Did you know that 70% of change programs fail to achieve their goals? This high failure-rate is due to a wide variety of factors, with the most commonly cited reasons being employee resistance and lack of management support.  

A 70% failure rate is sobering. 

Everyone has good intentions: leaders want to enact change for the good of the company, and employees want the company to succeed. And yet, the rate of failure remains high. 

So let’s get to the core questions: why is “resistance” so common, and why is leadership support often perceived as lacking, even when leaders feel they are doing everything they can? 

In its research, Gartner found that 74% of leaders say they involve employees in creating change strategy, but only 42% of employees feel they were truly included.  

That gap offers a crucial clue, because “resistance” is rarely rebellion. It’s a rational response to what people are experiencing on the ground. 

Resistance is Often Rational 

When leaders label resistance as attitude, they miss what’s really happening. 

In most organizations, resistance shows up as hesitation, delay, and quiet skepticism. Not because people are anti-change, but because the environment feels unstable or unclear. 

A few examples of “resistance” that aren’t rebellion: 

• People slow down because decisions keep reopening. They don’t want to build on a foundation that keeps shifting.  
• Managers hedge because they don’t trust priorities will hold. They have learned that today’s direction might change next week.  
• Teams wait because ownership is unclear. They are trying not to step into risk without clear authority.  

From the inside, this can look like apathy. In reality, it’s often self-protection. 

Why Leaders Think They Included Employees, but Employees Disagree 

Many leaders genuinely believe they involved employees because they: 

• Shared the vision  
• Ran a town hall  
• Asked for feedback  
• Sent a survey  

But in their research, Gartner makes a sharp distinction: solicitation is not co-creation. 
 

Employees often experience “involvement” as being asked for input after the key decisions are already made, when the direction is mostly locked. 

So leaders feel collaborative, but employees feel consulted after the fact. 

And when people don’t feel included, the change starts to feel like something happening to them, not something being built with them. 

That is where trust erodes, and where resistance grows.  

Inclusion Does Not Mean a Free-For-All 

A common concern at the executive level is that employee involvement will create opinion overload and slow decisions down.
 

That concern is rational. But inclusion doesn’t have to mean everyone gets a vote on everything. Instead, challenge yourself to include the people most relevant to the decision, with different opportunities for involvement depending on what’s needed. 

Think of it like this: 

• Informing: Here’s what is changing. Here’s what is not.  
• Consulting: Here’s what we’re deciding. What are we missing?  
• Co-creating: Help shape the approach, the rollout, and the guardrails, especially for the work that will change day to day.  

Done well, this increases adoption and reduces rework. 

Listening That Changes Something