In a fast-moving world, HR leaders and managers often assume that the workforce will push against change. But starting from this point can be counter-productive, argues Dr Leandro Herrero.
One of the most persistent and perhaps misguided claims in traditional management thinking is that people are resistant to change. This phrase has been repeated so often that we take for granted that it’s the truth. But is it really?
I’ve argued against this for years in speeches, articles, my books and consulting work, and I still believe it’s a deeply flawed statement. And sad. In fact, it’s one of the worst assumptions any leader or manager can start with.
So, what makes this statement so problematic when we all know of situations where individuals or teams pushed back against change initiatives?
The issue lies not in the observation that resistance occurs, but in the dangerous generalisation embedded in the phrase ‘people are resistant to change’. The key problem is the ‘are’.
It implies an intrinsic, unchangeable quality, as if humans are naturally and unavoidably resistant to change in all contexts. So, it’s all going to be a struggle from now on. A rather masochistic start for a change initiative.
Constant change
Let’s look around. Our societies are undergoing rapid transformation – social norms shift, political landscapes change, technological advancements redefine our daily lives, and generational shifts reshape workplace dynamics.
If it sounds like a broken record, that is because it is. Even on a personal level, we’re all subject to continuous biological change from birth to death. In fact, adaptability is one of our most essential survival traits as humans.
Change management
In this context, the idea that people are resistant to change seems more than a little odd, to say the least. 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 turmoil?
Human beings are change. Our physical, psychological, and emotional lives are defined by it. We are born as unfinished beings, capable of incredible adaptation throughout our lives.
From the development of new skills and habits to the shifting of attitudes and perspectives, we are constantly reshaping who we are. Our “unfinished” nature is, in fact, the secret to our resilience. We can learn, adapt, and evolve with the world around us.
So, if people are not inherently resistant to change, why does resistance seem to arise in certain situations?
Sources of resistance
Resistance to change is perhaps not about change itself; it’s about the context, the approach, and the meaning we attach to it. Resistance is not a pre-existing human state. It’s an outcome.
Resistance may arise when change feels imposed, threatening, or unjustified. It occurs when people perceive they are losing control or when they don’t understand the need for change.
Here are some key reasons why people push back:
Lack of control: When people feel that change is being imposed on them without their input or involvement, they are more likely to resist. Human beings value autonomy, and when that is threatened, the natural response is to push back.
Lack of purpose: If people don’t see a clear reason for the change – if the “why” behind the change isn’t communicated effectively, they will likely question its necessity. It’s incredible how this is so often overlooked.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous quote, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how” has been reinterpreted in many ways but it has consistently reminded me of the need to always ‘explain’ as much as possible.
In my experience, many people change their attitudes when the reason comes to the table. You may like it or not, but it provides context.
‘We are not doing X’ is blunt, non-contextual and has a high possibility that it could even be interpreted as blame. ‘We are not doing X, instead we are doing Y’, meanwhile, changes the panorama completely.
Perceived threats: Change can often be perceived as a threat, whether it’s to job security, status, or identity. In these cases, resistance is a defence mechanism, not an inherent opposition to change itself. It’s like generating antibodies before any danger exists.
Emotional preference for the status quo: Sometimes the known, even if imperfect, feels safer than the unknown. Resistance can be a rational or emotional preference to maintain current conditions when the alternative feels uncertain or risky.
Breach of trust: When people feel they’ve been misled or that their trust has been broken, their resistance isn’t to the change per se, but to the way the change has been handled.
This is not a scientific list, but an interpretational one. There may be many combinations and, in fact, nobody knows the relative weight of each of these. Maybe it’s some, or maybe it’s all of the above. Perhaps the list of reasons is endless.
When we look closely at these possible factors, it’s clear that what we label as “resistance” is a response, not a condition. Maybe it’s too poor management of the change process. People – you and me – don’t resist change; they resist the loss of control, the perceived threats, and the failure to communicate purpose.
Getting off to the wrong start
This is where many change management approaches falter. They start from the assumption that people are resistant to change, which sets up an adversarial dynamic from the beginning.
It’s like approaching a mountain and deciding, before you even start the climb, that the ascent will be impossible.
If the expectation is resistance, all the focus goes into overcoming that perceived resistance, and the actual causes – miscommunication, lack of trust, uncertainty – are ignored.
In my experience, many people change their attitudes when the reason comes to the table.”
Instead of viewing resistance as the default, what if we started from a different premise? How about starting with the belief that people don’t have to resist change, and when they do, it’s worth investigating why?
What is it about this particular change that is triggering pushback? What needs to be addressed, clarified, or reconsidered? I am not saying that the answers will be immediately clear but, without the questioning, one thing is for sure: the default of ‘universal resistance’ will fill the space.
Cultivate trust
One of the most successful interventions we use with clients is a session (as short or as long as needed, and almost never a one off) on preconceived ideas.
We bring to the table, in a free brainstorming mode, a group of people with all possible preconceptions in order to bring them out into the open.
It is amazing how open people often are: this change is going to be long, or impossible; leaders won’t like it; middle management will resist, it won’t happen in this company, etc.
Sometimes, all it takes is for somebody to say, ‘Actually, I don’t see it like this’, to collectively change gears. But leaving things unsaid and bypassing the understanding of the collective belief system is a terrible idea.
Let’s stop reinforcing the myth that people are resistant to change. Instead, let’s focus on creating the conditions where change feels like an opportunity rather than a threat.
From expecting resistance to cultivating trust and clarity we can create a much smoother path for change and transformation.
So, here’s a new starting point for any leader: People don’t have to resist this change. It’s not an obligation. It’s not a life sentence. If they do, let’s find out what is going on. A much better place to begin.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR Shared Services opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more HR shared services jobs
