There is a simple test to determine whether a change initiative within an organisation actually brings about any change: Is there any resistance? If a new mission statement, a new structure or a new management style is adopted by the organisation without any resistance, this should not be a cause for reassurance, but rather a cause for suspicion. Either what was supposed to be changed was never really firmly established in the first place – in which case there was nothing to break away from – Or, in reality, the new approach does not change anything fundamental, but merely changes the surface, whilst underneath everything remains the same. Resistance is not an occupational hazard of change, but its most reliable symptom. And that is precisely why it is worth not trying to talk him down, but rather listening more carefully to what he actually has to say.

In our one-year training programme „Leading with Integrity", which we will be offering again from spring 2027, Lysan Escher and I have spent several years developing the module on managing change processes and resistance. What has made the greatest impression on me is not so much the theory as the repetition: year after year, in ever-changing groups with ever-changing managers, the same phrases crop up as soon as a project is mentioned. „It’s always been like that." „Not with me!" „In theory, perhaps, but in practice …!" These phrases aren’t the problem that needs solving. They are proof that something has actually started to change – because where nothing is at stake, nobody needs to put up a fight.

There is no shortcut past resistance and chaos

To understand why resistance occurs so reliably, it is helpful to look at what happens emotionally during change processes. A key tool from our module is the House of Change: a picture depicting four stages that everyone involved must go through if anything is really to change. There is the satisfaction of the Comfort zone, where you feel safe and where, for the most part, everyone only appears to be happy – „Everything’s going to plan!", „Never change a winning team." There’s the Resistance, where people cling to the old ways because they are familiar, and because change usually triggers uncertainty and worry and takes up energy. Then there is the Chaos, which arises when the old is let go of before the new is ready to take its place – sleepless nights, paralysis, the quiet despair of thinking, „I can’t believe I’m suddenly supposed to do something completely different." And at some point, often via detours, the fourth room: Renewal and Integration, in which the initial imposition gives way to something like curiosity and a sense of new beginnings – „Let’s give it a go", „A new chance, a fresh start."

The crucial point is that there is no shortcut between the first and the fourth stage. Every change leads through the stage of resistance – not as a detour, but as part of the journey itself. Any manager who tries to skip this space – for example, by dismissing criticism as quickly as possible or avoiding difficult conversations – merely postpones the problem. The resistance does not disappear; it resurfaces later, usually at a point where it is more difficult to address.

Some want to arrive, others just want to set off

What this map does not show, however, is a dynamic that in practice often creates more friction than the resistance itself: the pace at which different people move through these spaces. Even within the same organisation, the same team, and often even the same management group, the pace varies radically. Some have long since made up their minds internally; in their minds they are already in the fourth room and cannot understand why others are still debating the pros and cons. Others, however, need precisely this discussion, because they first have to acknowledge and understand the old way of doing things before they can let it go – to them, the pace set by the impatient feels like an imposition, like a „friendly wrecking ball" that simply ploughs straight through.

This difference in pace can give rise to a conflict that often has little to do with the actual substance of the change: some want solutions, others want the process. Those who want solutions perceive every further round of discussions as a delay, perhaps even as an expression of self-pity, a lack of courage or deliberate resistance. Those who want the process to take its course perceive the pressure for quick decisions as being sidelined, as a disregard for what really needs to be negotiated at that moment, or as a disparagement of what has been achieved so far. And the tricky thing is this: even managers who are aware of this divergence in pace and consciously factor it in still find themselves caught up in conflicts – because simply factoring it in is not, in itself, an answer to the question of whose pace is currently setting the tempo. What is needed is an explicit understanding that both needs are legitimate, and a conscious decision on how much leeway to allow for the slower pace without alienating those who are moving faster.

Not all forms of resistance mean the same thing

If one bears these different paces in mind, one comes across another distinction regarding resistance: 

• There’s the open objection – Counter-arguments, arguments, a blunt „I didn’t feel like it yet." 
• There is the Incitement, which operates in a more subtle way: office gossip, alliances, backbiting, and questioning people’s competence behind their backs. 
• There are the Excuses – „I didn’t know that", „It’s not a priority anyway" – empty assent that, when in doubt, never commits one to anything. 
• And finally, there is the Idleness, the quietest and often most enduring strategy: withdrawing, forgetting, biding one’s time, and, if in doubt, even calling in sick.

Recognising these forms is helpful, but it does not yet answer the truly crucial question: where does this resistance come from? We distinguish between three sources, which can lie behind the same form in very different ways:  

• Emotional resistance is driven by emotion – it is fuelled by fear, by hurt feelings, by the sense of not having been seen or asked. 
• “Political” resistance is driven by vested interests – it arises because someone actually stands to lose something as a result of the change: influence, resources, or a position they have worked hard to achieve. 
• After all, rational opposition is based on expert reasoning – it is based on a rational and well-founded assessment that the course of action taken will not work as it stands.

The phrase „We need to clarify the roles again!" can stem from any of these three sources. It may express a legitimate professional concern, because responsibilities are indeed unclear. It may be a political manoeuvre designed to delay an unwelcome decision or to secure one’s own position. And it may simply be an expression of uncertainty – an attempt to regain some footing, at least formally, in a situation that no longer feels secure. Anyone who responds to all three scenarios with the same reaction – often: even more structure, even more clarity, yet another workshop – will miss the mark in at least two out of three cases.

Accept rather than fight

No set formula can be derived from this twofold distinction – form and source – but it does give rise to an approach that proves its worth when dealing with a wide variety of situations. It begins with the Acceptance that resistance was part of, not as something one tolerates politely whilst secretly hoping it will go away, but as something that actually contains information. Anyone who responds to open dissent with a one-to-one conversation, shows genuine openness to counter-arguments and grants the dissenting person an active role in the process, takes the edge off the dispute without suppressing it. Anyone who recognises incitement rarely gets by without open confrontation, and often cannot do so without an external perspective that helps to reveal informal dynamics which would otherwise become entrenched behind the scenes. The best way to deal with evasiveness is through commitment – specific timelines, clear responsibilities – whilst passive inaction often requires an honest conversation about the person’s actual state of mind, because there is almost always more to it than mere laziness.

What links all these interventions is not so much the technique as the fundamental movement behind them: 

• to be aware of the message one is bringing to the change;
• to recognise that resistance almost always has an emotional element, even if it is based on rational or political grounds; 
• Share information rather than withholding it, because uncertainty almost always generates more resistance than bad news. 
• And, however inconvenient it may sound: making time for communication, even – and especially – when you’re pressed for time and your own impatience is screaming the loudest.

A container for the resistance

What is described here in relation to organisations can presumably also be applied, on a different scale, to processes of social change. There, too, resistance manifests itself in various forms, ranging from open protest to a quiet withdrawal from participation, and there, too, it is fuelled by a mixture of fear, vested interests and justified professional scepticism. Unlike in organisations, however, there is often a lack of the sense in society that there is a place for all of this.

Yet this place does indeed exist, at least in concept: A parliamentary democracy with elected representatives is, at its core, nothing other than such a container for precisely this kind of moderation and negotiation – a place where differing interests, differing paces and differing forms of resistance have their legitimate place and can be channelled into a regulated process. And civil society, in its many and varied forms, also creates such ‘containers’: spaces in which resistance is not silenced, but finds a voice. Perhaps this is precisely one of the great tasks of our time: to strengthen the ‘containers’ in which resistance can be heard and negotiated, rather than being ignored or even suppressed. 

This text was produced in collaboration with Lysan Escher.