Resistance to change is a natural organisational response. Kotter and Schlesinger proposed six practical strategies that managers can use to overcome this resistance and successfully implement change.
Education and Communication
Definition:
This method involves explaining the reasons for change clearly and consistently. Education helps people understand why the change is necessary, while communication ensures that information is shared transparently across the organisation. The goal is to correct any misunderstandings, reduce uncertainty, and build support for change.
Strengths:
Builds understanding and trust: When employees understand the need for change and how it benefits them and the business, they are less likely to resist.
Reduces misinformation and rumours: Open communication prevents the spread of incorrect assumptions, which often fuel resistance.
Encourages early buy-in: Those who feel informed are more likely to support the change from the outset.
Limitations:
Time-consuming: Creating detailed communication materials, holding briefings, and answering questions take considerable time, especially in larger organisations.
Requires skilled communicators: Managers need to explain complex changes in a way that all employees can understand.
May not address emotional resistance: Even with full understanding, some employees may still resist due to fear, habit, or personal insecurity.
Best Used When:
The change is strategically logical, and opposition stems from a lack of knowledge.
The organisation has the resources and time to engage in detailed explanation and discussion.
Example in Practice:
A software company rolling out a new customer relationship management system holds a series of staff meetings and publishes FAQs to explain the benefits, easing fears about increased workloads.
Participation and Involvement
Definition:
This strategy involves engaging employees in the change process by inviting them to share input, contribute to decisions, or help plan and implement the change. By including staff in these early stages, managers can build ownership and reduce resistance.
Strengths:
Builds commitment and ownership: Employees are more likely to support change they’ve helped shape.
Uncovers practical insights: Frontline staff often spot challenges and opportunities that senior managers might miss.
Reduces suspicion: Involvement helps staff feel valued and trusted, reducing the likelihood of resistance rooted in fear of exclusion.
Limitations:
Slows down decision-making: Seeking widespread input can delay progress, especially if consensus is hard to achieve.
May expose conflict: Open discussions can highlight disagreements and power struggles.
Quality of input may vary: Not all employees have the skills or knowledge to contribute meaningfully.
Best Used When:
The change has direct impacts on staff, and their expertise or cooperation is vital for success.
There is enough time to incorporate wider input.
Example in Practice:
In a manufacturing firm introducing lean production techniques, shop-floor workers are involved in mapping out new processes, leading to higher acceptance of changes in workflow.
Facilitation and Support
Definition:
This method focuses on helping employees cope with change by offering resources such as training, counselling, mentoring, or flexible work arrangements. The aim is to address emotional, technical, and logistical barriers to change.
Strengths:
Eases emotional strain: Support services help employees manage stress, anxiety, or uncertainty.
Improves competence: Training and development reduce fear of new technology or roles.
Shows managerial empathy: Employees are more willing to cooperate when they feel cared for.
Limitations:
Can be expensive: Offering training, hiring consultants, or funding employee assistance programmes requires significant investment.
Not always enough: In some cases, even extensive support may not be enough to overcome deep-rooted resistance.
Difficult to scale quickly: Providing tailored support to large numbers of staff may overwhelm HR resources.
Best Used When:
Change involves new skills, roles, or technology.
Employees are likely to feel insecure or overwhelmed.
Example in Practice:
A retailer introducing digital point-of-sale systems offers a series of training sessions and one-to-one coaching to help older staff adapt, reducing resistance and boosting morale.
Negotiation and Agreement
Definition:
This strategy involves reaching a compromise with those resisting change. Managers may offer incentives—such as promotions, bonuses, or redeployment options—in return for support. It can also involve making changes to the plan itself to meet the concerns of affected individuals or groups.
Strengths:
Secures quick buy-in: Well-placed incentives can encourage individuals or groups to stop resisting.
Avoids conflict: Agreement helps to manage potential disputes before they escalate.
Targets key resisters: Particularly effective with individuals who have formal or informal power.
Limitations:
Creates expectations of rewards: Employees may expect incentives during every future change.
Seen as transactional: Support may be superficial if driven only by incentives.
Potential resentment: Others may see the negotiated agreement as unfair, especially if rewards are not evenly distributed.
Best Used When:
Individuals or groups have significant power to delay or block change.
Their support is critical to implementation.
Example in Practice:
During a company merger, senior executives are offered retention bonuses in exchange for helping to integrate teams and reassure staff, preventing high-level resignations.
Manipulation and Co-option
Definition:
This involves influencing employees by providing selective information or assigning roles that give the appearance of involvement without true influence. Co-option might include placing a well-known critic of the change on a steering committee, mainly to win their support.
Strengths:
Quick and inexpensive: Unlike other strategies, manipulation does not require deep investment of time or money.
Reduces visible resistance: By appearing to involve resisters, this method can reduce vocal opposition.
Useful under pressure: Can be effective when there’s limited time to manage broad consultation.
Limitations:
Ethical concerns: Employees may feel misled or used if they discover the manipulation.
Damages trust: If exposed, trust in management can be severely undermined.
Short-lived support: Compliance may fade when the reality of exclusion becomes clear.
Best Used When:
The person being co-opted has influence over others.
Full involvement isn’t practical or possible.
Example in Practice:
An IT director opposed to outsourcing is placed on the project advisory board to appear involved but is given little actual authority, easing the initial resistance of the team.
Explicit and Implicit Coercion
Definition:
This strategy uses authority to force compliance. Explicit coercion includes direct threats such as layoffs or demotion. Implicit coercion involves more subtle pressure, such as strong hints about negative consequences or removing perks.
Strengths:
Immediate results: Employees typically comply quickly to avoid negative outcomes.
Demonstrates authority: Senior managers can assert control during crises.
Useful in emergencies: Can be the only viable option when time is short or resistance is intense.
Limitations:
Damages morale and trust: Staff may comply out of fear, not respect.
Encourages passive resitance: Employees may obey outwardly while sabotaging or avoiding implementation.
Long-term costs: Coercion can lead to high staff turnover, low engagement, and reputational damage.
Best Used When:
The business faces serious threats (e.g. insolvency or crisis).
There is no time for consultation or compromise.
Example in Practice:
A struggling airline issues an ultimatum requiring all staff to accept new terms or face redundancy, citing urgent cost-cutting needs. The change is implemented but damages employee relations.
Evaluating the Right Strategy
Choosing the correct strategy—or combination of strategies—depends on several factors:
1. Source of Resistance
If resistance comes from ignorance, use education and communication.
If rooted in emotion, use support and facilitation.
If tied to vested interests, consider negotiation or co-option.
2. Power and Influence
Use negotiation when individuals or groups hold power (e.g. union leaders).
Use co-option or manipulation when influence is informal or cultural.
Use coercion when the need is urgent, and power must be exercised swiftly.
3. Timescale
Use communication and participation for planned changes.
Use coercion or manipulation when change must be rapid and non-negotiable.
4. Organisational Culture
In open cultures, coercion or manipulation may lead to backlash.
Participative strategies are better suited to collaborative or flat structures.
5. Size and Complexity
Large businesses may struggle to fully involve all staff.
Smaller teams may respond better to direct involvement.
6. Resource Availability
Limited resources may prevent extensive facilitation or support.
High-stakes situations may require investment in training and negotiation.
Combining Strategies Effectively
Most successful change efforts use a blended approach. For instance:
Begin with communication to set expectations.
Follow with participation to develop detailed plans.
Offer support for transition.
Use negotiation for key influencers.
Avoid coercion unless absolutely necessary.
Managers should also remain flexible, reviewing their strategy as feedback and resistance patterns emerge. A rigid plan may fail if employee reactions are stronger or different than anticipated.
Key Takeaway for Businesses
Kotter and Schlesinger’s model provides a flexible set of tools. The challenge for leaders is not only to select the right method but also to apply it skilfully, with sensitivity to both human and organisational needs. When done well, these strategies can turn resistance into resilience—and make the difference between failed change and lasting improvement.
FAQ
Even when a business provides clear communication and explains the benefits of change, resistance can persist due to emotional or psychological reasons. Employees may fear the unknown, worry about their job security, or doubt their ability to adapt. Trust issues with management can also reduce the effectiveness of communication. Some individuals may feel that previous changes were poorly managed and assume the same will happen again. Therefore, communication must be consistent, empathetic, and backed by visible leadership commitment.
Managers should assess several factors including the root causes of resistance, the organisational culture, the level of urgency, and the influence of key stakeholders. If resistance is based on fear or confusion, support and education are more appropriate. If time is limited, coercion or manipulation may be necessary but should be used carefully. Involving employees early can help diagnose the nature of resistance, allowing a tailored strategy that addresses both emotional and rational concerns.
Yes, combining strategies is often the most effective approach. For example, a business might begin with education to explain the change, involve employees through participation to build commitment, and then offer support to ease the transition. Where influential individuals remain opposed, negotiation might be used alongside the wider strategy. Combining methods ensures that both emotional and practical concerns are addressed. However, it’s important to maintain consistency and avoid sending mixed signals that could confuse or alienate staff.
Leadership style significantly affects how resistance strategies are received. Transformational leaders, who focus on vision and motivation, are more successful with participative and communicative approaches. Autocratic leaders may rely more on coercion or manipulation, which can cause resentment. The success of any strategy depends on how well leaders engage with employees, show empathy, and model the change themselves. Employees are more likely to follow if they respect the leadership and see them actively supporting the transition.
Manipulation and co-option might secure short-term compliance, but they can backfire if employees realise they were misled or had little real influence. This can create long-term distrust, damaging relationships and morale. Employees may become cynical, disengaged, or resistant to future changes. These methods also risk excluding valuable insights from employees who were only superficially involved. For sustainable change, manipulation should be used cautiously and ideally as a last resort, not a substitute for genuine engagement and transparency.
Practice Questions
Explain how a business could use ‘education and communication’ and ‘participation and involvement’ to reduce employee resistance to change. (10 marks)
A business can use education and communication by informing employees about the reasons for the change, its benefits, and how it will be implemented. This helps build trust and reduce fear or misunderstanding. Participation and involvement allows employees to contribute to the planning and execution of the change, giving them a sense of ownership. When employees feel heard and valued, they are more likely to support the change. Both strategies help foster cooperation, reduce uncertainty, and ensure smoother implementation by actively addressing the causes of resistance in a constructive, inclusive manner.
Analyse the limitations of using coercion to overcome resistance to change within a large organisation. (10 marks)
Coercion may lead to rapid compliance, but it can damage trust, lower morale, and increase staff turnover. In a large organisation, fear-based tactics such as job threats may prompt resistance in the form of disengagement or even sabotage. Long-term productivity and employee commitment may suffer, especially where communication channels are already weak. Coercion fails to address the root causes of resistance and may create a toxic culture. Furthermore, it undermines future change initiatives by building a reputation for poor leadership. Therefore, while coercion might seem efficient, its negative impact can outweigh short-term gains.
