Why resistance in change processes can be beneficial for your organization

Reading time: approx. 6–8 minutes

The neuroscience of change: What's really behind "difficult" team members – and how we should finally stop trying to "overcome" them

It's a ritual that repeats itself in companies: A change project is launched. The strategy is in place. Communication is underway. And yet: Somewhere between PowerPoint and reality, things start to crumble.

Teams appear hesitant, arguments are repeated, meetings go in circles. Managers speak of "resistance"—and by that they usually mean: a problem that needs to be solved.

But what if resistance isn't a bug, but a feature? What if what we reflexively dismiss as a nuisance is actually valuable information about blind spots, a lack of psychological safety, or unspoken fears?

Research in recent years shows that resistance is not an irrational act of defiance. It is a highly rational protective reaction of a system that depends on stability. And, if properly understood, it holds enormous potential for better, more sustainable change.

What happens in our brain when change is imminent

Let's start with what's happening beneath the surface. Because resistance to change doesn't begin in the mind – it begins deeper, on a neurobiological level.

When employees are confronted with unclear future scenarios – such as major restructurings, changes in leadership, or new work processes – the amygdala, a central area of our brain for processing fear and uncertainty, interprets this lack of clarity as a potential danger.

The result: Our body activates the fight-or-flight response. We become defensive. Not out of malice, but as a biological survival mechanism.

When uncertainty persists, cortisol, the body's primary stress hormone, is released. Elevated cortisol levels increase anxiety and emotional resistance, making people more reactive and defensive.

This means that instead of logically evaluating change, we instinctively reject it – as protection against perceived harm.

Brain research also shows that the amygdala and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) – two central regions of our limbic system – are active in both acute and persistent threat situations. Imaging studies in humans and primates demonstrate that both the central amygdala and the BNST respond to a wide range of aversive challenges, including uncertain or temporally distant threats.

Change processes fulfill exactly these criteria: They are often uncertain, lengthy, and perceived as potentially threatening.

Loss Aversion: Why we feel losses twice as much

Another mechanism that explains resistance comes from behavioral economics. In their groundbreaking Prospect Theory , Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky demonstrated that people perceive losses as roughly twice as intense as gains of the same size: losses weigh more heavily than gains – the pain of losing is psychologically about twice as strong as the joy of gaining.

In organizations, this means that employees often see change primarily as a loss – a loss of familiarity, security, control or competence – and not as an opportunity for improvement.

A new workflow may be objectively more efficient, but initially it feels like a loss of routine and expertise. The introduction of AI tools is perceived more as a threat to job security than as an efficiency gain.

This sensitivity to loss can lead people to reject change before it even takes effect.

This makes it so difficult to win people over to change – even when the arguments are rationally sound.

Resistance is not all the same: The psychology behind the reactions

Organizational psychology research shows that what we generally call "resistance" is in reality a complex bundle of different reactions. Research demonstrates that resistance to change is not a universal or automatic reaction. Recent research has moved away from the simple dichotomy of "resistance vs. readiness" toward a more nuanced understanding of change responses.

A groundbreaking study from 2021 examined how organizational justice – that is, the perceived fairness of decisions and processes – influences resistance.

Research shows that distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice play a crucial role in reducing resistance to change through perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and willingness to change.

In concrete terms, this means that resistance does not arise in a vacuum. It is a reaction to the HOW of change – not just the WHAT.

When people feel that decisions have been made unfairly, that processes are opaque, or that they are not being heard, resistance is inevitable.

The three main sources of resistance

Current systematic reviews identify three key levels at which resistance arises:

1. Individual factors : personality, experiences with previous changes, self-efficacy, and emotional reactions. People with high conscientiousness and openness tend to show less resistance – but only if they feel psychologically safe.

2. Organizational factors : leadership style, communication quality, perceived support, and trust in management. Selecting the wrong variables can lead to biased results—researchers must also examine personal characteristics such as personality traits, as individuals with high levels of negative affect tend to exhibit opposite reactions.

3. Contextual factors : corporate culture, previous change experiences within the organization, and whether the change is framed as an opportunity or a threat. In organizations with a history of failed change projects, a resigned attitude often manifests: "We've already tried that."

The blind spot: When "resistance" is constructive criticism

This is where it gets really interesting – and at the same time challenging for many leaders. Because recent research on " constructive deviance " shows that what looks like resistance at first glance can actually be constructive engagement.

Constructive deviance encompasses behaviors that deviate from the norms of the reference group but benefit the group – including taking responsibility, creative output, articulating concerns, whistleblowing, and prosocial rule violations.

In other words, not every critical voice is destructive. On the contrary. People who express concerns, ask uncomfortable questions, or challenge established processes often do so out of intrinsic motivation, a perceived obligation, or a sense of psychological empowerment. They want the change to succeed—and see risks that others overlook.

Instead of trying to "overcome" resistance, leaders should learn to interpret it as a valuable feedback signal. The critical question then becomes not "How do we get people to participate?", but "What are we overlooking?"

The paradox of participation

Participatory change processes are particularly interesting – and often frustrating. Many organizations rely on employee participation to generate "buy-in." But practice shows that participation is more complex than it seems.

A recent study from 2024 examined participatory practices during organizational change and found that resistance occurs at all levels and is interactional – both change managers and employees construct and negotiate the meaning of participation.

The problem: Change managers often use participation techniques to maintain control – not to enable genuine co-creation. They define what constitutes "legitimate" participation and assess concerns that don't fit this framework as "resistance that needs to be contained." This leads to a vicious cycle: Employees don't feel truly heard, withdraw, or become more vocal – which is then interpreted as evidence of "resistance."

True participation means being willing to change course. Otherwise, it's just a costly form of persuasion.

What really helps: Evidence-based approaches for human-centered change

After all this theory, the question arises: What actually works? The good news: Research provides clear indications.

1. Transparent communication as an antidote to amygdala activation

The key to overcoming the fear of the unknown is proactive and transparent communication. This sounds obvious, but it's rarely implemented consistently. Transparency doesn't mean giving a single kick-off presentation. It means:

• Continuous Communication : Regular updates, even if nothing new has happened. Silence is interpreted as a threat.

• Honesty about uncertainties : "We don't yet know what X will look like, but we will inform you as soon as we know more" is better than embellished half-truths.

• Multiple channels : People process information differently. What becomes clear to one person in a town hall meeting, another needs in writing.

  
  

2. Minimize perceived loss through reframing

If loss aversion is so powerful, we need to learn to frame change differently. Instead of saying "The old structure is being dissolved," it could be: "We are creating space for more personal responsibility and shorter decision-making processes."

Research shows that leaders should acknowledge concerns and minimize perceived losses. This doesn't mean denying losses—some are real. But it does mean:

• What remains? Explicitly name which structures, relationships, or privileges will be preserved.

• Make early wins visible : Communicate quick wins that make the abstract "profit" tangible.

• Gather individual perspectives : What is a loss for person A can be a liberation for person B. Blanket change communication ignores this diversity.

  
  

3. Justice as a foundation

The research is clear: Distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice play a crucial role in reducing resistance through perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and willingness to change.

Specifically, this means:

• Procedural justice : The decision-making process must be transparent and fair. Who was heard? What criteria were used to make the decision?

• Distributive justice : The distribution of burdens and benefits must be perceived as fair. If certain teams are disproportionately burdened, compensation or at least recognition is needed.

• Interactional justice : How are people treated in the process? Is communication respectful? Are emotions taken seriously?

  
  

4. Psychological safety as a basis for constructive dissent

If we want people to not suppress critical voices, but rather contribute them as constructive deviance, we need psychological safety. This means:

• Explicitly invite dissent : "I want to hear what worries you" – and then actually listen without becoming defensive.

• Separate criticism from the critic : A person who expresses concerns is not "difficult" – they are providing important information.

• Frame mistakes as learning opportunities : If previous change projects have failed, talk about it openly. What did we learn? What will we do differently this time?

Leaders who understand these neurological processes can create psychologically safe environments that activate the prefrontal cortex, facilitating problem-solving and reducing resistance to change.

5. Use the power of social norms

People are strongly influenced by what others do – especially those they respect. Change processes gain enormous momentum when visible "early adopters" have and share positive experiences.

This doesn't mean staging cheerleaders. It means:

• Making authentic voices visible : When a respected colleague tells how she was initially skeptical and now benefits from the change, it has a stronger impact than any management statement.

• Activate peer networks : People trust people, not PowerPoint presentations. Facilitate informal conversations where fears and hopes can be shared.

The cultural shift: From "overcoming resistance" to "understanding resistance"

What we really need is a fundamental shift in the way we think about change. Away from a mechanistic "change is implemented" model and towards a systemic "change is co-created" understanding.

Research shows that it is possible to interpret change agent initiatives and the reactions of change recipients without using the label "resistance." This is more than semantics; it's a different mindset.

When we stop categorizing people as "change advocates" and "resisters," we open up space for nuanced conversations. We can ask: What does this person need to feel secure enough to embrace something new? What do they see that we don't?

Rethinking the role of leadership

Leadership in change processes no longer means implementing a plan. It means:

• Enabling sensemaking : Helping people to give meaning to change that fits their reality.

• Creating a container for ambivalence : space for the simultaneity of hope and fear, curiosity and skepticism.

• Show vulnerability : Leaders also have uncertainties. Sharing these creates connection instead of distance.

  
  

Conclusion:

Resistance in change processes is not a sign of a lack of professionalism or a lack of "willingness to change". It is a sign that people take their work seriously, that their relationships are important to them, and that they want to take responsibility for the success of the change.

Research shows us that organizations that learn to use resistance as a valuable feedback channel instead of fighting it as a problem create more sustainable, humane and ultimately more successful change processes.

Perhaps the most important question in the end is not "How do we overcome resistance?", but "What is the resistance trying to tell us – and are we ready to listen?"

If you want to not only implement change in your organization, but truly shape it – with all stakeholders, not against them – then let's talk.

In my lectures and workshops, I combine scientific evidence with practical implementation – for change processes that work because they put people at the center.

Let's get in Touch!

💭 Reflection questions to take away:

1. When was the last time you experienced "resistance"—and what if it was actually valuable feedback you didn't hear? Think about the last person on your team who raised concerns. What exactly did they say? And what might they have left out because they didn't feel safe enough?

2. How fair do your change processes really feel – from the perspective of those who have to go through them? Were the decisions comprehensible? Were those affected heard? Or did we only simulate "participation" while the decisions had already been made?

3. Which "difficult" voices in your organization might actually be the most constructive? Who dares to speak uncomfortable truths? And how do you react to them – with openness or with the desire to silence them?

Back to the blog