Theme #2 Culture change interventions

What resistance tells you… if you listen carefully

Rita van Dijk, november 2025

The first conversation with a major airline begins with a striking confession: six months earlier, a planned change process had come to an abrupt halt following a wildcat strike. Everyone had licked their wounds and returned to work, but relationships had been permanently damaged. Since then, the topic of change had become taboo, as if the process had never existed. Until the moment the management asked me: “How can we get this process moving again?”

Change – and especially cultural change – always triggers reactions. But not every critical voice strikes at the heart of the matter. Dismissing every signal as ‘normal resistance’ carries a risk: scattered fragments of doubt start to coalesce, personal worries linger and shared resentment becomes a driving force. Before long, those critical voices can solidify into a wall that no longer moves.

Balancing involvement and speed in change

Let’s look back briefly at how things reached this point. The airline’s plans had a clear goal: greater efficiency. That meant not only changes in working methods – shifting from working in pairs to operating more independently – but also a cultural shift towards results orientation and personal initiative.

At first, employees and managers were actively involved. Vision, mission, structure, and the desired culture were discussed extensively in working groups. It took time and that’s where the first cracks appeared. Many employees found it too abstract, too far removed from their daily reality.

Once the working groups reached a concrete stage, discussing roles, procedures, rosters, and work allocation, the process changed tone. Under the banner of ‘speeding up implementation’, employees were no longer involved. Staff departments and process design specialists took the lead. Structural change became the focus, while the cultural implications faded from view.

A grim turn

In large briefings, employees were suddenly confronted with ready-made plans. The key changes were displayed on boards. It quickly became clear that some people would have new roles. Departments were being relocated. Ways of working would change radically with little clarity on whether or how staff would be supported through it. Rosters were altered without regard for employees’ private lives. For those working shifts, rosters are often carefully aligned with partners and family life, especially when children are involved. A roster change means rethinking childcare, appointments, even carpooling.

The way the change was managed became the main trigger for the backlash

During these sessions, emotions ran high. Employees didn’t just ask for clarification: they called management to account. The atmosphere turned tense, managers felt intimidated and struggled to respond. Within days, discontent escalated into a wildcat strike.

In hindsight, it became clear that the way the change was managed had been the main trigger for the resistance. By speeding up the process, management had sidelined employees. Trust was damaged, and with it the foundation for support. People with very different concerns began to find each other. Those worried about new rosters, those afraid of losing influence, those unsure whether the new approach would even work: they now stood side by side. Their individual objections merged into collective resistance.

Resistance comes in many forms

Over the years, I’ve guided many change programmes where resistance played a prominent role. I’ve had hundreds of conversations with people who were angry, disappointed, sad, or simply disengaged. Some withdrew into silence, others made it loud and clear that they did not support the change. Those conversations taught me one key thing: not all resistance is the same and recognising that makes all the difference.

Resistance is not a one-dimensional phenomenon

It’s often said that change always comes with resistance. Some even turn it around: if there’s no resistance, nothing’s really happening. For many leaders, that’s a comforting thought. They dislike the discomfort resistance brings but see it as proof that something is moving. It sounds pragmatic but it misses the point. Resistance is not one-dimensional.

Behind that single word resistance lie countless different reasons. An employee resisting a roster change that disrupts family life is not the same as someone fearing a loss of competence – nor the same as someone who believes the proposed route won’t lead to the desired outcome. Yet these completely different signals are often lumped together and dismissed as ‘just resistance’.

The core of the change

When concerns go unheard, they can merge into collective opposition that slows or halts change. That doesn’t mean every objection should be accommodated. But it does require attention: which concerns touch the core of what you’re trying to change, and which do not? Those in the latter category – often unintended side-effects of change – can sometimes be resolved quite easily. Think of working hours and rosters. Ignore them, and they inevitably blend with the deeper, harder-to-address forms of resistance.

Cultural change adds another layer. The very word culture can cause irritation. It touches on what binds people together: values, habits, and beliefs that have guided them for years. Saying these must change can feel like rejecting the past, including the contributions of those who built it.
Moreover, many employees (and leaders) have little faith in cultural change, having seen too many vague, long-winded programmes full of talk about values disconnected from real work.

The five faces of resistance

In my work, I’ve seen that resistance to change generally stems from five main sources:

1. Resistance to the change itself
Sometimes resistance arises from the substance or pace of change. Employees may believe the outcome will differ from management’s intentions, or struggle to see how it translates to their own work. At a deeper level, change may clash with existing ways of thinking.
For instance, in a legal department where diligence is key, a new focus on speed can feel contradictory. The values seem mutually exclusive. Key questions then become: what do values like openness, ownership, or speed actually mean in practice?

Interventions include clear, visual communication of goals and rationale, translation into practical terms, open forums for concerns, and feedback sessions during implementation.

2. Individual and psychological factors
Resistance may stem from personal worries or insecurities. Employees may wonder if they can meet new expectations, whether they’ll lose their position, or if their experience still counts. In cultural change, this often touches professional identity, for example, when ‘control’ gives way to ‘trust’.

Effective approaches combine transparency about the implications (e.g. job security, role changes) with recognition of what people are losing and appreciation of their past contributions. Training and coaching help employees practise new behaviours.

3. The way change is managed
The process itself can generate resistance. When decisions are made top-down and communication is one-way, people feel excluded. In cultural change, this happens easily: broad slogans like “We want more ownership” mean little without concrete meaning. Engagement grows only when people experience influence and see relevance to their daily work.

Interventions include pilots where teams test their own improvement ideas, or sessions where employees define what ‘ownership’ looks like in reality.

4. Relational and internal political factors
Change reshapes power dynamics and influence within the group arena. Informal leaders may feel threatened and actively resist. Old conflicts can resurface. In culture change, which often touches behavioural norms, tensions can quickly heat up.

Useful interventions include explicitly discussing interests, involving influential employees, and seeking win–win solutions where possible. This can turn resistance into shared responsibility.

5. Organisational context and history
An organisation’s past strongly shapes how new changes are received. After previous failed initiatives or prolonged workload pressure, cynicism sets in: “We’ve seen this before.” Slow decision-making or outdated systems can sap energy.

In such cases, it helps to start small: take visible steps, keep promises, celebrate small wins and fix practical obstacles. When people see words turn into action, confidence builds that this time it might work.

By listening carefully to what resistance is telling you, obstacles can be removed

These five sources of resistance often intertwine. Without recognising them, all that’s visible is ‘pushback’ and ‘trouble’. But when distinctions are made, it becomes clear that some forms of resistance are solvable. By listening carefully to what resistance is telling you, obstacles can be removed and targeted action taken. This clears the path for genuine change, while deeper or structural resistance can be constructively addressed.

Back to the airline

When management learned that the new rosters caused problems because they ignored employees’ family situations, the planners were brought in. Reluctantly, they found it was technically possible to add flexibility. This resulted in more workable schedules for most employees and, more importantly, recognition that their concerns were taken seriously. It improved trust in management.

In addition, the manager organised small group meetings to discuss questions and concerns. Since doubts remained, an online platform was opened where employees could share issues and managers could respond quickly. This allowed adjustments and kept the dialogue open. Resistance didn’t vanish, but it became manageable and focused on the real challenge: working differently. And that, in turn, made further progress possible.

Final thoughts

This example shows that resistance holds valuable information about what people care about and where the change chafes. By exploring rather than fighting resistance, organisations create space for adjustment, understanding, and momentum.

Those that take the time to look behind the causes of resistance not only increase their chances of successful change but also strengthen trust in the change process itself.