Change management: why “resistance” is the wrong lens
When a transformation stalls, the explanation is usually ready-made: teams “resist”. What does research say about this convenient category?
A reaction, not a trait
Shaul Oreg (2003, Journal of Applied Psychology) built a measure of individual dispositional resistance to change. It exists, but explains only a limited share of reactions; context — trust in leadership, information received, a history of poorly run changes — weighs more.
Resistance as a resource
Jeffrey Ford, Laurie Ford and Angelo D'Amelio (2008, Academy of Management Review) propose reading resistance as a contribution: it flags real risks, project inconsistencies or legitimate losses. Treating it as an obstacle to defeat deprives the organisation of that information.
The limits of the field
Much of the literature rests on case studies and retrospective accounts, exposed to outcome bias: failures are explained after the fact by resistance. Longitudinal designs remain rare. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What follows for practice
Asking “who is resisting” leads to top-down communication campaigns. The question better supported by data is: what does this change take away, and from whom? The answers guide concrete adjustments — timing, scope, support.
A practical implication, verifiable in Geneva
Before launch, list with teams what the project removes, not only what it brings. Each named loss gets an explicit answer: compensation, delay or dropping the point. It is an exercise we run with Geneva leadership teams before any rollout. To go further: explore the Change Leadership training in Geneva in the canton of Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Change Leadership in Geneva
- change leadership
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva