This paper examines the psychology and organizational dynamics of resistance to change through a concrete workplace scenario. A senior colleague's opposition to a new information system serves as the central case study, with the analysis tracing his low tolerance for change to both external business pressures and deeply held personal mentalities. Drawing on Kotter's theory of change and supporting organizational behavior literature, the paper outlines a practical, step-by-step strategy for helping resistant employees embrace necessary transitions. Key recommendations include building awareness of external drivers, fostering collaborative implementation, establishing short-term milestones, and making the practical benefits of change visible to those most affected.
One of the most well-known quotes from Ancient Greece belongs to Heraclitus, who said, "Nothing is constant in life but change." People have a natural tendency to resist change as a means of self-preservation and regard it as having most often a negative impact on one's existence. This is particularly true of changes that occur in professional life or in one's personal and emotional environment.
Experience has proven that change always opens a new direction in life and a new path to follow. However, there are situations in which people do not embrace change, and their reluctance can in fact represent their most important shortfall. This dynamic became apparent at a workplace where a new information system was decided to be implemented, and a senior colleague who had been with the company for more than ten years constantly opposed the change — even threatening to leave his position.
The major issue with this colleague is his low tolerance for change. The department he leads is essentially his own creation, developed over the course of his career with the company. He joined in his mid-fifties, valued particularly for his qualities as an organized and strategic thinker — qualities senior management believed were crucial for the establishment and growth of an entirely new department. Over time, that department grew and adapted at a somewhat slow pace, consistent with the gradual evolution of its field of activity.
However, as the company's area of business expanded, more and more responsibility was placed on his department, and the speed of adaptation had to increase significantly in order to keep up with both internal and external demands. Eventually, it was decided that a new information system ensuring more accurate and faster registration of data was necessary. This decision became the flashpoint for his resistance.
The change that triggered the colleague's reaction — and that exposed his low appreciation of change as a process — was the company's international expansion and the resulting need to communicate globally and liaise with similar departments overseas. This requirement implied a change in the information system as well as in the department's internal procedures. From an analytical perspective, the factor that determined the change was external. Even so, this external factor triggered an internal, emotional response that led to a practical rejection of the change and the process it entailed.
Similar to the organizational reorientations that took place in the early 1990s, the company's growth demanded that a broader vision of its activities be adopted in order to remain competitive (Flexstudy, n.d.). This external factor, which influenced the overall working environment, indirectly shaped the directions that both people and management had to consider. The colleague, however, chose not to embrace the change — resisting it at both the professional and personal level.
Another dimension of this resistance is his belief that the change is unnecessary and would not benefit the company. In its early days, the company had a clear focus on its traditional market. Yet as market demands shifted and competitors emerged, the company was compelled to seek alternatives and alter its initial development direction. The colleague remains convinced that these changes will not add value to the work being done. This illustrates a broader challenge: resistance rooted in long-established processes and organizational culture. People and organizational structures are often reluctant to change because certain processes, carried out in a particular way over many years, have functioned well under specific conditions. When those conditions change, both people and structures must adapt.
"Kotter's steps applied to overcome resistance"
"Seven-step plan for managing colleague's transition"
Penn University. (2008). "Adapting to change at work: Effectively navigating the turmoil of organizational changes through adaptation" in Management Resources. Penn Behavioral Health. Available online at
Time for change.org. (2014). "Kotter's theory of change." Available online at
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.