Kanter's Reasons People Resist Change
Kanter's reasons people resist change are ten common sources of resistance described by Rosabeth Moss Kanter in a 2012 Harvard Business Review article, each paired with a response for leaders. The list includes loss of control, excess uncertainty, surprise, loss of face and concerns about competence, and ends with the reminder that sometimes the threat is real.
Quick facts
- Type
- Practitioner checklist of causes of resistance, with responses
- Origin
- Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "Ten Reasons People Resist Change", Harvard Business Review online, September 2012
- Elements
- Loss of control · Excess uncertainty · Surprise · Everything seems different · Loss of face · Concerns about competence · More work · Ripple effects · Past resentments · Sometimes the threat is real
- Used when
- Anticipating resistance during impact assessment and planning responses for each group
- Related models
- Resistance to change, Kotter and Schlesinger's approaches, the change formula
- Exam relevance
- APMG CM Foundation, The Work of the Change Manager (WM0203)
Where does Kanter's list of reasons come from?
Rosabeth Moss Kanter is a professor at Harvard Business School who has written about innovation and organizational change since the 1970s, including The Change Masters (1983). In September 2012 she published a short Harvard Business Review article listing ten reasons people resist change, each with a suggested response.
Her starting point is that resistance is predictable. Leaders who understand the usual sources can plan around them instead of being surprised by them. The article distills her experience and observation; it is not the report of a controlled study.
Kanter's reasons people resist change are therefore a practitioner's checklist, built for planning conversations rather than measurement.
What are Kanter's ten reasons people resist change?
The table summarizes each reason and its response in our own words.
| # | Reason | What people experience | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loss of control | Change is done to them, not with them | Involve people and leave room for choices |
| 2 | Excess uncertainty | They cannot see the next step | Give certainty of process: clear steps and a timetable |
| 3 | Surprise | Decisions are sprung without warning | Inform early and give time to adjust |
| 4 | Everything seems different | Too many familiar routines change at once | Keep familiar what can stay; avoid change for its own sake |
| 5 | Loss of face | The change implies the old way, and its authors, were wrong | Honor what was good about the past |
| 6 | Concerns about competence | Fear of not coping and looking inadequate | Training, coaching, mentoring and time to practice |
| 7 | More work | The change adds effort on top of the day job | Acknowledge the effort, reward it and add resources |
| 8 | Ripple effects | The change disrupts other teams and plans | Look beyond the target group and stay flexible |
| 9 | Past resentments | Old grievances resurface | Address the history before asking for cooperation |
| 10 | Sometimes the threat is real | The change does harm some people | Be honest, transparent, fair and fast |
Kanter's reasons people resist change therefore pair each cause with a specific action, so the response fits the cause.
Why does Kanter recommend certainty of process when outcomes are uncertain?
Early in a change, leaders often do not know the final answer: which roles will change, which site will close, which system will be chosen. Kanter's point is that people can tolerate an uncertain outcome if the process is certain. They need to know the steps, when decisions will be made, who makes them and when they will hear.
Two tempting alternatives backfire. Waiting until every detail is settled, or keeping the change confidential, lets rumors fill the gap and later triggers another reason on the list, surprise. False reassurance, such as "nothing will change for you", damages trust when the truth emerges.
Certainty of process is therefore Kanter's answer to excess uncertainty: a clear timetable even when the destination is still open.
How do you use Kanter's list in practice?
At Larchfield Logistics, a new rostering system is announced on Monday and goes live on Friday, with no consultation. Pushback is immediate. Read against Kanter's list, the plan triggers several reasons at once: surprise (no warning), loss of control (no say in how shifts are allocated) and more work (double entry during the first weeks).
A better plan uses the list before go-live:
- During impact assessment, walk through the ten reasons for each affected group and note which apply.
- Plan a response for each likely reason: early notice, a shift-preference option, extra supervisors in week one.
- Assign each response an owner, often the line manager.
- Revisit the list after go-live, when new reasons appear, such as ripple effects on other depots.
Used early, Kanter's reasons people resist change turn a list of complaints into a planned set of responses.
What are the limitations of Kanter's list?
The list is a strength because it is concrete and easy to share with line managers. It also has limits.
- Practitioner source. It comes from experience, not from a tested model, and the ten reasons overlap: surprise feeds uncertainty, and competence worries feed loss of face.
- A leader's viewpoint. The responses describe what leaders do to reduce resistance. Jeffrey Ford, Laurie Ford and Angelo D'Amelio argued that resistance can also be a useful signal; the tenth reason only partly covers this.
- Not exhaustive. Personal disposition, as studied by Shaul Oreg, and plain disagreement with the change on its merits are not separate items.
Kanter's list is therefore best used to prompt a diagnosis, not to replace one.
Kanter's reasons vs. Oreg's dispositional resistance: what is the difference?
| Kanter's reasons | Oreg's dispositional resistance | |
|---|---|---|
| Author and year | Rosabeth Moss Kanter, 2012 | Shaul Oreg, 2003 |
| What it explains | Why people resist a particular change and how leaders can respond | How inclined a person generally is to resist change |
| Elements | Ten situational reasons, each with a response | Four dimensions: routine seeking, emotional reaction, short-term focus, cognitive rigidity |
| Source type | Practitioner article | Validated research scale |
| Main use | Planning responses during a change | Research into individual differences |
Kanter's reasons describe the situation a change creates; Oreg's dimensions describe a person's general tendency, and both can be at work at once.
Exam focus
At Foundation level (WM0203) expect to recognize Kanter's reasons in a list and to match a reason to its response: certainty of process for excess uncertainty, honoring the past for loss of face, training for concerns about competence, choice for loss of control. A common trap slips in items from other models, such as Kotter's guiding coalition or the change formula's dissatisfaction, or pairs a reason with another reason's response.
Practise this syllabus area →FAQ
What are the 10 reasons people resist change according to Kanter?
Kanter lists loss of control, excess uncertainty, surprise, everything seeming different, loss of face, concerns about competence, more work, ripple effects, past resentments, and the reminder that sometimes the threat is real. Each comes with a suggested response for leaders.
How should leaders respond to loss of face?
Loss of face arises when a change implies that the old way, and the people who built it, were wrong. Kanter suggests honoring what was good about the past, so people can move on without feeling they must admit they failed.
What does Kanter mean by certainty of process?
When the outcome of a change is still unknown, leaders can still make the process clear: the steps, the timetable, who decides and when people will hear. Kanter recommends this as the response to excess uncertainty, instead of silence or false reassurance.
Is Kanter's list based on research?
Kanter's list comes from a 2012 Harvard Business Review article that draws on her long experience studying organizations. It is a practitioner synthesis rather than the result of a controlled study, so use it as a planning checklist, alongside research such as Oreg's work on dispositional resistance.
What is the difference between Kanter's reasons and Kotter and Schlesinger's approach?
Kanter lists ten reasons for resistance and a response to each. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) grouped causes of resistance more broadly and described six approaches for dealing with it, from education and participation to negotiation and coercion, chosen to fit the situation.
Sources
- Kanter, R. M. (2012). Ten reasons people resist change. Harvard Business Review (online), 25 September 2012.
- Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W. & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362–377.
- Kotter, J. P. & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106–114. Reprinted July–August 2008.
- APMG International — Change Management certification (syllabus topic WM0203)
- Last reviewed