Three Employees. Three Different Reasons for Resistance. Would You Respond the Same Way?

Three employees are experiencing the same organizational change. All three are reluctant to adopt a new process. From a project dashboard, their behavior may look identical: adoption is lagging, and employees are continuing to work in familiar ways.

But what if each employee has a completely different reason for hesitating?

When we treat resistance as a single problem, we risk applying the same solution to people who need very different kinds of support.

Same Behavior. Different Reasons.

Consider three employees navigating the introduction of a new business process.

Employee One understands the change but lacks confidence. They recognize why the new process is necessary and want to succeed, but they're uncertain about performing unfamiliar tasks. Their hesitation isn't about disagreement. It's about capability and the fear of making mistakes.

Employee Two knows how to use the new process but doesn't trust the organization. Previous initiatives were introduced with promises that never materialized. Leadership communicated the benefits, but employees experienced additional work and limited support. This employee's skepticism is rooted in experience, not a lack of information.

Employee Three supports the change but sees an operational problem. The new process adds steps that make it harder to meet existing performance expectations. Their manager continues measuring success using the old standards. Adopting the change creates a conflict between what the organization is asking them to do and what they're being rewarded for doing.

All three employees may appear resistant. Yet their concerns point to very different barriers.

One Response Won't Address Every Barrier

If leaders respond to all three employees with another communication campaign, they may reinforce awareness without resolving any of the underlying problems.

The first employee may need practice, coaching, and reassurance. The second may need consistent leadership follow-through and visible evidence that commitments will be honored. The third may need conflicting expectations addressed and the process itself examined.

The important distinction is that the same visible behavior does not necessarily have the same underlying cause.

Understanding that difference helps leaders select responses that are more likely to support meaningful progress toward the Future State.

Diagnose Before You Respond

Effective change management requires more than identifying where adoption is struggling. It requires understanding why.

That means listening to employees, engaging managers, examining organizational conditions, and distinguishing between concerns related to capability, trust, perceived impact, and practical barriers.

Not every concern requires changing the initiative. But every concern offers an opportunity to understand how the change is being experienced and whether something important needs attention.

LaMarsh Perspective

At LaMarsh, we approach resistance as information that can strengthen change management decisions. Rather than relying on assumptions about why employees are struggling, we encourage leaders and practitioners to understand the human experience behind the behavior.

The objective isn't to eliminate every objection. It's to identify what is preventing people from moving toward the Future State and determine the most appropriate response.

Leadership Reflection

Think about a group in your organization that is struggling to adopt a change. Are you assuming everyone is struggling for the same reason?

Before deciding how to address resistance, ask whether you've identified what's actually driving it.

The answer may change your approach.