Resistance Is Data
Interpreting resistance as intelligence
In the first part of this series, we explored the power of presence, how leadership shifts when we stop pushing for action and instead hold space for others to step in. This second piece goes deeper into one of the most misunderstood dynamics in change leadership - resistance.
Too often, resistance is something we try to manage, reduce, or move past as fast as possible. You may still remember the last time you faced resistance, how uncomfortable it felt at the time. But what if resistance is not the problem? What if resistance is telling us exactly what we need to know, but instead of listening, we manage it?
A familiar pattern
I was working with a leadership team responsible for an area under sustained operational pressure. The context was complex: fragmented culture, operational challenges, low morale, and high stakes. The people in the room were experienced and intelligent but also stretched thin.
The uplift plan I brought wasn’t a hard turnaround. It was designed to create incremental improvements over time, rebuilding capability, aligning systems and processes and increasing confidence gradually. But I knew even the soft approach a gradual uplift plan was, it would land with resistance.
Not because the plan was flawed.
But because there had been no improvement for quite some time and the system hadn’t earned trust.
Promises had been made before. Change had been announced and never followed through. People had committed to past initiatives and been left holding the weight when leadership changed or momentum faded. So, in a way, the resistance in that room wasn’t defiance, it was self-protection.
In the past, I might have responded with a well-structured change narrative. I would have presented the rationale, mapped the why, what, and how, and monitored for buy-in. I might have pushed through objections and tried to reassure people with logic. That approach can work, but often, it bypasses what’s real for people.
When resistance is rooted in emotional experience, especially in broken trust, it doesn’t respond to strategy. It responds to presence.
The turning point - a different kind of invitation
After walking the leadership team through the plan and the proposed sequence of the required shifts, I paused. Instead of asking for alignment, I asked:
“Before we go any further, I’d like to hear your emotional response to what they heard from me.”
I made it clear that in that moment, I was not looking for us agreeing to the details of the plan, and instead I was opening the floor to any emotional reactions that were present. I didn’t even need to wait until the truth began to surface.
One leader said, “we really need to address the confusion” Another added, “It feels unfair, and we needed to focus on equity”
I didn’t jump in to explain or smooth things over. I stayed with it. I asked the leader who felt we needed to clear things up before we proceeded with the uplift plan, “What part feels unclear or unresolved?”
He spoke about dependencies that weren’t being acknowledged, capability gaps and system challenges that could derail the first phase if not addressed. His resistance gave us clarity on where to focus first. That insight changed the sequence of delivery. Without that moment of honesty, we would have pushed forward with a blind spot.
The comment about unfairness revealed something more systemic: a cultural narrative that had been growing quietly for months. People felt they were being asked to take on more without being given the tools or support to succeed. That changed how we communicated the plan. It shifted the framing from pressure to partnership, and helped the team reconnect with purpose.
Each emotional response held a message.
A capability gap and system challenges that needed to be addressed
A misalignment between responsibility and support
A breach of trust that still needed repair
Each emotional response offered data. Resistance, in this case, wasn’t an obstacle, it was a map. It showed us where trust had eroded, where there was still pain, and where clarity or support was still needed. Not surface-level complaints, but felt experiences that carried wisdom about the system.
These insights weren’t going to surface through traditional change management tools. They came through stillness, invitation, and a willingness to stay with discomfort.
This is what I mean when I say resistance is data. It offers insight, not just into the plan, but into the emotional and systemic conditions that will determine whether the plan actually works.
The shift
That shift didn’t happen in the room. But it happened.
Three days later, the same leaders came back. This time, they were energised. Curious. Ready to move. They weren’t waiting for me to convince them. They were asking the right questions, shaping the approach, and taking initiative.
The resistance had turned into alignment.
The fear into momentum and creativity.
The fatigue into forward motion.
And all of it came, not from pressure or persuasion, but from pausing long enough to let the system speak.
That week, performance lifted by 50%. The highest in six months. No additional resources. No new incentives. Just a shift in how we listened. I didn’t carry the change alone. That was never the goal.
My role was to hold the vision with clarity and the people with softness. To offer structure without rigidity. To trust that if we slowed down enough to hear what was true, the right energy would return.
Because readiness doesn’t come from pressure. It comes from trust.
What resistance reveals
When we truly listen, resistance can show us:
Where sequencing is off—and something foundational needs to happen first
Where expectations and capacity aren’t aligned
Where people feel overburdened or under-supported
Where narratives of failure or disappointment are still active
Where fear, fatigue, or resentment need to be acknowledged before energy can return
These are not peripheral concerns. They’re central to performance. And no amount of push will address them if they remain invisible.
Resistance is often the only honest thing happening in a room. When we try to manage it, we lose the opportunity to learn from it. But when we listen to it, when we stay long enough to understand what’s underneath, we gain the information we actually need to lead well.
Final Reflection
If you’re leading through change, and you notice resistance rising in your team, try this:
Don’t explain it away.
Don’t force alignment.
Pause.
Ask yourself: What part of me wants to move past this—and what might happen if I just listened?
Let the resistance speak.
Let the system feel what it needs to feel.
Let go of control—just a little.
Because when resistance is heard—not managed—it becomes fuel.
And when leaders learn to hold space instead of hold power, the system moves.
Not through pressure.
But through trust.
As we’ve seen, resistance often carries essential information, if we’re willing to listen. But even after we make space for that truth and adjust our approach, there’s a deeper pattern that can still derail change - the assumption that buy-in equals commitment.
In the next post, we’ll explore why buy-in is not enough, and how what many leaders interpret as alignment is often quiet compliance. We’ll look at how to move beyond seeking consensus, and instead build the kind of co-ownership that fuels transformation that sticks.