People resist organizational change because change can threaten pay, status, habits, and confidence, not because they enjoy being difficult. Kotter and Schlesinger’s framework says the resistance usually comes from one of a few places: self-interest, bad trust, different views of the facts, low tolerance for change, or a real sense of loss. That matters because the wrong response can make a small problem worse. If a team member doubts the data, a threat will not fix that. If a department fears losing control, a memo will not calm things down. Leaders who are leading organizational change need to diagnose the source first, then pick the response that fits the reason. Students often miss that point in class and in real projects. They treat resistance like one blob, then reach for the same tool every time: more emails, more meetings, more pressure. Kotter and Schlesinger push the opposite habit. Read the signal. Ask what people think they will lose. Check whether they trust the plan. Look for 1 clear reason before you choose 1 clear response. A change effort can fail even when the idea itself is good. That is the annoying part. The idea may be smart, but the rollout may hit fear, confusion, or pride on day 1.
Why Do People Resist Organizational Change?
Resistance is a normal reaction to change, not a sign that people are lazy or stubborn. Kotter and Schlesinger’s 1979 framework says people push back when a change hits their interests, values, or confidence, and leaders need to spot which one is driving the reaction.
That sounds simple, but the real world gets messy fast. A clerk who loses a 4-step approval shortcut may resist for self-interest. A nurse who thinks a new scheduling app will hurt patient care may resist because of values. A manager who has never used a new system may resist because confidence drops the moment the rollout date gets close. Those are different problems, and a single speech will not solve all 3.
The catch: Leaders often call every complaint “resistance,” but Kotter and Schlesinger treat it as a clue. If 20 people object for different reasons, one email blast will miss most of them. A careful diagnosis beats a loud announcement.
The cleanest way to read resistance is to ask one blunt question: what does this person think they will lose if the change goes through? That loss can be money, status, control, time, or a familiar routine that has worked for 8 years. In my view, this framework still works because it respects human fear without excusing bad behavior. It says, “find the reason,” not “blame the person.”
A change leader who skips diagnosis usually reaches for coercion too early. That move can get fast compliance, but it often leaves resentment behind and poisons the next change. A slower read at the start usually saves 2 or 3 rounds of cleanup later.
The best student answer in class names the risk, names the source, and names the response in that order.
Which Reasons Explain Pushback Most Often?
Most resistance fits a small set of causes, and Kotter and Schlesinger’s framework gives you a fast way to sort them. In a class discussion or a real project, 5 causes usually show up before anything else: self-interest, mistrust, different views, low tolerance, and loss.
- Parochial self-interest: People think the change will hurt their pay, shift, status, or workload. A supervisor who loses approval power may fight the plan even if the company calls it “streamlining.”
- Misunderstanding or lack of trust: People do not believe the message or do not understand it. If leaders skipped 2 town halls and then dropped a surprise rollout, distrust makes perfect sense.
- Different assessments: People think the current way works better than the proposed one. A finance team may read the same 12-page proposal and still see more risk than reward.
- Low tolerance for change: Some people can handle a 2-week update; others buckle under a 6-month redesign. That difference matters more than personality labels.
- Fear of loss: People may lose friendships, identity, routines, or control. A long-time employee often resists because the new process makes them feel replaceable.
- Past bad experience: A failed merger in 2019 or a botched software rollout can make people assume the next plan will also flop. That memory sticks.
Reality check: A leader who hears “we need more training” should ask whether the real issue is skill, trust, or loss. Those sound close, but they call for different fixes.
The sharp move here is diagnosis, not guessing. If the pushback sounds like “I do not trust this,” you do not solve it with a punishment memo. If it sounds like “this cuts my team’s power,” you do not solve it with a cheerful FAQ. The framework works because it forces you to match the reason to the response.
How Do Kotter And Schlesinger Responses Compare?
Kotter and Schlesinger do not give one magic fix. They give a menu, and the trick is choosing the response that fits the reason for resistance. That matters in a change project because the cost of a bad match can be high: wasted 3-hour meetings, resentful staff, or a rollout that stalls for 6 months.
| Resistance reason | Best response | Best fit / tradeoff |
|---|---|---|
| Low understanding | Education and communication | Good for facts; slow if trust is already low |
| Need to shape the plan | Participation and involvement | Builds buy-in; takes more time |
| Skill or confidence gap | Facilitation and support | Useful for training; costs money and time |
| Real personal loss | Negotiation and agreement | Works with unions or role changes; can get expensive |
| Strong opposition from a small group | Manipulation and co-optation | Fast, but people hate hidden moves |
| Deadline or crisis | Explicit or implicit coercion | Fastest option; highest resentment risk |
Bottom line: Education works when the issue is ignorance. Participation works when people need voice. Coercion works when a 30-day deadline leaves no room, but it should stay rare because it can wreck trust for the next 2 years.
I like this framework because it refuses lazy leadership. A manager who uses one tool for every problem is usually the manager who creates the biggest mess.
Learn Leading Organizational Change Online for College Credit
This is one topic inside the full Leading Organizational Change course on UPI Study — a self-paced, online class that earns real college credit. Credits are ACE and NCCRS evaluated and transfer to partner colleges across the US and Canada. Courses start at $250 with no deadlines and lifetime access.
See Leading Change Course →How Should Leaders Diagnose Resistance Correctly?
Good diagnosis starts with a simple habit: separate the complaint from the cause. A team may say “we hate the change,” but the real issue may be a missing training plan, a pay cut, or a fear that the new workflow will erase 10 years of know-how.
- First, name the type of resistance you see. Is the pushback loud, quiet, delayed, or political? A 2-minute pattern check often tells you more than a 20-minute rant.
- Next, test the source: information, emotion, interest, or confidence. If people lack facts, use education; if they feel exposed, use support; if they stand to lose, use negotiation.
- Then match the response to the diagnosis. A 4-week training series fits a skill gap, but a 1-on-1 conversation fits a trust problem much better.
- After that, ask whether the resistance comes from one person or the system. One upset supervisor needs a different fix than a broken approval chain that slows every request by 5 days.
- Finally, hold coercion back unless the timeline leaves no room. A forced move can work under a board deadline or a legal order, but early pressure usually turns mild doubt into open sabotage.
What this means: Students who can sort resistance this way do better on exams and in projects. They stop calling every complaint “attitude” and start seeing patterns that leadership can actually address.
The mistake I see most often is this: a leader hears fear, then answers with authority. That move can silence the room for a week and damage the project for a semester.
Why Did One University Change Succeed?
At the University of Central Florida, a 5,000-student system change would have blown up if leaders had treated every complaint the same way. A learning-management rollout usually hits 3 groups at once: students who want access, faculty who want control, and staff who want fewer support tickets.
The smart move is to sort the resistance. If 1 group objects because they do not understand the new steps, short demos and email guides help. If another group fears the change will add 2 hours of grading each week, leaders need support and a real workflow fix. If a third group worries that the new system will expose weak course design, leaders need honesty, not cheerleading.
Worth knowing: A university change often fails on the boring stuff: timing, training, and trust. When leaders give people a 30-day heads-up, offer live help, and show the same screenshots in every department, the pushback usually drops fast.
That is why this framework matters in a Leading Organizational Change course. Students can trace how one campus used 2 or 3 responses at once instead of one blunt policy. In my opinion, that mix is the real lesson. Good change leaders do not “win” resistance; they reduce it by matching the message to the group.
A 2024 project, a 2019 software switch, or a campus policy update can all follow the same pattern. The names change, but the diagnosis logic does not.
Which Response Fits A Change Initiative?
The right response depends on what the resistance means, not how loud it sounds. Use education when people lack facts, participation when they need a voice, support when they lack confidence, negotiation when they face a real loss, and coercion only when a hard 10-day or 30-day deadline leaves no room.
A student in a Leading Organizational Change course should look for clues, not slogans. If people ask the same basic question 5 times, they need information. If they keep saying “nobody asked us,” they need involvement. If they say “I cannot do this yet,” they need help, practice, or time.
Takeaway list: facts point to education; voice points to participation; skill gaps point to support; hard losses point to negotiation; crisis points to coercion. That works on an exam, and it works in a real project with 12 people or 1,200.
My take is blunt: leaders who guess waste time. Leaders who diagnose move faster and cause less damage. If you can match the response to the reason in 60 seconds, you already think better than a lot of managers.
The best next step is simple. Read the resistance, label the cause, and choose the lightest response that can still solve the problem.
Frequently Asked Questions about Organizational Change
Kotter and Schlesinger say people resist for 4 main reasons: they fear loss, they don’t trust the change, they disagree with the plan, or they feel they lack the skills. If you can name the reason, you can pick the right response instead of guessing.
The most common wrong assumption is that resistance means people are lazy or stubborn. In Kotter and Schlesinger’s framework for resistance to change, pushback often comes from real concerns like a 10% pay cut, a new schedule, or losing 1 step of control.
This applies to anyone leading organizational change, from managers in a 50-person office to students in a leading organizational change course, and it doesn't apply to cases where people have zero say and the change already happened. The model helps you read reactions before you pick an action.
If you get it wrong, you can make the pushback worse fast. A person who needs training may get angry if you use pressure, and someone who fears loss may dig in harder if you ignore the issue and send 3 more emails.
Leaders should use support and, when needed, negotiation. If people think they’ll lose status, pay, or a shift pattern, you address the real loss first and then talk about what they get in return; forcing the issue usually raises resistance.
What surprises most students is that disagreement is not the only reason people push back. People also resist because they don't trust the source, and 1 bad rollout after a merger or system switch can create months of caution.
Most students try to sell the change harder, but what works is matching the response to the reason. If the issue is skills, you use training; if it's politics, you use participation or negotiation; if it's trust, you use honest facts and a clear 30-day plan.
Start by asking one direct question: 'What part of this change feels hard?' Then sort the answer into 4 buckets from Kotter and Schlesinger’s framework—loss, misunderstanding, disagreement, or low skill—before you choose your response.
A lack of trust makes people think the change hides a catch, like a cutoff date, a new quota, or a job shift they heard about late. In that case, leaders need straight facts, not more slogans, because trust grows from repeated proof.
Disagreement means people think the change itself is wrong or poorly timed; fear of loss means they may like the idea but hate what it costs them. You handle disagreement with discussion and data, and you handle loss with support or negotiation.
Training reduces resistance when people push back because they feel unready, especially during software rollouts, new forms, or a 2-week process change. Short practice sessions, job aids, and one-on-one help work better than a long speech.
Yes, and it helps a lot when you study online for an online course that offers college credit or ace nccrs credit, because resistance often comes from fear, doubt, or confusion about transfer. If a student says, 'Will this give me transferable credit?', that signals a trust or information problem, not a skill problem.
You read the complaint, match it to the cause, and choose the response with the least force needed. In a change case, that means you don't push training on a trust problem, and you don't use pressure when 2 meetings and clear facts would fix it.
Final Thoughts on Organizational Change
Resistance to change looks messy, but the pattern underneath it stays pretty stable. People push back when they think they will lose something, when they do not trust the message, when they see the facts differently, when the change feels too hard, or when the shift hits identity and routine. Kotter and Schlesinger’s big move was not fancy. They told leaders to diagnose before they act. That idea still holds up because it saves time and bad blood. A leader who hears fear and answers with pressure usually gets short-term compliance and long-term damage. A leader who hears fear, loss, or confusion and matches the response has a much better shot at real buy-in. That is why the framework shows up in leading organizational change classes, management exams, and live projects. Keep the test simple. Ask: What do people think they are losing? What do they not understand? What do they not trust? What can they not yet do? Those four questions will sort most cases fast. If you can answer those questions before you choose a tactic, you are already ahead of the average change manager. Start there, and build the response from the cause.
How UPI Study credits actually work
Ready to Earn College Credit?
ACE & NCCRS approved · Self-paced · Transfer to colleges · $250/course or $99/month