How to deal with an employee who is resistant to change

Expert Opinion from Rich Watts published May 29, 2026

Most managers, at some point, will have someone in their team who seems to be actively working against a change rather than with it. They push back in meetings. They find reasons why things will not work. They carry on doing things the old way.

The instinct is to treat this as an attitude problem and something to manage, overcome or, if necessary, escalate. In most cases, that instinct leads to approaches that make things worse rather than better.

Resistance to change is almost always carrying useful information. The skill is learning to read what that information is, and responding to the need behind the behaviour rather than the behaviour itself.

This article explores how to manage resistant team members.

EXPLAINING THE CHALLENGE

What resistance to change actually looks like

Resistance rarely appears as a clear, direct refusal. More often it takes forms that can be mistaken for other things entirely.

Persistent criticism of the plan. Finding fault with the detail, the timing, the process or the rationale; often repeatedly, often publicly. This can look like obstructiveness, but it frequently signals that someone has a genuine concern that has not yet been properly heard.
Malicious compliance. Doing exactly what has been asked, but in a way that makes the outcome as poor as possible. The letter of the change is followed while the spirit of it is quietly undermined. This is one of the more damaging forms of resistance because it is easy to miss.
Easy agreement that quietly unravels. Apparently on board in the meeting, reverting to old habits by the following week. This tends to indicate that the person agreed under social pressure rather than genuine conviction, and that the underlying concern has not been addressed.
Withdrawal and silence. The person who used to contribute, challenge and engage becomes quiet and disengaged. Silence in the face of change is often misread as acceptance. It is more frequently a sign that someone has given up on being heard and is managing their discomfort by checking out.
Informal influence on others. The concerns that are not raised in the room are raised in the corridor. A resistant team member who has credibility with their peers can significantly affect the team's overall response to change without ever being formally challenging. This is the form of resistance that most often catches managers off guard.

Discover how to train your team to communicate successfully and overcome resistance to change

View the courses

UNDERSTANDING

What is really driving the resistance

David Rock's SCARF model identifies five dimensions of human social need that, when threatened, produce the kind of anxiety and defensiveness that organisations tend to label as resistance. Understanding which of these is activated for a specific person will help to change your perspective and improve your conversations.

Status. The change threatens how the person sees their own standing or importance relative to others. A restructure that changes a role, a new system that makes existing expertise less valuable, a promotion that goes to someone else; all of these carry status implications that produce a strong emotional response.
Certainty. The person cannot predict what comes next, and that uncertainty is genuinely distressing rather than simply inconvenient. People vary enormously in their need for certainty. For those who need it most, vague communication about a significant change can produce a level of anxiety that looks disproportionate from the outside. Communicating honestly about what is known and unknown is one of the most reliable ways to address a certainty threat and it sits at the heart of how managers maintain trust during uncertainty.
Autonomy. The change is being done to the person rather than with them. They have no meaningful say in what is changing or how, and that loss of control feels threatening in a way that is hard to articulate but easy to feel. Involving people in the how of a change, even when the what is decided, restores a meaningful sense of agency.
Relatedness. The change threatens the person's sense of connection and belonging. If a restructure splits a close team, or a new way of working removes the informal contact that made work feel connected, the loss of relatedness can be profound and deeply personal even when the practical implications seem minor.
Fairness. The person does not feel that the change, or the way it has been handled, is equitable. Their losses are not being acknowledged. Others seem to be benefiting while they bear the cost. Perceived unfairness activates a stronger emotional response than almost any other SCARF threat, and it tends to be highly visible to the people around the person experiencing it.

MAKING IT BETTER

How to respond to resistance in a way that actually works

The approaches that make the most consistent difference tend to share a common starting point: curiosity rather than correction. Understanding what is driving the resistance before responding to it changes both the quality and the outcome of the conversation.

Have the conversation directly and with genuine curiosity. Ask what the person's concerns actually are, and listen to the answer before responding. The question 'what would need to be true for you to feel more comfortable with this?' is a more productive starting point than 'why are you not getting on board?'
Identify which SCARF dimension is most activated. Once you understand what is driving the resistance, the response becomes considerably clearer. A status threat needs acknowledgement of the person's value and contribution. A certainty threat needs more specific and honest communication about what is known and what is not. An autonomy threat needs genuine involvement in how the change is implemented. Each one has a different and specific response.
Acknowledge what is genuinely being lost. People need to feel that the difficulty of their transition is seen and taken seriously before they can begin to move through it. Acknowledging what is ending, even when what is being gained is genuinely positive, is not indulgence. It is the fastest route to genuine acceptance rather than surface compliance.
Involve them in the solution where you genuinely can. The most vocal critics of a change can become its most invested advocates if they are brought into shaping how it is implemented. Involvement restores autonomy, builds ownership and changes the relationship between the person and the change from adversarial to collaborative. This is not always possible, but where it is, it is almost always worth it.
Focus your energy where it will have the most impact. In any significant change, roughly 20% of people will move with it readily, roughly 20% will resist regardless of what you do, and the 60% in the middle are watching to see what happens. Investing disproportionate energy in the hardest resisters, at the expense of the majority who are genuinely undecided, is rarely the most effective use of leadership attention. The 60% in the middle is where momentum is built.
Be clear about what is and is not negotiable. Genuine curiosity about concerns does not mean that everything is up for debate. Being honest about which aspects of the change are decided and which have genuine flexibility, and why, is more respectful to a resistant person than leaving them unclear about whether their pushback might actually change the outcome.

MAKING A CHANGE

How to develop your change communication skills

Learning to read resistance accurately and respond to it effectively is one of the most practically valuable skills a manager can develop during any period of organisational change. It is also, with the right support, very much a learnable one.

Further Communications delivers fully tailored in-house training for managers and leadership teams across the UK, helping them communicate through change in a way that creates genuine acceptance rather than surface compliance.

Find out more about our in-house leading through change training.

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are some of the most commonly asked questions about difficult conversations training from Further.

1Should you try to eliminate resistance to change entirely?

Not necessarily, and attempting to do so is often counterproductive. Resistance frequently surfaces concerns that are genuinely worth hearing and that, if addressed, make the change more likely to succeed. The goal is not a team that never pushes back but a team that feels safe enough to raise concerns directly and honestly, rather than expressing them sideways in ways that are harder to address. A team that can challenge openly is considerably healthier than one that complies silently and disengages quietly.

2What if the resistance is coming from a senior or influential person?

The same principles apply, with the additional complexity that the influence of a senior person on those around them is significantly greater. The conversation needs to happen earlier rather than later, with more care and more directness than might be needed with someone less influential. An unaddressed SCARF threat in a senior person tends to ripple outwards through the team much more visibly and quickly than the same threat in someone with less informal authority.

3How do you know when resistance has become genuinely unworkable?

When the person has been given genuine opportunities to raise and work through their concerns, when those concerns have been heard and addressed where possible, when the non-negotiable aspects of the change have been clearly explained, and when the behaviour is still actively undermining the change and affecting others, at that point, the conversation shifts from change management to performance management. Most resistance does not reach that point when it is handled early and well.

4Is it possible for a highly resistant person to become a genuine advocate for the change?

Yes, and more often than most managers expect. People who push back hardest tend to be the ones who care most deeply about the organisation and its people. When that energy is directed into shaping the change rather than opposing it, the results can be remarkable. The most effective change leaders actively look for ways to involve their most vocal critics, precisely because the credibility those people carry with their peers makes their eventual advocacy so powerful.