People Don’t Resist Change Directly

Very few people stand up in a meeting and say, “I do not want this to change.”

Resistance to change rarely looks like that. Most people don’t resist change directly. They find reasons not to move forward.

They talk about their concerns. They talk about the risks. They bring up issues from the past. They explain why the new initiative or the new plan would not work here. And very often, they say they have seen it before.

None of this sounds like resistance. It sounds like experience. It sounds careful, even responsible. That is exactly why it is so hard to spot.

What the objections leave out

Listen closely to these conversations and you will notice something missing.

People claim they have seen it before. What they don’t do is tell you the exact problem, gap or issue in the current plan.

They don’t say specifically what should change.

Instead, they offer general commentary on why it is too difficult to move forward. The last system was a disaster. The vendor will overpromise. Staff are too busy. The timing is wrong. This organisation is different.

Some of these points may well be true. But a general concern, however true, gives you nothing to work with. You cannot fix “it won’t work here.” You cannot plan around “we tried this in 2015.” You cannot respond to a feeling that has never been turned into a specific point.

This situation helps no one. The project stalls. The people raising concerns feel unheard, because nothing they said led anywhere. The people leading the change feel blocked, because there is nothing concrete to answer. Everyone is talking, and nothing is moving.

The questions that move things forward

The way through is neither to argue with the concerns nor to dismiss them. It is to ask better questions.

What is the gap, issue or concern about the current plan?
Not plans in general. Not the last project. This plan. Where exactly does it fall short? A real concern can always be made specific. If it cannot, that tells you something too.

What is the risk in taking the next logical step?
Not the whole program. Just the next step. Most fears are about the full distance. When the question shrinks to the next step, the risk usually shrinks with it. Often the answer is that the next step carries very little risk at all.

Can we agree that we will revisit decisions and refine the plan after taking the next step?
This is the assurance people need, and it is rarely given. Many people resist because they feel that agreeing now means being locked in forever. They are not afraid of the step. They are afraid of losing the chance to change course. Telling them, and meaning it, that decisions can be revisited once we know more removes much of that fear.

These three questions do something important. They turn general resistance into specific points. Once a concern is specific, it can be addressed, planned for or accepted. Either way, it stops being a reason to stand still.

A familiar example

Consider a council preparing to replace its ageing finance system.

The business case is approved. The plan is reasonable. Then the workshops begin, and the same comments keep coming back. “We went through this ten years ago and it nearly broke the finance team.” “These systems never do what the vendor says.” “Our processes are too unique for an off-the-shelf product.” “Now is not the right time.”

Months pass. The plan is reworked twice. Nothing moves.

Now imagine the project lead takes a different approach. In the next workshop, instead of defending the plan, she asks three questions.

What specifically in this plan worries you? Which part of it looks like what went wrong last time?

What is the risk in the next step, which is simply to map our current processes and test two of them in a demonstration environment?

And if we take that step and learn something that changes our thinking, will you hold us to revisiting the plan?

The answers are revealing. One concern turns out to be about data migration. That risk is real, and it can be planned for. Another is about losing a specific report the rates team relies on, which can easily be added to the requirements. The rest, when pressed, turn out to be general unease rather than specific problems.

The next step goes ahead. Nothing was forced, and no concern was ignored. Each one was made specific enough to act on.

Learning to recognise the symptoms

To do any of this, we must first be able to identify the symptoms.

Resistance rarely announces itself. It shows up as caution, as history, as experience, as “just being realistic.” The symptoms are familiar once you know what to look for: concerns that never become specific, references to the past instead of the plan in front of us, and a steady stream of reasons not to act with no suggestion of what to do instead.

Once the symptoms are recognised, there are three things worth doing.

Challenge assumptions and preconceived ideas. “We have seen it before” assumes that this time will be the same as last time. It may be. But that should be tested, not accepted. What is actually different now? What was learned? What would need to be true for this to go better?

Provide moral reasons to move forward. People do not move just because a plan is sensible. They move when they understand why it matters. Who is affected if nothing changes? The ratepayer waiting longer for a service. The staff member doing the same manual workaround every week. The organisation carrying risk it does not need to carry. Standing still is also a decision, and it has consequences for real people. Making that visible gives people a reason to move that is bigger than the project itself.

Assure them that the process will be refined as more is known, and show a transparent process. Assurance on its own is just words. People need to see it. Share what is being decided, when, and on what basis. Show where the review points are. When a decision is revisited and changed, say so openly. A transparent process builds the trust that makes each next step easier than the last.

The question that remains

Most resistance is not a refusal. It is uncertainty that has not yet been put into words.

Our job is neither to overpower it nor to wait for it to pass. It is to help turn it into something specific enough to act on.

Here are some questions to ponder.

When people in your organisation raise concerns, do those concerns ever become specific? Or do they stay general, and quietly decide the outcome?

When you last heard “we’ve seen this before,” did anyone ask what exactly was seen, and what would make this time different?

And when you are the one hesitating, is it because of a specific problem in the plan, or is it simply easier to find a reason not to move?