Why People Resist Change at Work: The Neuroscience of What Keeps Us Stuck
- Shenandoah Chefalo
- Sep 17, 2024
- 4 min read
Updated: Jan 29
At Chefalo Consulting, we dedicate our lives to trauma-informed systems change. One of the most important leadership skills is understanding why people resist change, even when the change is good, necessary, or overdue. The first step to overcoming a barrier is understanding it.
Change is a fundamental part of life, yet many of us struggle with it deeply. Whether it is a shift in workplace priorities, a new leader, a policy update, or a new way of working together, change can trigger resistance, anxiety, and fear. In trauma-informed approaches, understanding this resistance is essential because resistance is often not a character flaw. It is a nervous-system response.
At the core of this understanding is NEAR Sciences, a foundational pillar of trauma-informed work.
What Are NEAR Sciences?
NEAR Sciences stands for Neuroscience, Epigenetics, Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), and Resilience. These interconnected fields help us understand how stress and trauma impact the brain and body, and how resilience can be strengthened through supportive environments and consistent practices.
When we ground change work in NEAR Sciences, we stop treating resistance as “noncompliance” and start seeing it as information: a signal that the system may feel unsafe, unpredictable, or out of control for the people inside it.
If you like this, you might also like ACEs: Everything You Need to Know About Adverse Childhood Experiences.
Why the brain resists change
From an evolutionary standpoint, the brain is wired for survival. One of the ways it protects us is by preferring stability and predictability over uncertainty.
The brain is comfortable with familiarity
The brain is designed to recognize patterns and build routines. Familiarity reduces cognitive load. It helps us conserve energy and predict what comes next. When we stay inside what is known, we often feel more regulated, even if what is known is not ideal.
When faced with change, the brain may interpret uncertainty as risk. That perceived risk can increase stress and reduce the capacity for flexible thinking.
The fear of the unknown activates “trauma brain”
Change often involves unknowns: new expectations, new relationships, new measurements, and new consequences. When the unknowns pile up, the brain can shift into threat scanning. Decision-making becomes more difficult, and people may experience shutdown, avoidance, irritability, or conflict.
For individuals with a history of trauma, this sensitivity can be even stronger. A change that feels minor to one person can feel destabilizing or unsafe to another.
Change can feel like a threat to safety and identity
The brain’s primary job is to keep us safe. If the brain believes danger is present, it prioritizes survival over learning, collaboration, and innovation. That is why change initiatives can trigger fight, flight, freeze, or appease responses, especially when the change is sudden, unclear, or enforced through shame.
What makes workplace change feel “toxic”?
Workplace change is often experienced as harmful when people feel consistently unsafe, unseen, or powerless. During change, that can show up as:
unclear expectations and shifting priorities
inconsistent accountability
communication that relies on fear, shame, or blame
a lack of voice in decisions that affect daily work
change is happening fast with little support, training, or repair
The goal is not to label people or organizations as toxic. The goal is to identify the patterns that keep the system stuck and shift them.
How to Navigate Change with Compassion and Resilience
Given the brain’s natural resistance to change, leaders can increase success by reducing threat and increasing clarity, agency, and support.
Create safety for change
Safety is not a feeling you demand. It is a condition you design. Trauma-informed change uses clear communication, consistent expectations, and opportunities for people to voice concerns. When leaders listen and respond, trust grows, and reactivity decreases.
Build resilience through gradual, structured change
Rather than forcing large changes all at once, break change into smaller steps. This gives the brain time to adapt and reduces the sense of threat. It also increases the likelihood that people will practice the new behaviors long enough for them to become familiar.
Increase agency and ownership
People are more likely to engage with change when they have voice and choice. Involving people in planning, seeking input, and respecting lived experience builds buy-in and reduces resistance.
Reframe change as growth with a clear “why”
Reframing change as growth works best when the “why” is clear and the path is specific. Leaders can reduce fear by answering three questions consistently:
Why are we changing?
What will be different day to day?
What support will be provided and how will we measure progress?
What to do this week (simple starting plan)
If you are leading change now, start here:
Identify the top two fears people are carrying (loss of control, fear of punishment, fear of failure, fear of extra workload).
Name what is changing and what is staying stable.
Offer one concrete choice or input point this week.
Add one repair practice (how concerns will be handled, how feedback will be heard, and how mistakes will be addressed).
Final thoughts: sustainable change is nervous-system aware
Understanding brain-based barriers to change is essential for trauma-informed leadership. When leaders treat resistance as information, they can reduce threat, increase clarity, and build sustainable momentum.
In trauma-informed approaches, the goal is not to force change. The goal is to facilitate change in a way that is safe, supportive, and empowering. With gradual steps, consistent communication, and real opportunities for ownership, organizations can shift from fear-based compliance to genuine engagement.
To learn more about the neuroscience of trauma-informed change, make sure you check out "Trauma Brain Explained: The Neuroscience of Trauma."
Comments