Every manager eventually encounters it: a change is announced — a new process, a restructured team, a shift in priorities — and one team member makes clear, in one way or another, that they are not on board. Sometimes the resistance is explicit. Sometimes it is quieter: slow adoption, repeated questions that are really objections, a visible lack of engagement. However it manifests, how a new manager handles it shapes both the outcome of the change and their credibility with the rest of the team.
1 Understand the resistance before responding to it
The instinct to push back on resistance — to reassert the reasons for the change, to emphasise that it is happening regardless — rarely works and often makes things worse. Resistance usually has a reason: a genuine concern about how the change will affect someone's work, a disagreement with the rationale, a previous experience that makes the new approach feel risky, or simply the discomfort of having familiar patterns disrupted. Until you understand which of these is driving the behaviour, your response is likely to miss the mark.
The most productive first step is a direct, private conversation that starts with curiosity rather than persuasion. Not "I need you to understand why this is the right call" but "I want to understand your concerns." Often, a resistant team member has a legitimate point — they may know something about the practical consequences of the change that the people who designed it do not. Engaging with that seriously is both fairer and more likely to produce genuine buy-in.
Before the conversation, prepare three genuine questions — not rhetorical questions that are really arguments, but questions you actually want answered. What specifically concerns you about this? What have you seen happen with similar changes in the past? What would need to be true for you to feel more comfortable with this direction? The answers will tell you far more about how to work through the resistance than any amount of persuasion.
2 Distinguish between legitimate concerns and unwillingness to adapt
Not all resistance is equal. A team member raising substantive concerns about the implementation of a change — concerns that could, if addressed, lead to a better outcome — is doing something genuinely valuable. A team member who has had their concerns heard and addressed but is still refusing to engage with the new direction is presenting a different kind of problem. Treating these two situations identically is unfair in both directions.
The practical distinction is whether engaging with the concern changes anything. If a team member's objection points to a real risk or flaw in the plan, incorporating it is the right response. If the concern has been addressed and the person is still not moving, that is no longer a concern to be resolved — it is a decision about whether to adapt. These are different conversations, and conflating them means never clearly reaching the second one.
After a first conversation about resistance, summarise in writing what concerns were raised and what response you gave to each. This forces you to be specific about whether concerns have actually been addressed, and gives you a clear basis for a follow-up conversation if the resistance continues. 'When we spoke last week, you raised X and I addressed it by doing Y. I want to check in on where you are now' is a far more productive opening than revisiting the whole disagreement from scratch.
Navigating team dynamics and managing change is covered in the LeadWise Emerging Leaders Program — with practical frameworks for difficult conversations and building a team that adapts effectively.
Explore the program — €2993 Involve the team member in implementation where possible
One of the most effective ways to convert resistance into engagement is to give the resistant person a genuine role in making the change work. This is grounded in a real truth about human motivation: people support things they have had a hand in creating. A team member who has been asked to help design the implementation of a change they were initially sceptical about often becomes one of its most committed advocates.
This requires that you are genuinely open to their input influencing how the change is implemented, even if not whether it happens. If the outcome is pre-determined and the involvement is cosmetic, people notice quickly and the effect reverses — cosmetic consultation breeds more cynicism than straightforward announcement. But genuine involvement, where a team member's perspective shapes the practical approach, both improves the outcome and changes their relationship to it.
When you have a team member who understands the work better than you do and who is resistant to a change affecting their area, ask directly for their help: 'You know this area better than I do. I want this change to work practically, not just in theory. Can you help me think through how we implement it in a way that actually works?' This moves the conversation from opposition to problem-solving — and signals real respect for their expertise.
4 Be transparent about what is and is not up for discussion
One source of prolonged resistance is ambiguity about whether the change is actually settled. If a team member believes that sufficient opposition might reverse the decision, they have a rational incentive to keep opposing it. Clarity about what is fixed and what is flexible — delivered respectfully but honestly — removes that ambiguity and allows the conversation to move forward.
This means being direct about the non-negotiables while being genuinely open about the things that can flex: timing, implementation approach, resource allocation. A team member who understands that the change is happening but has real input into how it happens is in a very different position from one who is simply being told to comply. The former can engage constructively; the latter can only comply or resist.
In change conversations, be specific about what is and is not flexible: 'The direction on X is set — that's not something I can change. But how we implement it, and the timeline we use, is genuinely open and I want your input.' This honesty is more respectful than leaving people to wonder if continued pressure might shift the fundamentals, and it gets to productive problem-solving faster.
5 Address ongoing resistance directly if it affects the team
If resistance persists beyond the point where concerns have been genuinely addressed, and begins to affect the team — through visible disengagement, undermining the change in team conversations or simply not doing what the new approach requires — it needs to be addressed as a performance matter, not just a change management one. Allowing one person's resistance to drag indefinitely is unfair to colleagues who have adapted, and communicates to everyone that your standards are optional.
This is one of the harder conversations, because it requires holding firm on the expectation while still treating the person with respect. But the alternative — letting the situation drift — is worse. A direct conversation that acknowledges the difficulty while being clear about what is expected going forward is both kinder and more effective than hoping the situation resolves itself.
If you reach the point of a direct performance conversation about ongoing resistance, structure it around behaviours and impact rather than attitude. Not 'You're being negative' but 'In the last two team meetings, you've raised concerns about the new process that we've already discussed and addressed. The impact is that it's slowing our progress and making it harder for the rest of the team to move forward. What I need to see going forward is [specific behaviour].' Specific, factual, forward-looking.
The bottom line
Resistance to change is a normal human response, and managing it well is a significant part of a manager's job. The approach that works — understand before responding, distinguish legitimate concerns from unwillingness to adapt, involve people where possible, be transparent about what is fixed, and address what cannot be ignored — is neither soft nor hard. It is realistic about how people actually work.
New managers who navigate resistance well build credibility on two dimensions simultaneously: with the team member involved, who sees their concerns taken seriously, and with the rest of the team, who sees clear and fair standards maintained. Both matter, and getting the balance right is what effective change management actually looks like.