As I have pointed out elsewhere, blaming resistance may be more about managers saving face and avoiding responsibility for the negative impact of their leadership than an accurate report on the responses of those actually implementing the change.  When it comes to change, leaders are generally told that the key to success is to be found in the steps they take to implement the change (see for example, John Kotter’s Leading Change).  The implication is that no matter what relationship leaders have with followers prior to the change, if they follow the right implementation process, they are likely to succeed.  But this implication may be more wishful thinking than practical advice.

A study reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology indicates that the overall relationship leaders have with their followers is more important in determining whether followers buy in to a change than are specific steps they take in implementing the change.  Where that relationship is based in trust and credibility, followers are more likely to buy in to a particular change.  In other words, if the leader is a jerk, then even if they follow the right implementation steps, the change is unlikely to succeed.

One implication of this study is that what leaders call resistance to change may be more a reflection of their relationship to those they lead than an attribute or characteristic of those same people.

Most organization changes fail to deliver their intended results.  When asked why, managers and executives overwhelming blame resistance for the failures.  In one study, 62% of the managers asked replied that resistance was the reason for the failure of change.

There is no question that people can and do resist changes, particularly when they see the change as a threat.  But what is missing in the accounts of managers who blame resistance is (1) any acknowledgment that they had anything to do with the resistance, and (2) the failure to recognize that resistance is a form of feedback that can be used to improve the likelihood of success.

Like most people, managers react to what they perceive as resistance (any failure to go along with what is wanted?) by fighting it.  They see resistance as dysfunctional, a threat to the viability of the change and their leadership, so they try to counter or overcome it.  It rarely, if ever, occurs to them that resistance is a form of feedback and a resources that can be beneficial, even invaluable to the success of a change.

Here are three ways (there are others) in which resistance can be useful for change:

1.         Keeps people talking about the change.  One of the greatest risks to a change, particularly in its early stages, is that it will go out of existence and people will forget about it. People who resist a change have to talk about it to do so, thereby, helping to keep the change in front of people.

2.         Resistance can reveal where communication is missing.  One of the reasons people appear to resist change is because it was never really been explained to them completely.  We all make the mistake of assuming that if we explain something to someone, that’s it, they got it (or should have) and we can go on.  When people don’t understand something, they are naturally hesitant to move forward.

3.         Resistance can reveal weaknesses in the change or its implementation.  The fact is, most people go along with change.  It’s the few that don’t that seem to be the problem.  One reason people raise issues about a change is not because they are against it, but because they are for it and have concerns about its likely success.  When such people are dismissed as “resistors”, the insights they have are lost and the likelihood of success diminished.

In order for managers to be able to use resistance, they have to be willing to consider that not all resistance is dysfunctional for change and that people who managers believe are resisting may be trying to tell them something of value.  Rather than resisting, managers could listen and use what they learn.