Why People Resist Change: The Psychology Behind Organisational Inertia

Change is an inevitable part of organisational life. Whether it is the introduction of new technologies, restructuring, or cultural transformation, leaders frequently find themselves implementing change initiatives that meet with hesitation, pushback, or outright resistance. Yet resistance is not necessarily a sign of defiance or incompetence, it is a fundamentally human response. Understanding the psychology behind this resistance is the first step toward managing it effectively and building organisations capable of continuous adaptation.

The Human Side of Resistance

At its core, resistance to change stems from a perceived threat to stability and control. Lewin’s (1951) classic Force Field Theory describes change as a tension between driving forces (those pushing for change) and restraining forces (those resisting it). Individuals naturally strive to maintain equilibrium; when change disrupts this balance, they seek to restore it by resisting.

This resistance is often rooted in psychological safety. As Schein (2010) explains, people experience learning anxiety when change challenges their competence or identity. The fear of appearing inadequate, losing influence, or being unable to adapt can trigger defensive behaviours. In other words, employees may not be resisting the change itself but rather the perceived personal losses associated with it.

Organisational Triggers of Resistance

While resistance originates at the individual level, organisations often exacerbate it through poor change management practices. Lack of communication, unclear rationale, and top-down decision-making create ambiguity and distrust. Research by Oreg, Vakola, and Armenakis (2011) emphasises that perceived fairness in change processes strongly influences employee acceptance. When people feel excluded or blindsided, resistance becomes a rational form of self-protection.

Moreover, organisational history matters. If previous change initiatives failed or left employees feeling manipulated, a collective memory of mistrust can persist, amplifying future resistance. Leaders must therefore view resistance not as an obstacle but as feedback about how employees are experiencing the process.

Turning Resistance into Engagement

Reframing resistance as data rather than defiance can transform how leaders respond. Several evidence-based strategies can help:

1. Involve employees early. Participation reduces uncertainty and fosters ownership (Lines, 2004).

2. Communicate meaning, not just mechanics. People are more likely to support change when they understand the “why” behind it.

3. Acknowledge emotional responses. Empathy and open dialogue build trust and reduce defensive behaviour.

4. Provide stability amid uncertainty. Offering clear timelines, training, and psychological support helps maintain confidence.

By adopting these approaches, leaders shift from managing resistance to facilitating adaptation, a hallmark of resilient organisations.

Conclusion

Resistance to change is not a flaw to be eradicated but a predictable, psychologically grounded response to uncertainty. It reflects the human need for control, security, and belonging. Understanding these drivers allows organisations to design change initiatives that respect employees’ experiences and leverage their insights.

The next article in this series will explore how leaders can build commitment rather than compliance, transforming reluctant followers into active participants in organisational transformation.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. Macmillan.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. Harper & Row.

Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organisational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organisational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461–524.

Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.