When someone responds badly to a change, it is tempting to ask what is going on with them. Are they uncomfortable with uncertainty? Attached to the old way of working? Unwilling to adapt?

Those questions are relevant, but they leave out much of the situation. The same person might welcome one change and struggle with another. How they respond also depends on what has happened in the organisation before, what is actually changing, how the change is being handled, and what they think they stand to gain or lose.

Oreg and Sverdlik’s review* brings research on these influences together under five headings. I find them useful when “resistance” seems to explain a response too hastily.

The person

People differ in how comfortable they are with uncertainty, how confident they feel about adapting, and what resources they have available. Some of us have a greater appetite for risk and uncertainty: a new challenge brings excitement. For others, change may bring apprehension and questions about their ability to manage it. Confidence does not equal competence, and vice versa. These differences can affect how we respond to change. But if someone generally prefers stability and tends to be cautious, that does not mean their concerns about a particular change are misplaced. Nor does enthusiasm mean that someone already has the knowledge and abilities required, or will be motivated to acquire them.

The context

What was already happening before the change was announced? We all have a history with our leaders, managers and organisation. We know whether earlier promises were kept, whether concerns were taken seriously, and what happened the last time our work was reorganised. Job security, workload, other changes under way and the wider culture are all part of the setting in which a new change arrives.

For example, a manager may invite questions in good faith, yet people whose questions were dismissed during the last restructuring may still hold back. This kind of response makes more sense when we look at the history behind it.

The wider cultural setting matters too. The review considers national culture, including attitudes towards uncertainty and expectations about relationships between managers and employees. The authors suggest that an invitation to contribute may be received differently where questioning a manager is less accepted. Research on these differences is still limited, so this is something to consider rather than a basis for assuming how someone will respond.

The process

This is about how the change is introduced and carried out. What information are people given, and when? Which decisions can they influence? Are the reasons for decisions explained? Do they have the time and support to work differently?

The process can affect how people respond even when they agree with the decision itself. It also needs to fit the context. Asking people to participate, for instance, is unlikely to mean much if the decision has already been made and their input cannot affect its implementation.

The content

A new reporting system, a merger, a change of strategy and the loss of a role make different demands on people. It matters how much of their work will change, how unfamiliar the new situation is, how uncertain the outcome remains, and whether they had any choice in it.

Sometimes the change is difficult or costly for those affected. No amount of careful communication will make a loss of responsibility, income or colleagues inconsequential. The review notes that research has paid relatively little attention to the nature of the change itself. There is also no single agreed set of features that captures every change.

Perceived benefit or harm

What’s in it for me? The answer may involve autonomy, expertise, status, relationships, job security or future opportunities. People may see potential gains and losses at the same time.

Consider an AI tool introduced to take repetitive work off a team’s hands. One person is enthusiastic because they expect more time for the work they value, while another fears that the expertise they have built around those tasks may no longer matter. Both may understand why the organisation wants the tool, but its intended benefit and what each expects for their own work are different questions.

Time matters too

How much notice people have, how quickly the change unfolds and how frequently changes arrive can also shape their experience. It matters when we are looking at a response: what someone thinks, feels and does when a change is announced may differ from their response once it affects their everyday work. The review finds no consistent pattern of responses becoming more positive over time. We cannot assume that people will come round simply because time has passed.

Using the five areas

When we want a more nuanced and wider understanding of the change at hand, we could use these headings as a check:

• Person: What confidence, expectations and resources is this person bringing?

• Context: What history, relationships, workload and cultural expectations surround this change?

• Process: How are decisions, communication, participation and support being handled?

• Content: What, specifically, is changing, and how difficult, disruptive or uncertain is it?

• Perceived benefit or harm: What does the person expect to gain, lose or have put at risk?

For leaders, these questions may show that the way a change is being handled has missed some important points. They may also reveal aspects that people are right to be concerned about. For someone going through the change, they can help identify what is troubling them and what, if anything, they can control or influence.

The five areas do not predict how anyone will respond to change. They help us ask a better question: what, exactly, is this person responding to?

*Oreg, S., & Sverdlik, N. (2026). “Responses to Organizational Change: Evolution of the Concept, Established Findings, and Future Directions.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 13, 387–413.