keeping up their usual output ahead of learning the new way.

• An organization's existing routines and norms keep things as they are.

When a team keeps a workaround going, such as a spreadsheet alongside a new system, ask them what it does that the new system doesn't, and what the new system costs them in time. Fix what you can, and take what you can't fix to whoever owns the system.

Klein and Knight also describe conditions that help. They include training and help when people need it, and a climate in which people see using the new way as a priority in their job. Kotter and Schlesinger advised monitoring a change once it's under way, because careful monitoring is how you catch the unexpected in time. Check at set dates after launch whether each team is using the new way, and ask each team's manager to tell the team it's a priority.

Status reports may not show a team going back to the old way. Andrew Snow and Mark Keil modeled how a software project's reported status can differ from its true status (Snow and Keil, 2002, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management). They separated two causes, the project manager's errors in judging the status and bias added before reporting it. They concluded that executives should be skeptical of favorable status reports. Check a green status against what you can see, such as whether planned steps happened on their dates, and ask the people doing the work how it's going.

Where Do I Start with the Person Whose Response Is Slowing the Change?

Start with what they've done since the change was announced. The same words can come from different kinds. "I don't have time for this right now" can come from someone who's exhausted, someone waiting it out, or someone who resents what the change costs them.

Pick one person whose response is slowing your change. Write down what they've done since the announcement, the kind it most resembles, and the response you were planning to use. If that response is the one that makes that kind worse, leave it out of your next conversation with them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can one person show more than one kind of resistance?

Yes. Two kinds can show up together, and a person can move from one to another as a change goes on. Meyer notes that the types of resistance he describes often reinforce each other in practice. Go by what the person is doing now, and look again when their behavior changes.

Is the resistance sometimes right about the change?

Sometimes. Kotter and Schlesinger listed different assessments as a common reason for resistance. People weigh a change's costs and benefits differently from the people behind it, and sometimes their assessment is more accurate. Piderit warned that labeling concerns as resistance can dismiss potentially valid ones. Treat a specific objection that keeps coming back as information about the change.

What if I respond to the wrong kind?

Change the response. If what you tried was followed by sharper objections or more of the same delay, it may mean you matched the wrong kind. Go back to what the person has done since the announcement and check which kind it resembles before your next conversation with them.

Does resistance from someone senior work the same way?

The kinds are the same. Power changes what you can do about them. Kotter and Schlesinger tied the choice of approach partly to how much power the people resisting hold. They described negotiation as the approach commonly used where someone will clearly lose out and has considerable power to resist.

Is "resistance" the right word for this?

Researchers have questioned it. Dent and Goldberg traced the term to Kurt Lewin, who used it for forces acting on everyone in a system, managers included. They argued that later writers turned it into a contest between employees and managers, and they recommended dropping it (Dent and Goldberg, 1999, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science).

If people are pushing back on a change you're leading, The DANCE System gives you 29 tools for finding where the change is breaking down and what to communicate next.

Related Blog Posts:

Why Do Teams Agree in Meetings and Then Not Follow Through?

Why does Chasing Buy-In Stall a Rollout?

How Do I Predict Pushback before Announcing a Change?

How to Get Stakeholder Buy-In without Authority

Why Doesn't Communicating More Fix a Struggling Change?

Why Does a Team Stop Caring Mid-Rollout?

References

1. Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130-139. Originally published 1979, 57(2). https://hbr.org/2008/07/choosing-strategies-for-change

2. Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247

3. Meyer, R. (2023). Resistance to change typology. TIAS School for Business and Society. https://www.tias.edu/en/artikelen/resistance-to-change-typology

4. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.2307/259206

5. Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48-59. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1997.9707100659

6. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

7. Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550

8. Bernerth, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Harris, S. G. (2011). Change fatigue: Development and initial validation of a new measure. Work & Stress, 25(4), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.634280

9. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235

10. Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886399351003

11. Klein, K. J., & Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation implementation: Overcoming the challenge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00373.x

12. Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387

13. Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention-behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503-518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265

14. Snow, A. P., & Keil, M. (2002). The challenge of accurate software project status reporting: A two-stage model incorporating status errors and reporting bias. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 491-504. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2002.807290