Resistance to change is a natural human response and a common obstacle in business strategy. Kotter and Schlesinger identified four primary reasons why individuals and groups resist organisational change.
1. Self-Interest
Self-interest is one of the most fundamental causes of resistance to change. This barrier arises when people believe that change will have a negative impact on them personally, often leading them to act in ways that protect their own positions, privileges, or resources.
Explanation
Individuals assess change based on what it means for them personally. If they perceive the change as harmful to their status, authority, income, work responsibilities, or job security, they are more likely to resist.
This resistance is often rational from the individual’s perspective. While the change may benefit the organisation as a whole, the individual may feel it will disadvantage them in some way.
People may worry that their roles will become redundant, or they may feel excluded from the future vision of the organisation.
Change can also threaten existing power structures, creating winners and losers within the organisation.
Examples
A middle manager might resist a restructuring plan that reduces the number of layers in the hierarchy because they fear losing their leadership role or being made redundant.
Employees may resist the adoption of automation software if they believe it will replace their jobs, even if it improves productivity.
A long-standing department head might oppose a merger if they fear they will lose influence or have to report to a new leader.
Organisational Implications
Resistance driven by self-interest can result in sabotage, delays, or a lack of cooperation.
It may lead to a toxic work environment where employees form informal groups or alliances to block or slow down change efforts.
If not managed properly, self-interest can become a major threat to strategic initiatives and long-term organisational goals.
2. Misunderstanding and Lack of Trust
The second major barrier identified by Kotter and Schlesinger is misunderstanding and lack of trust. Change is often resisted not because people oppose the change itself, but because they don’t fully understand it or do not trust the motives of those implementing it.
Explanation
People may have incomplete or incorrect information about the nature of the change, leading them to draw inaccurate conclusions.
If employees do not understand why the change is necessary, they are less likely to support it.
A history of broken promises, poor communication, or previous failed changes can cause deep mistrust of leadership.
Employees may suspect that the change is being introduced for hidden reasons, such as downsizing or favouritism, especially if management is not transparent.
Examples
An IT department might resist the move to cloud-based systems if they don’t understand the benefits or worry it’s just a way for management to cut costs by reducing in-house staff.
During a company-wide cost-saving initiative, employees may fear that new policies are actually disguising a plan to eliminate jobs, especially if senior leaders do not clearly communicate the rationale.
A new CEO may announce a transformation programme, but if the workforce has experienced previous failures under new leadership, they may not trust that this attempt will succeed.
Organisational Implications
Misunderstanding can quickly escalate into rumours and misinformation spreading through informal communication channels.
A lack of trust can lead to low morale, reduced engagement, and employee turnover.
Without effective communication and genuine leadership, even well-designed changes can fail due to fear and scepticism.
3. Different Assessments of the Situation
The third barrier occurs when different individuals or groups make different assessments of the situation. They may not resist the concept of change, but they do not agree with the specific change being proposed.
Explanation
People within an organisation may interpret information differently, based on their roles, responsibilities, or experience.
They may believe the proposed change is unnecessary, or that a different approach would be more effective.
This type of resistance is often logical and evidence-based, rather than emotional.
It can be particularly common in knowledge-based organisations, where many employees are experts in their fields and used to having a voice in strategic matters.
Examples
The finance department might support centralising procurement to cut costs, while individual departments resist because they believe it will reduce flexibility and slow down service delivery.
An engineering team may reject a new software tool, arguing that the existing system is more reliable and better suited to the company’s technical needs.
A sales director may oppose a new CRM platform if they believe it adds complexity without delivering additional value.
Organisational Implications
Resistance based on different assessments can slow down decision-making and create internal conflict.
However, this form of resistance can also be constructive if it leads to dialogue, better analysis, and more robust change plans.
Leaders must be prepared to listen carefully, understand alternative viewpoints, and consider modifying plans if valid concerns are raised.
4. Low Tolerance for Change
Finally, some individuals resist change simply because they have a low tolerance for uncertainty and disruption. This barrier is deeply rooted in psychology and personality.
Explanation
Change introduces new procedures, expectations, or working environments. People with low tolerance may fear they cannot adapt or will lose their sense of control.
Resistance is especially likely in employees who have recently experienced multiple changes, leading to change fatigue.
People may also feel overwhelmed by learning new systems, fear making mistakes, or lack confidence in their ability to succeed in the new environment.
For some individuals, stability, structure, and predictability are essential for their sense of security at work.
Examples
A team of experienced administrators may feel threatened by the introduction of a digital records management system, fearing they lack the technical skills to adapt.
After a recent office relocation, staff may feel emotionally drained and resist further change, even minor policy updates.
A long-serving employee may be unwilling to adopt new working practices such as hybrid or remote models, finding them disorienting and impersonal.
Organisational Implications
Individuals with low change tolerance may not voice their concerns but instead withdraw, show reduced motivation, or display passive resistance.
Teams can become demoralised if too many changes are implemented without enough time for adjustment.
Failure to support these individuals can result in lower productivity, higher absenteeism, and talent loss.
How These Barriers Manifest in Organisations
Understanding how these barriers show up in the day-to-day running of a business is critical for managing strategic change effectively.
Warning Signs and Indicators
Self-interest: Employees form cliques, question leadership decisions behind closed doors, or block initiatives they perceive as a threat to their role.
Misunderstanding and mistrust: Employees express confusion in meetings, seek clarification repeatedly, or spread misinformation due to lack of clarity.
Different assessments: Team members argue for alternative approaches or openly challenge management’s reasoning.
Low tolerance: Signs include absenteeism, high stress levels, reluctance to engage in training, or avoidance of new systems and procedures.
Real-World Business Scenarios
Case 1: Retail Merger
When two retail companies merge, front-line employees may resist new procedures. The fear of job loss (self-interest) and confusion over the new hierarchy (misunderstanding) lead to poor morale and lower sales.Case 2: Software Implementation in Healthcare
A hospital introduces a new electronic health records (EHR) system. Doctors and nurses argue it disrupts patient care (different assessments) and feel exhausted by the constant system updates (low tolerance).Case 3: Manufacturing Automation
A manufacturing company automates its packaging process. Line workers resist the change, fearing redundancy (self-interest), and rumours spread about further layoffs due to unclear communication (misunderstanding).Case 4: Corporate Rebrand
A global organisation launches a rebrand, but the marketing team disagrees with the strategy (different assessments), while veteran employees struggle to adapt to the new messaging tools (low tolerance).
Helpful Acronym for Students: SMDL
To help remember Kotter and Schlesinger’s four reasons for resistance to change, use the acronym SMDL:
S – Self-interest
M – Misunderstanding and lack of trust
D – Different assessments of the situation
L – Low tolerance for change
This acronym can be a useful exam tool when answering questions about organisational change. By understanding and identifying these four barriers, students can better evaluate the success or failure of change initiatives and suggest more appropriate strategies for implementation.
FAQ
Yes, resistance to change can sometimes benefit a business by prompting management to reflect on and improve their plans. When employees challenge change based on reasoned arguments or different assessments of the situation, it can lead to better decision-making. Constructive resistance highlights potential flaws, risks, or overlooked areas in the strategy. It encourages dialogue, promotes transparency, and ensures that decisions are well-informed. Ultimately, this can result in a more effective and widely supported change initiative.
Leadership style plays a crucial role in shaping employee attitudes towards change. Autocratic leaders who impose change without consultation often trigger resistance due to perceived lack of voice or respect. In contrast, democratic or transformational leaders who involve staff in the planning and explain the vision behind change foster trust and reduce anxiety. Employees are more likely to support change when they feel valued, informed, and guided by a leader who communicates clearly and listens to concerns.
Organisational culture significantly affects how change is received. In rigid, traditional cultures, where routines and hierarchy are deeply embedded, even minor changes may face strong opposition. Such cultures often discourage questioning authority and favour maintaining the status quo. Conversely, in adaptive and innovative cultures, employees may be more open to change, viewing it as an opportunity rather than a threat. A culture that rewards learning, flexibility, and communication makes it easier to implement change successfully.
Long-serving employees may resist change because they are more invested in established ways of working and may perceive change as a threat to their experience, routines, or influence. They often have a strong emotional attachment to “the way things have always been done,” and may fear becoming obsolete or undervalued. Additionally, they might distrust change led by newer management or feel excluded from the planning process. Their resistance is often rooted in fear of losing relevance or status.
Early signs of resistance include reduced participation in meetings, missed deadlines, increased absenteeism, low morale, or informal complaints. Passive resistance may appear as employees withdrawing from projects or ignoring new procedures. Active resistance could involve open criticism, arguing against decisions, or refusal to cooperate. Monitoring employee feedback, observing changes in team dynamics, and analysing performance trends can help leaders spot resistance early. Addressing concerns quickly through communication and support can prevent resistance from escalating.
Practice Questions
Analyse two reasons why employees at a manufacturing firm might resist the introduction of new automation technology. (10 marks)
Employees may resist automation due to self-interest, fearing job losses or reduced roles, as machines replace manual tasks they currently perform. This creates anxiety over job security and career progression. Additionally, there may be misunderstanding and lack of trust. If the firm fails to clearly communicate the benefits or purpose of automation, staff may assume it’s a cost-cutting move rather than an efficiency improvement. Past negative experiences may worsen this mistrust. Together, these factors can lead to significant resistance unless carefully managed through clear communication, support, and inclusive planning.
Explain how low tolerance for change could affect the success of a strategic decision. (10 marks)
Low tolerance for change can undermine the success of a strategic decision as employees may feel overwhelmed, anxious, or resistant to adapting. This is particularly true if they lack confidence in learning new systems or have experienced repeated changes in a short time. As a result, they may disengage from the process, avoid participating in training, or continue using old practices, reducing overall implementation effectiveness. This barrier slows down progress and may result in inconsistent execution of the new strategy. To succeed, businesses must recognise this issue and offer targeted support to increase adaptability and employee confidence.
