How do we reduce resistance to change without forcing compliance?
Resistance is not a personality trait or a sign of bad attitude. It is a behavioral signal that something in the system is creating friction between what people are being asked to do and what feels safe, practical, or worthwhile to them.
Psychological reactance, first described by Brehm in 1966, shows that when people perceive a threat to their autonomy, they push back harder. The more you mandate and escalate, the more resistance you generate. This is not defiance. It is a predictable psychological response.
Behavioral science reframes resistance as diagnostic data.
When someone resists, the productive question is not "how do we get them to comply?" but "what barrier are they responding to?" The SHIFT framework uses COM-B diagnosis to classify these barriers systematically.
Common patterns: resistance that looks like disengagement is often a capability barrier (they do not know how and feel embarrassed to ask). Resistance that looks like cynicism is often a motivation barrier (they have seen previous change programs fail and do not trust this one will be different). Resistance that looks like workarounds is often an opportunity barrier (the new process does not fit their actual workflow).
Each pattern needs a different response. Capability barriers respond to practice environments, peer teaching, and graduated difficulty. Motivation barriers respond to social proof, small wins that demonstrate the change works, and honest acknowledgment of past failures. Opportunity barriers respond to environmental redesign: changing defaults, removing friction from the new process, adding friction to the old one.
The organizations that dissolve resistance do not fight it. They diagnose it and design around it.
