Do you remember marbles? Those little glass balls you probably played with as a kid. Small, shiny, often kept in a jar. And most importantly, they roll really well.
So what do they have to do with change? We'd love people to respond to change just like marbles: one gentle push and off they go in the right direction. But that's not how it works. Evolution made sure it wouldn't be that easy. The result? People often roll the other way. Sometimes fast, sometimes slowly, and sometimes they just stay put - in the status quo.
Picture a Monday meeting. On the slide: Transformation 3.0. Someone's finishing their coffee, someone else is answering a message on Teams. The leader says: “We're kicking off another change.” Not much enthusiasm in the room. This isn't resistance to the idea. It's fatigue. And fatigue is the quietest form of resistance.
Ewa, a manager at a big corporation, told me recently: “For us, transformation is just everyday life now. One change after another. People are tired before we've even started.” To be honest, for a while now I've been joking about it in training rooms myself: “So, going through any transformations lately?” - and it always gets a laugh. The kind where you're not sure whether to laugh or cry.
No wonder. According to Gartner, only 43% of people feel ready to cope with change, and their willingness to support transformation has fallen by 50% over the past seven years. Change is no longer exciting. It's become just another thing on the to-do list.
Why we push back
What we call “resistance to change” often has nothing to do with stubbornness or laziness. It's reactance - the brain's automatic response when we feel someone is taking away our influence. The moment we hear “you must”, “we have to” or “from tomorrow we're moving to a new model”, the brain switches on the same system that reacts to a threat.
Research by Jack Brehm, who first described reactance in the 1960s, shows that the more pressure people feel, the stronger their need to get their autonomy back. It's not a rebellion against change. It's people defending their sense of agency.
From a neuroscience perspective, it's very predictable. When we feel someone is restricting our choices, the amygdala kicks in - the centre of the fight-or-flight response. At that moment, activity drops in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for logical thinking and rational decisions. That's why people going through change often react emotionally, even when they know “on paper” that the idea makes sense.
On top of that, research on motivation (Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, Self-Determination Theory) shows that autonomy is one of three basic human psychological needs, alongside competence and relatedness. Take away people's sense of influence and it's not just their motivation that drops. So does their ability to learn and work together.
That's why so often, when a leader says, “We need to roll this out as fast as possible,” the team responds with silence, doubt or sarcasm. It's not spite. It's the brain in protection mode.
“I start at 9:00...”
I remember something from years ago. My boss at the time walked into the room one day and said: “From tomorrow, everyone starts work at eight.” I'd always started at nine. That was simply how I'd worked for ages. But something in me kicked in. Before I'd even had time to think, I said: “No. I start at nine.”
It wasn't about the time. It was about the tone. About someone telling me how things were going to be. Looking back, it was pure reactance - an automatic need to dig my heels in and get control back. It made no sense and only damaged the relationship. But that's exactly how the brain works when it feels it's losing the right to choose.
Reactance is, at heart, a survival mechanism. In evolutionary terms it made sense - it helped us defend our boundaries, our decisions, our territory. The trouble is that at work the same reaction fires when what's under threat isn't our life, but... our sense of influence.
And here's the paradox: the harder a leader tries to convince people with logical arguments, the more their brains “shut down” to protect their autonomy. That's why good change communication doesn't start with data or arguments. It starts with rebuilding a sense of choice and influence.
People aren't afraid of change. They're afraid of uncertainty
We said change has become a chore - and often a chore where no one can see the point. Why this change? How does it connect to the last one? Or the one from a year ago? And why now, of all times?
We know from research on human behaviour that when people don't understand why a change is happening, they very quickly come up with their own explanation. And it's rarely a positive one. It's a bit like gossip - have you ever heard people gossiping about something good? It happens, but not often. It's usually about something uncertain, potentially dangerous. And that's exactly how the brain treats change: when clarity is missing, the brain fills the gap with a threat.
Often it's not the change itself that people resist, but the confusion. As we show at Meaning Makers , people don't run away from change - they run away from a lack of meaning. That's why the first step isn't motivating people. It's giving them direction.
Three barriers reactance puts up
Adam Grant, an organisational psychologist at the Wharton School, has spent years studying how people react to change at work and why they so often cling to their beliefs, even when the facts say otherwise. In his books, including Think Again and Originals, he shows that most of us would rather defend our views than update them, because at work our opinions are part of our identity - they build our status and our sense of competence. That's why, according to Grant, reactance comes in three classic forms.
1. Resistance to new data - How does it work? Take working from home vs. working in the office. Someone shows research that people collaborate better in the office, and someone else replies: “Well, I work better from home.”
It's not about the data. It's that admitting the other person is right means changing your own mind. And that hits your sense of competence. People would rather keep their views consistent than update them - even if it means holding on to facts that are out of date. That's why, in change, simply “showing the data” rarely works. You need a conversation that lets people reach the new conclusion themselves.
2. Attachment to tradition - People like what they know, because it feels safe. As in the study where most people would rather get PLN 100,000 today than PLN 120,000 in a year. Not because it's logical, but because today feels more certain. That's the status quo effect, closely tied to our sense of safety.
David Rock's SCARF model puts it simply: people feel safe when they have influence and know what to expect. In practice, the more unpredictable a change looks, the harder people hang on to old habits. That's why a good leader doesn't fight the past, but shows continuity - what stays, not just what ends.
3. “We're different” I hear this in almost every company: “That won't work here, we're different.” And of course, every company is different. But everyone's brain works in much the same way. Reactance, the status quo, the need for influence - these are universal mechanisms.
Research by Dweck & Senn Delaney shows that teams with a fixed mindset have 2.5x higher staff turnover and a 30% slower innovation cycle. That's the real price of clinging to the old ways. The paradox is that believing you're unique often gets in the way of learning - because if we're “different”, we don't have to change.
As Grant puts it, “people more often behave like lawyers defending their arguments than like scientists looking for new ones.”
Reactance isn't a personality trait. It's the way the brain protects its sense of influence. Each of these three barriers - resistance to data, attachment to tradition and the belief that we're different - is another form of the same need: to stay in control of meaning and identity. That's why good change isn't about breaking people's resistance. It's about giving them their influence back.
How to lower the barriers in practice
Before you introduce a change, try to predict where the resistance will come from. It's a bit like preparing for a good presentation - it's not just about knowing what you want to say, but also anticipating the questions people might ask.
A good speaker doesn't wait until someone asks. They already know what might raise doubts and bring it up themselves. That way, the audience feels someone really understands how they think.
Change works the same way. If a leader can name the concerns before the team does, people stop getting defensive. They see their emotions have been noticed. Reactance runs out of fuel before it even catches fire.
Here's what you can do next time you communicate a change:
- Don't tell people what to do - ask how they'd like to do it their way. Instead of: “From Monday, everyone works in the new system,” say: “The new system goes live on Monday. How can we make the switch as easy as possible for you?” It's a small difference, but it changes everything - people feel they have a say.
- Give them a choice, even a small one. You can't always give people full autonomy, but you can leave them room to decide on the details. For example: “There are two ways to test the new process - which one would you like to start with?” Having a choice eases the tension and boosts engagement.
- Use examples from their world, not from books. I've noticed myself that sharing examples from my training tour for Google in 5 countries earlier this year certainly built my authority, but it didn't work as well as examples from closer to home. Don't say: “At Google, they did it like this.” Say: “A team in Kraków had a similar problem - here's how they handled it.” People trust what feels close and familiar faster than what sounds like theory.
- Don't rush it. Reactance only burns itself out once things calm down. If the team pushes back, don't add pressure - pause instead. Say: “I can see this might be worrying - what exactly is difficult for you?” Sometimes simply listening works better than weeks of rolling things out.
You can use this approach straight away in any conversation about change - from a new process to a team reorganisation. Instead of “rolling it out”, take people through the change with you. You don't need to have all the answers - you just need to ask a good question.
Change wisely, not by force
Deloitte research shows that teams who see change as a challenge are 35% more adaptable and make 40% better decisions. That's the moment an organisation stops reacting and starts acting with purpose.
Don't try to force people to change. Help them do it their own way. Don't push - give them space and choice. Instead of adding pressure, remove what's holding them back. Because people aren't really afraid of change, but of losing influence and control. And when they feel they have influence, they get moving on their own.
P.S. If you've read all the way to the end and you're thinking: “OK, Wojtek, but my change isn't something where I can give people a choice. We have to do it because it came from the top” - fair enough, you're right. That happens too. In fact, I was talking about exactly that kind of situation with a client only yesterday. It's a completely different challenge - it's no longer about resistance to something new, but about disrupting the status quo and how to build a message that works even when people have no choice.
We'll talk about these other sides of change in upcoming issues of Meaning Making .
Look out for the green banner - just like the one on this article. That's where the conversation about Change starts.