This is from the “Accounting Makes Cents” podcast episode #106 released on Monday, 9 February 2026.

---

Today, I want to talk about something that I think almost all of us struggle with, whether we admit it or not. Change.

Jump to show notes.

And don’t worry — I’m not suddenly going all philosophical. This is very much still related to your CIMA studies. If you’re working through E2 or E3, you may already recognise today’s topic, even if you haven’t touched on it for a while, it’s been sitting quietly in the syllabus: overcoming resistance to change.

Change is one of those words that sounds inspiring in theory and exhausting in practice. We talk about it constantly — in organisations, in leadership books, in motivational speeches. Be adaptable. Be flexible. Embrace disruption. We’re told that the people who succeed are the ones who love change, who move quickly, who reinvent themselves without hesitation.

But I’m not convinced that’s actually how most of us are wired.

Because if we’re honest, most of us are not really creatures of change. We’re creatures of habit. We like what’s familiar. We like routines that make us feel competent. We like systems we understand, roles we’re good at, and environments where we know the rules. Even when change is objectively good, our first reaction is often not excitement. It’s hesitation.

What I find interesting is that resistance to change is often treated like a flaw. As if people who resist are negative, or difficult, or opposed to progress. But in reality, resistance is very human. It’s what happens when uncertainty collides with identity. When something that feels stable suddenly isn’t.

So today, I want to talk about resistance to change not as a problem to eliminate, but as something to understand.

In particular, I want to explore a framework from John Kotter and Leonard Schlesinger that describes six different ways leaders can respond to resistance. Because one of the biggest mistakes organisations make is assuming there is one right way to handle pushback, when in reality the right response depends entirely on why people are resisting in the first place.

This episode is really about two things. First, why resistance to change is normal and predictable. And second, how leaders can work with it, rather than simply trying to overpower it.

Why people resist

Before looking at any techniques for overcoming resistance, it’s worth pausing on a more basic question: why do people resist change in the first place?

Because most resistance is not ideological. It’s not people saying, “I hate progress,” or “I refuse to adapt.” Much more often, resistance is personal.

People resist because they are uncertain about the future. Because they don’t trust the people leading the change. Because they believe they are about to lose something — status, competence, autonomy, security. Or because the last time there was a major change, it went badly, and they still remember the cost.

In many cases, resistance is not opposition. It is anxiety.

A new system raises the fear: What if I can’t learn this fast enough?
A restructure raises the fear: What if my role disappears?
A new manager raises the fear: What if I no longer belong here?

And when those fears are not acknowledged, they do not disappear. They simply surface in different forms — as cynicism, disengagement, passive resistance, or open conflict.

This is where organisations often go wrong.

Resistance is frequently treated as irrational. As stubbornness. As something to be pushed through or suppressed. But in reality, resistance is information. It tells you where the uncertainty is. Where the perceived loss is. Where trust is weak.

From a leadership perspective, this distinction matters.

If you believe people are resisting because they do not understand the change, your response will be to communicate more. If you believe they are resisting because they are afraid, your response will be to support them. If you believe they are resisting because they are protecting their own interests, your response will be to negotiate — or to use power.

The problem is that resistance often looks the same on the surface, even when the causes are completely different.

Silence in meetings can mean confusion. It can also mean fear. Or it can mean quiet political opposition. Complaints can be genuine requests for clarity. They can also be early warnings of deeper distrust.

And if leaders misdiagnose the source of resistance, they almost always choose the wrong response. This is the central insight behind the work of Kotter and Schlesinger.

They argued that there is no single best way to overcome resistance to change. There are only appropriate ways, depending on three things: the source of the resistance, the time pressure involved, and the amount of power leaders are willing to use.

In other words, the real leadership challenge is not forcing change through. It is understanding what kind of resistance you are actually dealing with.

So before talking about techniques, models, or tools, the most important step is diagnosis. Understanding why people are resisting. Only then does the question of how to respond begin to make sense.

Choosing the right response

Once we accept that resistance to change is normal, and once we understand that not all resistance has the same cause, the next question becomes a practical one: how should leaders respond?

Rather than offering a single “best” method for managing resistance, Kotter and Schlesinger proposed that leaders have a range of possible responses available to them. Each response has advantages, limitations, and costs. The key point is that different situations call for different responses.

In their model, “cost” does not simply mean financial cost. It also includes less visible but equally important costs: damage to trust, loss of morale, reduced commitment, and long-term cultural consequences.

Using coercion, for example, may be fast, but it can severely damage trust.
Using participation may build commitment, but it takes time and can slow the change down.
Using negotiation may secure agreement, but it can be expensive and create future expectations.

So the leadership challenge is not choosing the most powerful method. It is choosing the most appropriate one.

Kotter and Schlesinger identified six main techniques for dealing with resistance to change. These techniques range from highly collaborative approaches to highly directive ones. In practice, they sit on a spectrum — from methods that rely on communication and involvement, to methods that rely on authority and power.

What matters is not just which technique is used, but when and why it is used.

They suggested that leaders should think carefully about three key factors before deciding how to respond to resistance.

First, the source of the resistance. Is it based on misunderstanding, fear, loss, or self-interest?

Second, the amount of time available. Is this a slow, planned change, or an urgent situation where delays are dangerous?

Third, the balance of power between leaders and those who are resisting. Do leaders have the authority to impose change, or do they depend on cooperation?

Different answers to these questions lead to very different choices. For example, resistance driven by lack of information usually calls for education. While fear and anxiety require support, not pressure.

This is what makes the framework so useful for both exams and real organisations.

It does not ask, “Which method is best?”
It asks, “Which method is least damaging and most likely to work in this specific situation?”

In the next sections, we will look at each of the six techniques in turn — not just what they are, but when they are appropriate, what their advantages are, and what risks they carry if they are used in the wrong context.

Because in managing change, the method you choose often matters just as much as the change itself.

Techniques to overcome resistance to change

Kotter and Schlesinger identified six main techniques that leaders can use to deal with resistance to change. These techniques differ in how collaborative or directive they are, how much time they require, and how much long-term cost they create.

Let’s take a look at each of the six in turn.

Education and communication

The first and most commonly recommended technique is education and communication.

This approach is based on a simple assumption: people are resisting because they do not understand the change. They may not understand why it is happening, what problem it is solving, or how it will affect them.

The response, therefore, is to explain.

Leaders provide information, share data, describe the vision for the future, and answer questions openly. The aim is to replace rumours and assumptions with facts.

This technique is most effective when resistance is based on misunderstanding or lack of information, and when there is sufficient time to communicate properly. Its main advantage is that it builds understanding and can strengthen trust. It is also relatively low risk in ethical terms. However, education and communication can be slow, and it does not work well when people understand the change perfectly but still oppose it. In those cases, more explanation simply leads to more frustration on both sides.

Participation and involvement

The second technique is participation and involvement.

Here, leaders do not simply explain the change; they involve employees in designing and implementing it. People are invited to contribute ideas, identify problems, and help shape the final outcome.

This technique is based on the insight that people are far less likely to resist a change they helped to create.

Participation can improve the quality of decisions, because those closest to the work often have the best practical knowledge. It also builds ownership and commitment. This approach is most appropriate when those affected by the change have valuable expertise and when leaders need their cooperation for successful implementation. The main disadvantage is that participation is time-consuming. It can slow decision-making and, if not well managed, lead to compromised or diluted solutions.

Facilitation and support

The third technique is facilitation and support.

This approach recognises that resistance is sometimes emotional rather than rational. People may understand the change and even agree with it in principle, but still feel anxious, stressed, or threatened.

In these cases, the response is not argument, but support.

Leaders may provide training, coaching, counselling, or simply time to adjust. They acknowledge the difficulties involved and help people develop the skills and confidence they need to cope with the new situation.

This technique is most appropriate when resistance comes from fear of the unknown, low confidence, or concern about personal competence. Its advantage is that it addresses the human side of change directly and can reduce long-term anxiety. However, it can be expensive and slow, and it does not work well when resistance is based on political self-interest rather than fear.

Negotiation and agreement

The fourth technique is negotiation and agreement.

This is used when it is clear that certain individuals or groups will lose something as a result of the change — such as power, status, income, or job security — and are therefore likely to resist strongly.

Leaders respond by negotiating. They offer incentives, compensation, or concessions in exchange for support or compliance.

For example, this might involve pay protection, guarantees of future roles, or special arrangements during the transition.

This technique is most appropriate when resistance comes from powerful groups who have the ability to block the change. Its main advantage is that it can quickly reduce opposition from key stakeholders. However, it is often costly, and it can create a precedent. Once people learn that resistance leads to rewards, they may resist future changes in the hope of securing similar deals.

Manipulation and co-optation

The fifth technique is manipulation and co-optation.

This is one of the most controversial methods.

Manipulation involves selectively presenting information, framing the change in a particular way, or shaping perceptions to reduce resistance. Co-optation involves giving key opponents a role in the change process, often a symbolic one, in order to gain their support or neutralise their opposition.

For example, a critic of the change might be invited onto a steering committee with limited real influence.

This technique can be effective and fast, especially when other methods are too slow or impractical. However, it carries significant ethical risks. If people realise they have been manipulated or co-opted, trust can be damaged permanently. The short-term success may come at a very high long-term cost.

Explicit and implicit coercion

The final technique is explicit and implicit coercion.

Here, leaders use authority, threats, deadlines, or the possibility of punishment to force compliance. This may include warnings about job losses, demotions, or disciplinary action.

This technique is most appropriate in crisis situations, where time is short and the survival of the organisation is at risk. Its main advantage is speed. It can overcome resistance very quickly. However, it is the most damaging in terms of trust, morale, and long-term commitment. Coercion often leads to compliance rather than genuine acceptance, and it increases the risk of resentment, turnover, and future resistance.

Conclusion

For CIMA students, this topic is not just theoretical. In the E2 and E3 syllabus, understanding resistance to change, and the appropriate management responses, is key to case study questions, scenario analysis, and strategic decision-making. Being able to identify the source of resistance and match it to a response is exactly the kind of applied thinking that examiners are looking for.

So the next time you face resistance — whether in your workplace, your studies, or even your own habits — pause. Ask why it’s happening. Diagnose it carefully. And then choose your response thoughtfully.

Because how resistance is handled often matters more than the change itself.

Show notes simplified

In this episode, MJ the tutor breaks down why people resist change and how leaders can respond effectively. Learn about the psychology behind resistance, the six techniques for overcoming pushback, and how to choose the right approach depending on the situation.