Understanding Human Experience — Why “Resistance” Is Often the Wrong Diagnosis (Article 3)
In almost every transformation I have worked on, there comes a moment when someone says it out loud.
“The problem is resistance.”
It is usually said with a mix of frustration and resignation, as if resistance were an unavoidable force of nature, something to be managed, overcome, or pushed through.
I understand why leaders reach for the word.
But in my experience, it is one of the most unhelpful labels we use in transformation.
Not because people don’t push back, they do.
But because “resistance” hides what’s really going on.
What leaders usually mean by resistance
When leaders talk about resistance, they are often pointing to familiar behaviours:
- people questioning the rationale,
- workshops that feel defensive,
- slow adoption of new ways of working,
- quiet scepticism rather than open support.
From a distance, these behaviours look like opposition.
But when you step closer, a different picture usually emerges.
People are not resisting the change itself.
Rather, they are struggling with what the change means for them.
Resistance as unresolved meaning
Most transformation disrupts more than processes.
It disrupts:
- identity (“What am I valued for now?”),
- competence (“Will I still be good at this?”),
- belonging (“Do I still fit here?”),
- trust (“Is this being done fairly?”).
When those questions remain unanswered, people hesitate.
They slow down not to sabotage the change, but to protect themselves.
Calling that resistance is convenient, but it is inaccurate.
What you’re seeing is unresolved meaning.
When resistance is actually care
One of the most misunderstood groups in any transformation is the sceptics.
These are often people who:
- know the organisation well,
- understand the customer deeply,
- have seen previous initiatives come and go.
They are the ones who ask uncomfortable questions.
They point out edge cases.
They worry about unintended consequences.
It is tempting to see them as blockers.
But very often, they’re expressing care for the organisation, not opposition to change.
Their concern is less “this won’t work” and more
“what happens if this breaks something important?”
They are looking at the change from within their existing world and have not managed to get the new paradigm clear in their heads. They have not yet arrived at a reasonable understanding of what the new world will mean for them.
When leaders dismiss this as resistance, they lose access to insight, and lack the appreciation of the depth of organisational commitment which is being shown.
The danger of the resistance label
Get Anthony Gavin’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Once people are labelled as resistant, several things happen — none of them helpful.
- Leaders stop listening.
- Conversations narrow.
- Trust erodes quietly.
- People retreat into compliance or disengagement.
Resistance becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
People who feel unheard stop trying to contribute.
Not because they do not care, but because they no longer believe it is safe or worthwhile.
At that point, the transformation does not fail loudly.
It fades.
A more useful question to ask
Instead of asking “Who is resisting?”, a more useful question is:
“What is this change asking people to let go of?”
Sometimes it is:
- expertise built over decades,
- professional judgement,
- local autonomy,
- or a sense of identity and pride.
Those losses are rarely acknowledged in project plans.
But they are deeply felt.
When leaders make space to name them, resistance often softens, not because people are persuaded, but because they feel seen.
Reframing resistance as a signal
Over time, I have come to see resistance not as a problem to eliminate, but as a signal to interpret.
It tells you:
- where trust is fragile,
- where meaning is under threat,
- where the future feels unclear.
Used well, that signal can improve the quality of the transformation.
Ignored or suppressed, it almost always reappears later, stronger, and harder to address.
What this means for leaders
If you are leading change, this reframing matters.
It means:
- slowing down conversations that feel “unproductive”,
- listening for what’s underneath the objection,
- separating fear from defiance,
- and curiosity from negativity.
It does not mean abandoning direction or avoiding difficult decisions.
It means recognising that people do not resist change — they resist loss without understanding.
A closing thought
Every transformation creates winners and losers, even if unintentionally.
What determines success is not whether resistance appears, but how leaders respond when it does.
You can label it and push past it.
Or you can treat it as a doorway into deeper understanding.
In my experience, the second path is slower at first, but far more sustainable.
In the next article, I will explore the four different ways people actually experience change, and why leaders usually only address one of them.
