Article

Leading Through the Storm: The New Playbook for Mastering Resistance to Change

August 9, 2025
Leading Through the Storm: The New Playbook for Mastering Resistance to Change

Introduction: The Brutal Truth About Change


If you’re leading a company, here’s one brutal truth you can’t dodge: resistance to change isn’t just inevitable—it’s a gift. Most leaders don’t see it that way. They treat it like an obstacle to bulldoze, something to out-argue, out-maneuver, or silence. But resistance, if you know how to read it, is a living, breathing diagnostic tool.

Every objection, every sideways comment in a hallway, every moment of awkward silence in a meeting—it’s all data. It tells you where the trust gaps are, where the communication breakdowns have happened, and where your people’s unspoken fears live. If you ignore that data, you’re flying blind.


The hard numbers back this up: more than 70% of organizational change initiatives fail, not because the strategy was flawed, but because leaders underestimated what it would take to guide people through the emotional turbulence of transformation.

If you want your next big initiative to succeed, the shift starts here: stop seeing resistance as the enemy, and start listening to what it’s telling you. When you do, you’ll discover that resistance isn’t a wall to break down—it’s a map showing you exactly where to go next.


1. Rethink Resistance: It’s Data, Not Defiance


Let’s flip the lens. When people resist, they’re rarely doing it for sport. They’re sending up flares. They’re telling you something’s unclear, untested, or untrusted.


For example, I worked with a CEO rolling out a sweeping technology overhaul. His first instinct when his managers hesitated was frustration—until we sat down and dissected the resistance. It turned out the managers weren’t doubting the technology; they were worried about the gap between the training timeline and the rollout date. They didn’t fear change—they feared being set up to fail.



When you stop labeling resistance as “non-compliance” and start treating it like intelligence gathering, you find it points to the very levers you can pull to move the change forward.


The-Resistance-Spectrum

The Resistance-to-Culture Connection


Here’s the thing: resistance isn’t random—it’s patterned. The form it takes can tell you a lot about your culture.


·      When people go silent in meetings, it’s not neutrality—it’s often low trust or fear of retribution.


· Passive-aggressive compliance—nodding in agreement but quietly slow-walking the work—signals a lack of psychological safety.


· Public, heated pushback usually means you have a culture that tolerates candor but lacks alignment on purpose.


·      Complaints about overload may point to a history of change fatigue from too many initiatives piled on at once.


· Cynical humor—the eye rolls, the sarcastic asides—often mask scars from past failures.


If you can read these signals, you’re no longer in the dark. You’re diagnosing in real time.


2. Get to the Root: Why People Really Resist


Surface objections are almost never the real story. Leaders who stop at “they’re afraid of change” miss the complexity. Resistance has layers—both emotional and systemic—and those layers interact.


Fear of the unknown is the big one. The human brain reacts to uncertainty like it reacts to physical danger. The amygdala, the brain’s threat detection system, lights up, flooding the body with stress chemicals that narrow focus and heighten defensiveness. You’re not just dealing with logic—you’re dealing with biology.


Loss of control is another potent trigger. When people feel changes are imposed without their input, it’s not just an operational issue—it’s a psychological one. That loss can feel like a stripping away of agency and status, especially in high performers.

Then there’s overload. Imagine already working at 110% and being told, “Oh, and here’s an entirely new system to learn—by Monday.” The mind doesn’t just resist; it shuts down.


Other drivers are more personal. Fear of failure makes people cling to the familiar because they don’t want to look incompetent. Self-interest comes into play when people sense a hit to their pay, position, or influence. And the ghosts of past change failures can haunt even the most promising new initiatives, breeding cynicism that says, “We’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well.”


Finally, there’s trust—or the lack of it. Sometimes the issue isn’t the change itself—it’s the leader pushing it.


3. The Anatomy of a Change Agent


Over decades of working with founders and executives, conducting thousands of 360 reviews and personality assessments, I’ve seen the same patterns emerge in leaders who make change real. They don’t just manage the process—they transform it.


They hold a vision with teeth—something concrete enough for people to imagine themselves in. They solve problems creatively, not just by tweaking the old ways but by challenging the underlying assumptions. They inspire authentically, showing up with visible commitment rather than relying on positional power.


They act decisively even when the data’s incomplete, and they follow through relentlessly. They know their strengths and weaknesses and stay open to feedback, which keeps their confidence grounded rather than inflated. And they build coalitions—not just at the top table, but across the informal networks where influence really lives.


The Two-Edged Sword of Strengths


Here’s the nuance: every one of these traits has a dark side. Independence of mind is invaluable—until it becomes stubborn isolation. Comfort with discomfort is a superpower—until it tips into recklessness. Bias for action moves things forward—until it causes leaders to leap before they’ve thought through the consequences. Even emotional steadiness can backfire if it becomes detachment.


The best change leaders aren’t just self-aware of their strengths—they’re alert to the moment those strengths start working against them.


4. Why Even Good Leaders Get Stuck


I’ve watched highly capable leaders stall out in change efforts because they hit invisible tripwires. Sometimes it’s fear—fear of being wrong, fear of losing allies, fear of stepping into the unknown.


Others get caught in the trap of popularity, avoiding necessary but unpopular decisions. Conflict aversion is another killer—dodging hard conversations allows tension to fester underground until it blows up.


Status quo bias is subtler but just as deadly, especially for leaders whose past successes were built on the very systems they now need to dismantle. Add impostor fears and burnout to the mix, and even the most visionary leader can retreat into caution.

And when the ghosts of past failures start whispering, cynicism takes over—not just in teams, but in leaders themselves.


5. The Leadership Edge: Transformational Over Transactional


Managers maintain. Leaders transform. The difference isn’t about being inspiring in an abstract way—it’s about doing the work to engage people fully in the journey.


That starts with building and broadcasting a vision people can feel in their bones. Not a polished slide deck, but a story that connects the change to something urgent, personal, and worth caring about.


It means making communication a living, two-way conversation, not a one-time announcement. It’s about engaging people early, letting them shape the how, so the plan becomes theirs. It’s about resourcing them so thoroughly they can’t say they were set up to fail.


And it’s about showing up yourself—visibly, consistently, in the hard moments—because if you’re not walking the talk, no one else will either.


Adaptive Storytelling


Your story about the change isn’t static—it has chapters. In the early stage, it’s about vision and urgency: “Here’s why we must act now.” In the middle, it’s about momentum: “Here’s what we’ve achieved together.” And in the later stage, it’s about identity: “This is who we are now.” Leaders who master these narrative shifts keep their teams connected from start to finish.


6. Avoiding the Sabotage Traps


I’ve seen too many change efforts die for predictable reasons: ignoring the human element, letting communication gaps breed rumors, staying rigid when feedback screams for adjustment, or failing to acknowledge the scars of the past.


Victor—a division head I coached—learned this the hard way. His unwillingness to adapt, to listen to younger and more diverse perspectives, turned his once-valuable experience into a liability. The result? A demoralized team and a failed initiative.


7. From Compliance to Commitment


Real change can’t be forced into existence through memos or mandates. The leaders who pull their teams through the storm don’t just run projects—they build movements. They create clarity when the air is thick with uncertainty. They anchor their people in trust when fear is the easy default. They make empathy as important as execution.



When you do that, resistance stops being a wall—and starts becoming the scaffolding you build the future on.

share this

Related Articles

Related Articles

How

How Founder Traits Sabotage Collaboration (and What to Do About It)

By Rich Hagberg • August 1, 2025
Most startup founders are brilliant at innovation, disruption, and blazing new trails. They're visionaries, incredibly driven, and fiercely independent. Unfortunately, those same powerful traits often sabotage their ability to foster genuine collaboration—a critical ingredient in startup success. I've spent decades coaching founders, and one of the biggest blind spots I've observed is the gap between what founders naturally do well and what's required to create truly collaborative cultures. Understanding these tendencies—and knowing how to counter them—can mean the difference between startup stagnation and breakout growth. High Independence, Low Collaboration Founders thrive on independence. They love breaking rules, ignoring boundaries, and pushing limits. But independence can quickly morph into isolation. The very idea of slowing down to seek consensus or accommodate team input feels restrictive, even suffocating. Implications: This independent streak inadvertently sidelines team members, suppresses input, and reduces engagement. Talented people quickly learn their ideas don't matter, and teams become passive or defensive. Actions to Counter: Practice deliberately inclusive decision-making. Clearly define which decisions you'll make alone and where you'll solicit team input. Regularly check in to see if team members feel heard and involved. Dominance Isn’t Always Dominant Many founders naturally take a commanding stance. Their assertiveness, directness, and forcefulness can spark initial progress but, over time, it creates resistance. When team members feel steamrolled or fearful of speaking up, creativity vanishes. Implications: A dominant style shuts down communication, makes feedback difficult, and kills the very collaboration needed for sustained innovation. Actions to Counter: Make intentional space for quieter team members to speak. Foster psychological safety by modeling vulnerability and humility Balance assertiveness with curiosity—actively seek feedback rather than waiting for it. The Curse of Poor Delegation Delegation isn't just handing off tasks—it's handing off trust. But founders notoriously struggle with this, often believing only they can execute properly. Every task not delegated reinforces the message that the team isn’t capable. Implications: Poor delegation creates bottlenecks, slows execution, and demoralizes talented employees who feel undervalued and micromanaged. Actions to Counter: Start small by delegating lower-risk tasks clearly and thoroughly. Regularly check your impulses to micromanage; remind yourself why you hired capable people. Invest in mentoring and coaching rather than controlling. Communication Breakdown Founders are famously impatient. They think fast, act fast, and often communicate quickly or incompletely. What seems obvious to them might be totally unclear to their team. Implications: Poor communication creates ambiguity, confusion, and frustration, grinding collaboration to a halt. Teams waste energy guessing expectations rather than innovating. Actions to Counter: Slow down to clearly articulate the "why" behind your decisions. Confirm understanding by asking team members to reflect back their interpretations. Regularly solicit feedback on your communication style and clarity. Arrogance: The Silent Collaboration Killer Confidence is crucial. But confidence unchecked can veer into arrogance, leading founders to dismiss feedback, overlook critical insights, and alienate key contributors. Implications: Arrogance destroys trust, stifles dialogue, and creates a toxic environment where collaboration is impossible. Actions to Counter: Intentionally invite critique and respond openly and constructively. Regularly acknowledge your mistakes publicly to model humility. Actively seek alternative viewpoints before finalizing decisions. Conflict Avoidance (or Aggression) Many founders fall into two extreme camps: conflict avoiders or conflict initiators. Both extremes are deadly to collaboration. Avoiding conflict leaves critical issues unresolved. Aggressive conflict handling creates resentment and fear. Implications: Poorly managed conflict erodes team cohesion, undermines trust, and can spiral into prolonged dysfunction. Actions to Counter: Establish clear, structured conflict resolution processes. Practice direct yet respectful conflict conversations. Use neutral facilitation for emotionally charged discussions. Systems Thinking vs. Reactive Planning Startups prize agility and adaptability. But too much short-term thinking neglects the processes and structures that sustain collaboration. Without clear systems, teams fall into chaos. Implications: Reactive planning leads to burnout, inefficiency, and frustration as team members constantly fight fires rather than building strategically. Actions to Counter: Balance short-term agility with consistent investment in systems and clear processes. Regularly revisit and improve structures as your company scales. Empower process-oriented thinkers in your organization to build effective systems. Workaholism and Burnout Culture Founders set the pace. But when founders turn workaholic, they unknowingly create an environment of exhaustion, anxiety, and diminished psychological safety. Exhausted teams are seldom collaborative. Implications: Productivity drops, innovation dries up, and talented employees start to leave. Actions to Counter: Actively model sustainable work-life balance. Publicly recognize and reward collaborative, balanced behaviors. Regularly monitor signs of burnout and intervene early. Ambiguity Isn’t Always Your Friend Founders typically tolerate ambiguity better than most. But your team needs clarity and direction. Too much ambiguity creates stress and undermines collaborative execution. Implications: Team paralysis, lack of initiative, and increased frustration. Actions to Counter: Clearly define roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Regularly ask your team what clarity they need to be effective. Balance your tolerance for ambiguity with your team’s genuine need for guidance. The Collaboration Paradox Founders face a paradox. The same traits that fuel their success—independence, assertiveness, rapid execution—also sabotage the collaborative environments crucial for scaling. Acknowledging this paradox is the first step. The second is intentionally adopting behaviors that might feel unnatural at first: fostering inclusive communication, delegating with trust, managing conflict constructively, investing in systems thinking, and balancing your independent streak with genuine empathy.  The good news? These skills are learnable. Great founders don’t have to become entirely different people; they simply need to expand their toolkit. Start today by picking just one area and committing to small, consistent improvements. Your team and your startup—will thank you.
The Recognition Paradox: Why Truly Outstanding Leaders Thrive by Indifference to Personal Glory

The Recognition Paradox: Why Truly Outstanding Leaders Thrive by Indifference to Personal Glory

By Rich Hagberg • July 31, 2025
The Recognition Paradox: Why Truly Outstanding Leaders Thrive by Indifference to Personal Glory

The Founder's Trust Trap: Why Your Startup's Future Depends On It

By Rich Hagberg • July 22, 2025
Let's talk about the elephant in every startup room: trust. As a founder, you're a visionary, a risk-taker, a relentless force of nature. You've battled against impossible odds, fueled by ambition and a singular vision. These very traits, which propelled you from an idea to a burgeoning business, are often celebrated as the hallmarks of entrepreneurial genius. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: those same strengths, left unchecked, can become the insidious forces that destroy the very trust your startup desperately needs to survive and thrive. Research reveals a stark reality: trust isn't a "nice-to-have" soft skill; it's the indispensable capital that underpins every successful venture. It's the bedrock of high-performing teams, the fuel for innovation, and the hidden engine of organizational resilience. Ignore it at your peril, because the cost of low trust isn't just a dip in morale—it's a direct hit to your bottom line, your talent pipeline, and your legacy as a leader. Trust: The Unseen Currency of the Startup World In the chaotic, high-stakes environment of a startup, trust is amplified. It’s the "first step of genuine and effective leadership” , and without it, people simply won't follow you. This isn't just about warm feelings; it's about hard business metrics. Companies with high trust factors report a staggering 74% less stress, 13% fewer sick days, and 40% less burnout among employees. Employees in high-trust organizations are also 50% more likely to stay long-term , drastically cutting turnover costs and retaining invaluable institutional knowledge. When trust flourishes, collaboration ignites, leading to more innovative solutions and superior problem-solving. Google's own Project Aristotle, a deep dive into team effectiveness, concluded that high-performing teams are simply impossible without trust. This is the "Founder Effect" in action. Your behavior, whether positive or negative, is magnified due to your central, often singular, role in shaping early-stage culture and strategy. Unlike larger, established corporations, your startup's very DNA is a direct reflection of you. The Three Pillars: Your Trustworthiness Litmus Test Research consistently points to three fundamental pillars of trustworthiness: Ability, Integrity, and Benevolence . Here’s the critical, often misunderstood, part: trustworthiness is a product of these three, not a sum. A zero score in any one pillar results in zero trustworthiness overall . Let that sink in. You can be a brilliant strategist (high Ability), but if your team perceives you as dishonest (zero Integrity), your trust account is empty. You can be the most ethical person in the room (high Integrity), but if you consistently fail to deliver on promises (zero Ability), trust evaporates. And perhaps the most insidious blind spot for many founders: you can be competent and honest, but if you lack genuine care and kindness for your team (zero Benevolence), you will not be trusted. Authenticity is the bedrock upon which these pillars stand. It's about transparency regarding intentions, a willingness to admit mistakes, and an unwavering adherence to your core values. Without genuine authenticity, any attempt at building trust will be perceived as manipulative, leading to skepticism rather than genuine trust. The Startup Crucible: Why Founders Fall Into Traps The startup environment is a unique pressure cooker. High uncertainty, relentless pressure to scale, and limited resources create a volatile landscape. This constant flux demands rapid iteration and quick decision-making. But this urgency can lead to "hasty decisions" and "sub-optimal risk-taking behaviors". This is where "Founder's Syndrome" (or "founderitis") often takes root. It's a pathological pattern where your initial strengths, vital for launching, transform into weaknesses that hinder growth. It's an "autoimmune disease" that ultimately undermines the very organization you worked so hard to build. The journey is often lonely, exacerbating stress and leading to mental health struggles that are 50% more common for founders than the general population. This pervasive stress "clouds judgment" and "hampers long-term planning," directly eroding trust. When you neglect your own mental health, you inadvertently "undermine the importance of the mental health of the people you are leading". The Trust Builders: Founders Who Get It Right Despite the inherent challenges, many founders successfully cultivate deep trust. They understand that it's a deliberate, multi-faceted process rooted in specific leadership qualities and behaviors. 1. Demonstrating Ability and Adaptability: Founders build trust by consistently delivering on promises and demonstrating competence. This means being agile and willing to pivot when necessary, learning from mistakes, and adapting to market shifts. Positive Example: Daniel Dines of UiPath. UiPath, now a $10 billion company, wasn't an overnight success. Founder Daniel Dines navigated multiple major pivots, from an outsourcing company to a consumer products foray that "didn't work," before finally productizing their services into what became UiPath. His willingness to learn from "early missteps and failed attempts" and adapt the business model demonstrated his ability and built trust through resilience and consistent effort. This adaptability reinforces the "Ability" pillar, showing stakeholders that the founder can steer the ship through turbulent waters. 2. Upholding Unwavering Integrity: Integrity is non-negotiable. Founders who "walk the talk"—consistently upholding values, maintaining honesty, and ensuring fairness—build profound trust. Positive Example: A Transparent Tech Startup. One tech startup embraced transparency from day one, openly sharing both successes and challenges with all team members. This commitment fostered a culture of trust, attracting and retaining top talent who valued an environment where their voices were heard and contributions recognized. This transparency, rooted in integrity, empowered employees to propose bold solutions and challenge the status quo, driving sustainable growth. Investors also explicitly expect founders to adhere to both the "letter and the spirit of the law" and to behave ethically. 3. Cultivating Benevolence and Psychological Safety: Trust is deeply relational. Founders who show genuine concern for their team's well-being, demonstrating empathy, respect, and kindness, foster psychological safety. Positive Example: Airbnb's Foundational Trust. When Airbnb launched, convincing strangers to rent out their homes was a massive trust hurdle. Founders Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia tackled this head-on by prioritizing trust and safety. They implemented rigorous verification processes, secure payment systems, and user reviews. These measures, born from a deep understanding of user concerns and a commitment to their well-being, were crucial in building a safe and reliable platform, fostering a vibrant community, and ultimately disrupting the hospitality industry. This commitment to user and host well-being exemplifies benevolence. The Trust Destroyers: Traps Even the Best Fall Into Even with good intentions, founders can inadvertently erode trust. These behaviors, often amplified by startup pressures, can be catastrophic. 1. Lack of Transparency and Inconsistent Communication: When your actions don't align with your words, credibility fades. Information silos and inconsistent messaging breed distrust. Negative Example: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's Data Scandals. Mark Zuckerberg, despite his vision, faced significant trust erosion at Facebook due to a perceived lack of transparency and inconsistent communication regarding user data. Revelations about Cambridge Analytica exposing personal data of 87 million users, followed by admissions of hackers accessing 50 million users' information, and investigations revealing data sharing with major companies like Netflix and Amazon, shattered public and investor trust. This "say-do gap" between stated privacy commitments and actual practices profoundly undermined integrity and transparency. 2. Compromised Integrity and Unethical Conduct: This is the most catastrophic trust destroyer. Unchecked ambition and intense pressure can lead founders to believe "the rules don't apply to them". Negative Example: Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and Trevor Milton (Nikola). Elizabeth Holmes's ambition to revolutionize healthcare at Theranos morphed into manipulation and deceit, fabricating capabilities her technology couldn't deliver. This led to investors, employees, and patients suffering the consequences. Similarly, Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola, succumbed to pressure to deliver on promises, leading him to "embellish—no, outright fabricate—the capabilities of Nikola's technology." When the truth emerged, his reputation crumbled, and investors lost millions. These cases vividly illustrate how a fundamental compromise of integrity, driven by ambition and pressure, leads to "shattered credibility" and "burnt bridges". Misleading investors about revenue isn't just unethical; it can be criminal securities fraud with severe legal implications. 3. Absence of Benevolence and Empathy: Neglecting the human element—empathy, respect, and genuine care—is profoundly destructive. Negative Example: Travis Kalanick at Uber. Travis Kalanick, Uber's co-founder, was ultimately forced to resign by an investor revolt due to his "brash and at times inappropriate behavior" that "repeatedly raised eyebrows" and was blamed for creating a "toxic culture". This lack of benevolence, characterized by disrespect and a disregard for employee well-being, directly eroded trust and led to significant talent drain. Publicly humiliating team members, disengaging emotionally, or adopting a "one-size-fits-all" leadership approach with diverse teams all signal a profound lack of care. 4. Micromanagement and Control-Freak Tendencies: This signals a fundamental lack of trust in employees and creates a vicious cycle of distrust. Negative Example: The Bottleneck Founder. Founders who feel the need to oversee every decision create significant bottlenecks, disempowering employees and stifling creativity. Talented team members often leave because they don't feel trusted or valued. Micromanagement explicitly communicates, "I no longer think you are the right person to do this job". This toxic behavior destroys morale, causes employees to delay decisions, and withholds valuable insights. It's a direct attack on the "Ability" pillar of trust, implying incompetence and leading to lower performance, decreased morale, and higher turnover. 5. Impulsivity and Resistance to Adaptation: Constantly shifting priorities or clinging rigidly to outdated methods undermines trust in your ability to lead effectively. Negative Example: The "Analysis Paralysis" Founder. Some founders, despite the need for agility, are "incredibly rigid," preferring "familiar methods" and struggling to let go of past successes. They may suffer from "analysis paralysis" when faced with incomplete information, a common occurrence in startups. This rigidity can manifest as dictatorial behavior and a struggle to accept alternative viewpoints. This stifles innovation, as employees hesitate to propose new ideas if they believe the founder won't be receptive. The Path Forward: Rebuilding and Sustaining Your Trust Capital The good news is that trust, even when broken, can be rebuilt. It requires deliberate, sustained effort and a profound commitment to self-awareness. Lead by Exemplification: Your actions must consistently align with your words. Admit missteps openly and share the steps you're taking to rectify them. This consistent "say-do" message builds profound credibility. Prioritize Open and Consistent Communication: Establish platforms for transparent dialogue, like town hall meetings and regular updates. Actively seek input, schedule regular check-ins, and create safe spaces for genuine dialogue. Cultivate Self-Awareness and Mental Well-being: Address your own fears and psychological traps. Prioritize your mental health, as it directly impacts your judgment, empathy, and ability to lead effectively. Foster Psychological Safety: Normalize failure as part of growth, encourage open dialogue, and reward calculated risks . This creates an environment where employees feel secure enough to challenge the status quo, admit mistakes, and contribute new ideas. Empower and Delegate: Move beyond micromanagement. Clearly define ownership, empower teams to make decisions, and model trust by delegating effectively . Embrace Adaptability and Humility: Be willing to pivot and learn from mistakes. When you demonstrate the humility to adjust strategy, it reinforces trust in your leadership and judgment. The Ultimate Competitive Advantage Trust is not merely a desirable attribute; it is the fundamental bedrock of high-performing, resilient organizations. Unequivocally demonstrates that founders who prioritize and actively cultivate trust unlock unparalleled levels of employee engagement, productivity, innovation, and overall organizational success. Your journey as a founder is fraught with challenges, but the most formidable ones often come from within. By consistently embodying competence, upholding ethics, and demonstrating genuine care, while actively mitigating the psychological traps and pressures inherent in the entrepreneurial journey, you can build and sustain the high-trust environments essential for navigating today's complex business landscape and achieving long-term, sustainable growth.  Trust, in essence, is your ultimate competitive advantage. Are you ready to wield it?
ALL ARTICLES