A team pushes back on a proposed change, and the instinct — reasonable, given how often resistance genuinely does reflect simple discomfort with change itself — is to interpret this pushback as something to be managed through, rather than genuinely listened to. But not all resistance is simply discomfort with change; sometimes it’s pointing at a real, legitimate problem with the change itself, and learning to distinguish between these two genuinely different things is a valuable management skill.
Why It’s Genuinely Easy to Dismiss All Resistance as Simple Discomfort
Change management approaches often, reasonably, prepare leaders to expect and work through resistance as a natural part of any change process, and this preparation can create a genuine risk of interpreting all pushback through that same lens — as something to be overcome — even when some resistance is actually pointing at a real, substantive problem with the change itself that genuinely deserves attention.
Genuine Signs That Resistance May Reflect a Legitimate Concern
The pushback includes specific, concrete objections rather than general discomfort or resistance to change itself. Resistance that includes genuine, specific, and concrete objections — particular risks, specific practical problems — rather than general discomfort or a vaguer resistance to change itself often signals that something substantive is genuinely being flagged, worth real consideration.
The people raising concerns have genuine, relevant expertise or context that decision-makers might not fully have. Resistance coming from people with genuine, relevant expertise or closer, practical context that decision-makers might not fully possess deserves particular consideration, since their concerns may reflect real, practical knowledge about genuine risks or complications.
Similar concerns are being raised independently by multiple people, rather than reflecting one isolated perspective. A genuine pattern where similar, substantive concerns are raised independently by multiple people, rather than reflecting a single isolated perspective, often suggests the concern reflects something real rather than one person’s particular discomfort with change.
The concerns remain consistent and specific even after genuine efforts to address more general resistance to the change itself. Concerns that remain consistent and specific even after genuine efforts to address more general resistance or discomfort — through communication, reassurance — often indicate that something substantive is being flagged, distinct from simple discomfort with change.
How to Listen Well for Legitimate Concerns Within Resistance
Create genuine space for specific, substantive objections to be raised, distinct from general venting about the change. Genuine, deliberate space — structured opportunities, direct questions — for specific and substantive objections to be raised, distinct from general venting about the change itself, helps surface legitimate concerns that might otherwise be lost within broader resistance.
Ask genuinely curious, specific questions about the actual basis for resistance, rather than assuming you already understand it. Genuinely curious and specific questions about the actual, concrete basis for someone’s resistance — what specifically concerns them, what risk they’re seeing — rather than assuming you already understand the resistance as simple discomfort, helps surface real information.
Take genuine time to evaluate specific objections on their actual merits, rather than treating all resistance identically. Genuine, deliberate time taken to evaluate specific, substantive objections on their actual merits — rather than treating all resistance identically as something to simply work through — respects that some pushback may be pointing at something real.
Distinguish honestly between concerns that would change the substance of a decision and concerns that reflect discomfort with the process or pace of change. Honest distinction between concerns that would genuinely change the actual substance or design of a decision if addressed, and concerns that reflect discomfort with the process or pace of change itself, helps calibrate an appropriate response to each.
Why Dismissing All Resistance as Simple Discomfort Can Be Genuinely Costly
It’s worth being direct that dismissing all resistance as simple discomfort with change can be genuinely costly — real, substantive problems with a change can go unaddressed if resistance is uniformly interpreted as something to manage through rather than genuinely listen to, and this can lead to implementing a change with real, avoidable flaws that could have been identified and addressed beforehand.
Distinguishing Genuine Legitimate Concerns From Resistance Rooted Primarily in Discomfort
Consider honestly whether a concern would still apply even if the change were implemented perfectly and communicated ideally. Honest consideration of whether a specific concern would genuinely still apply even under ideal implementation and communication helps distinguish concerns pointing at genuine, substantive problems from resistance rooted primarily in discomfort with change itself.
Notice honestly whether a concern is specific and falsifiable, or general and resistant to any resolution. Honest attention to whether a concern is specific and genuinely falsifiable — addressable with concrete information or design changes — or general and resistant to any resolution regardless of what’s offered, helps distinguish legitimate concerns from discomfort that isn’t really about the specific issue raised.
Responding Well Once You’ve Identified a Legitimate Concern
Acknowledge honestly and specifically that a concern raised has genuine merit, rather than offering only general reassurance. Honest, specific acknowledgment that a particular concern has genuine merit — distinct from general reassurance about the change overall — respects the person’s genuine contribution and signals that their input was actually heard.
Take genuine, visible action to address a legitimate concern where this is possible, or explain honestly why it can’t be addressed. Genuine, visible action to address a legitimate concern where this is actually possible — adjusting the change’s design, adding a safeguard — or honest explanation of why it can’t be addressed if that’s genuinely the case, demonstrates that the concern was taken seriously rather than simply acknowledged rhetorically.
A Practical Scenario
A manager introducing a new process encounters resistance from her team, and initially considers this simply expected discomfort with change to be worked through via communication and reassurance. Recognising honestly that some of the pushback includes specific, concrete objections from team members with genuine, relevant expertise, she creates deliberate space for these specific objections to be raised distinctly from more general resistance.
She asks genuinely curious questions about the actual basis for the most persistent concerns, discovering that a particular objection reflects a genuine, practical risk that hadn’t been fully considered in the original design. She acknowledges this specific concern honestly, taking genuine, visible action to adjust the process to address it, while continuing to work through more general discomfort with the change through communication and support. The eventual implementation is genuinely stronger — a direct result of distinguishing between resistance reflecting simple discomfort with change and resistance pointing at a real, substantive problem worth addressing, rather than treating all pushback identically as something to manage through.
Common Mistakes
Treating all resistance to change as simple discomfort to be managed through, without evaluating specific objections on their merits. This can allow real, substantive problems with a change to go unaddressed, since resistance pointing at genuine issues is dismissed alongside resistance reflecting simple discomfort.
Failing to create specific space for substantive objections, distinct from general venting about a change. This can cause legitimate concerns to be lost within broader resistance, missing genuine information that could have improved the change’s actual design or implementation.
Assuming you already understand the basis for someone’s resistance without asking genuinely curious, specific questions. This misses an opportunity to surface real information about whether resistance reflects genuine discomfort or a substantive, legitimate concern worth addressing.
Offering only general reassurance in response to a specific, legitimate concern, rather than acknowledging and addressing it directly. This can fail to respect the person’s genuine contribution and may leave a real, substantive problem unaddressed, even though it was actually raised and could have been resolved.
Action Steps
- Create genuine space for specific, substantive objections to be raised, distinct from general venting about the change.
- Ask genuinely curious, specific questions about the actual basis for resistance, rather than assuming you already understand it.
- Take genuine time to evaluate specific objections on their actual merits, rather than treating all resistance identically.
- Consider honestly whether a concern would still apply even under ideal implementation and communication, distinguishing substance from discomfort.
- Acknowledge honestly and specifically when a concern has genuine merit, taking visible action to address it where possible.
Key Takeaways
- Change management approaches often prepare leaders to expect resistance, but this preparation can risk interpreting all pushback identically, missing resistance that points at real, substantive problems.
- Specific concrete objections, resistance from people with genuine relevant expertise, independently raised similar concerns, and persistence after general reassurance all signal potential legitimate concerns.
- Creating space for specific objections, asking genuinely curious questions, evaluating objections on their merits, and distinguishing substance from process discomfort all help listen well for legitimate concerns.
- Dismissing all resistance as simple discomfort can be genuinely costly, allowing real problems with a change to go unaddressed and implemented with avoidable flaws.
- Distinguishing concerns that would persist under ideal implementation from discomfort with process, and responding with genuine acknowledgment and action, both matter for handling legitimate concerns well.
Conclusion
Not all resistance to change is simply discomfort with change itself, making the skill of recognising when pushback is actually pointing at a real problem genuinely valuable for anyone leading change. Creating space for specific, substantive objections, asking genuinely curious questions about the actual basis for resistance, evaluating objections on their actual merits, and responding with genuine acknowledgment and visible action when concerns are legitimate all help surface and address real problems, rather than dismissing all resistance uniformly as something to simply manage through.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is all resistance to change just discomfort that needs to be managed through?
No, not always — some resistance points at real, substantive problems with a change itself, and treating all pushback identically can cause legitimate concerns to be missed and left unaddressed.
How can I tell if resistance to a change I’m implementing reflects a legitimate concern?
Look for specific, concrete objections rather than general discomfort, resistance from people with relevant expertise, similar concerns raised independently by multiple people, and consistency even after addressing general resistance.
Should I ask more questions before assuming resistance is simply discomfort with change?
Yes, generally — genuinely curious, specific questions about the actual basis for someone’s resistance can surface real information you might otherwise miss by assuming you already understand it.
What should I do if I identify that a piece of resistance reflects a genuine, legitimate concern?
Acknowledge the specific concern honestly, and take genuine, visible action to address it where possible, or explain honestly why it can’t be addressed if that’s genuinely the case.
How can I distinguish a legitimate concern from resistance rooted in discomfort with change itself?
Consider whether the concern would still apply even under ideal implementation and communication, and whether it’s specific and falsifiable rather than general and resistant to any resolution.
Why is it costly to dismiss all resistance as simple discomfort?
Real, substantive problems with a change can go unaddressed if all resistance is uniformly interpreted as something to manage through, potentially leading to a change implemented with avoidable flaws.