Why is change so complex?
Understanding the layers of resistance and strategies for effective transformation
In our evolutionary history, the instinct for self-preservation has been essential for survival. Staying within one’s familiar environment reduced risks: a known environment was generally less dangerous, while the unknown could conceal potential threats. For this reason, our brain developed a tendency to be wary of what we do not know.
This is one of the reasons why people aim to maintain stability. This reaction does not only apply to individuals, but also to company culture, which can resist change through shared values and behaviors that are difficult to modify. Familiar tools and processes provide a sense of security that facilitates collaboration and limits uncertainties. However, change is necessary to adapt, improve, grow, and often to avoid being overtaken by the competition. Despite this, every attempt at transformation almost always encounters some form of resistance.
When it comes to change in the workplace, the focus is often on introducing new tools or technologies. The idea is appealing: a new application alone can solve problems and improve team productivity. But is it really that simple? Reality shows that changing tools without a similarly deep change in other aspects of the team is often an uphill path. And if change is forced, the risk is achieving only superficial compliance, without real improvement.
Change is scary, embrace the change
I have often found myself having to face changes in the companies where I have worked, and in recent years, my approach has changed quite significantly. Although I have always considered myself a loyal fan of the Agile Manifesto, it took me a while to realize that I had embraced one of the four values only in words, not in actions:
Responding to change over following a plan
Change may happen at different levels and can be perceived as a threat, even when it has positive intentions. It can occur within the team, within a department, or throughout the entire organization. As a result, people begin to resist in very different ways, some of which are not easy to identify, even for themselves.
I can’t deny, of course, that I also actively contributed to resistance in various situations: sometimes intentionally, sometimes without even realizing it. From changes in tools and processes, to team reorganizations, to mergers and acquisitions, I have faced several phases of change, but my reaction was not always positive. Over time, I have come to recognize the attitudes that have hindered, slowed, or blocked change:
Passive Behaviors: low participation during meetings or discussions showing a passive attitude and refraining from asking questions
Procrastination and delays: the tendency to delay using new tools or processes, postpone actions necessary for change, and revert to old tools, leading to duplicated work. This occurs because people haven’t fully transitioned to the new methods, opting instead to convert work step-by-step as needed
Negative Comments or Jokes: statements like «We’ve tried this before and it didn’t work» or, even worse, like «We have always done it this way» are signals of low buy-in or a lack of clarity about the benefits
Excessive attention to details: an excessive need for details or clarification as if they were looking for reasons why the change might fail
Problems for every solution: the constant introduction of issues for each proposed solution with the intent of causing discouragement
Formation of “Resistance” Subgroups: small groups privately discussing the change is a sign that some people are forming a “resistance current” that may influence others. This is probably the most dangerous of the attitudes but not necessarily a bad thing as team members may actively propose alternative solutions.
The focal point of this list, however, is not that people are inherently bad, nor that within every company there is a strong group of supporters willing to resist change at all costs. The point is that there is often a reason behind this, and it’s not simply the innate resistance we have.
How does the change work?
In the previous paragraph, we talked about the reasons behind resistance; let’s take a look at what these reasons are. A few years ago, during the merger process between the company I was working for and another company, I had the opportunity to collaborate with Cocoon Pro. In one of the meetings related to the merger, I learned about what they call: the River Model.
The River Model illustrates that a human system is in a constant state of change, with different "layers" of the system evolving at different rates. These levels are interdependent and closely related to each other, so in order to introduce effective change, it is necessary to adopt strategies that work at all levels.
Tools and Processes: the surface is what we all see, and therefore, we tend to think it is the area where intervention is sufficient to bring about change
Competences: what individuals or groups are capable of achieving, either together or separately
Culture: it is the deep current that influences every change within a team or organization. Shared values and beliefs determine how teams perceive change and often give rise to resistance
People: their beliefs, experiences, and motivations. Although changes may be well-structured in terms of tools, roles, or culture, if individuals are not aligned or do not see value in the change, it will struggle to take root. Change can face resistance even if all other factors are in place simply because people may not be ready or may not understand how the change could improve their work experience.
Just as the water in a river flows at different speeds depending on the layer it is in, similarly, change within an organization requires different timing and strategies depending on the level. The surface layers are easier and faster to change, while the bottom layers are slower. This means that to make sure a change is effective we need to give time to deeper layers to evolve without trying to force or rush this change.
If you want to know more about the River Model and the Evolution Flow, check it out here: How organizations improve.
What strategies have proven effective for me?
To reduce resistance and encourage effective adoption, this is a list of strategies I employed in different scenarios:
Share the full picture: this is the most important one. It shouldn’t even be listed here, but rather considered the starting point. To make change truly effective and accepted by the team, it's essential not to present it merely as a novelty or a top-down decision. Every change should be accompanied by a clear and transparent explanation of the context that led to it, the benefits it brings, and how it fits into the broader goals of the organization. Sharing the "why" behind the change allows people to understand not only what is changing, but also why it is important and how it will positively impact their daily work
Create allies: identify the individuals most open to change, and engage them as "ambassadors" for the new approach. These team members can help reassure colleagues and address concerns
Include the team in the process: listen to the opinions and concerns of team members and try to incorporate their feedback during the implementation phase
Ensure training and support: it's not enough to simply introduce a new tool; provide training and resources to help the team understand its value and use it easily
Allow adaptation time: plan the change over a reasonable timeline. Give people time to experiment with the tool without pressure, and monitor progress to support those struggling.
Bonus Tip
Earlier in this article, I mentioned that I had changed my reaction to change, without going into detail. What helped me react differently was accepting the ability to work even when there is uncertainty around you, trusting the people you collaborate with at all levels. I began to set aside impulsive reactions immediately and focus more on understanding the reasons behind the change.
TL;DR
In many cases, the team ends up experiencing change as an increase in complexity rather than as a real improvement. Where possible, changes should not be imposed from the top down; instead, solutions should be co-created with the team to develop a sense of ownership and adopt strategies for as many layers as possible. A holistic approach becomes essential, one that takes into account technological, organizational, and human aspects.
Credits: Illustration 1