Predicting Resistance to Change

A law to describe organisational behaviour is only as good as the predictions that it allows you to make. Observations that only allow understanding the obvious, are not helpful.

Follett's Law: “Any truth so painfully obvious it need not be said ... will be said."

And so, chapter 9 discusses how organisations are likely to behave. So, given that organizational structure and power are upstream from culture and strategy, what are the ways and behaviours in which organisations wills resist change?

Let's dive in ...

Resistance to change is a common and significant barrier in organizational transformation efforts. The challenge lies not only in implementing new processes or technologies but also in addressing the underlying power dynamics that create resistance, particularly in organizations with rigid, hierarchical structures. Drawing from Kane’s Law, we can predict where and why resistance is likely to emerge based on an organization’s structure and power distribution (Kane, 2015).

In this chapter, we will explore how Kane’s Law—which posits that organizational structure dictates power dynamics and decision- making authority—can be used to predict resistance to change. We will also examine the role of middle management in blocking transformation efforts and discuss strategies for overcoming resistance through structural realignment.

Using Kane’s Law to Predict Resistance to Change

Kane’s Law states that an organization’s structure determines its distribution of power, and therefore, how decisions are made and who makes them. The more rigid the structure, the more concentrated the power is at the top, leaving lower levels of the organization with limited authority to drive meaningful change (Kane, 2015).

When a transformation initiative—such as implementing Agile methodologies or digital transformation—is introduced, those in positions of power within a rigid hierarchy are often the most resistant. This resistance stems from the threat that change poses to their authority. By understanding the organization’s structure, we can predict where resistance is likely to emerge (Kotter, 1996).

Predicting Resistance in Rigid, Hierarchical Structures

In organizations with rigid, hierarchical structures, power flows top-down, and decision-making processes are often bureaucratic. These organizations are optimized for stability rather than adaptability, and any initiative that seeks to redistribute power or decision-making authority is likely to face strong resistance, particularly from middle management (Mintzberg, 1979).

Hierarchical structures are built around centralized control, and decision-makers at the top often have a vested interest in maintaining that control. In this context, change initiatives are perceived as disruptive to the status quo (Galbraith, 2014).

Middle managers—who act as intermediaries between upper management and frontline employees—are particularly vulnerable to these changes, as their roles are often defined by enforcing the existing structure. As change initiatives threaten their authority, middle managers are likely to resist in both overt and subtle ways (Kotter, 1996).

Signs of Resistance to Watch For

Resistance in rigid structures manifests in several predictable ways. Middle managers may create bureaucratic delays or require additional approvals to slow down the implementation of new processes. Teams impacted by change may exhibit a lack of enthusiasm, even when outwardly complying with the new initiative. Initiatives like Agile may be adopted in name only, with teams continuing to operate under the old structure behind the scenes, thus blocking true transformation. Additionally, those resistant to change may magnify small challenges or problems to create doubt about the efficacy of the initiative (Kane, 2015).

These behaviors reflect the deeper truth of Kane’s Law: without structural changes that redistribute power, those who currently hold power will actively work to protect it (Kane, 2015).

Middle Management Resistance: A Key Barrier

Middle management often becomes the primary source of resistance in transformation efforts, and this is not surprising when viewed through the lens of power dynamics. In many organizations, middle managers serve as the enforcers of the hierarchy, ensuring that decisions made at the top are carried out by lower levels of the organization. Their authority is derived from their role as gatekeepers, controlling information flow, approvals, and resources (Kotter, 1996).

Why Middle Management Resists

Middle management resistance often stems from a perceived loss of authority, fear of redundancy, or a cultural mismatch. When decision-making is decentralized, as in Agile or Lean environments, middle managers feel their roles are being diminished, leading to fear and resistance. Structural changes can make middle management roles feel redundant, as teams are empowered to make their own decisions. Additionally, middle managers in hierarchical organizations are often culturally aligned with top-down control, making a shift to a decentralized or collaborative model challenging (Kane, 2015).

How Resistance Manifests

Middle managers may not always vocalize their opposition, but their resistance can manifest in subtle ways. They may control access to senior leadership or delay approvals to slow down the pace of change. Resistance can also take the form of sabotage, where managers follow the letter but not the spirit of the new initiative. For example, they may conduct Scrum meetings without embracing Agile principles, making it appear that the team is compliant when little has actually changed. Middle managers may also build informal alliances with others who feel similarly threatened, creating pockets of resistance within the organization (Kotter, 1996).

Next week I'll be looking at how these ideas around structure and power can help predict innovation potential.