Change with people, not to them: Why transformations fail without human buy-in
In most organizational transformations, resistance is treated as an obstacle to be managed. According to Ahmad Alanazi, Lead of Change Management at Elm, experiences from the region point to a different reality: resistance is rarely opposition to change itself, but rather a response to how change is being implemented.
Across change programmes in government entities, semi-public organizations, and large private sector institutions, one phrase appears again and again: “We’re dealing with resistance.” It is often used as a diagnosis, sometimes as a frustration, and occasionally as an accusation. In most cases, however, it is the wrong way to frame the issue.
That is because resistance is rarely the real problem; it is usually a signal.
More often than not, what looks like resistance points to something deeper: people are not resisting change, they are being processed by it. Resistance emerges when change is done to people, rather than with them. Resistance is not a barrier to transformation; it is evidence that the human experience of change has been overlooked.
The case for change management
The importance of change management to the success of transformation programmes cannot be underestimated. Dozens of studies have confirmed the correlation between the two, including research from Prosci, which found that organisations with “excellent” change management capabilities achieve a project success rate of 88%, compared with just 13% among peers with “poor” change management capabilities.
The field of change management is broad and multifaceted, and there is no single, one-size-fits-all approach that defines either the discipline or a winning model. Central, however, is the idea that change must not only be communicated, but also co-owned across the organisation. This is critical—because treating people as partners in shaping what comes next is what builds engagement, commitment, and genuine adoption.
The regional context matters
In the Gulf context, the dynamics of resistance can be even more complex. Many institutional cultures are shaped by respect for hierarchy, indirect communication, and strong workplace relationships.
When change is driven from the top without meaningful engagement at middle and frontline levels, what is often labelled as “resistance” is something else entirely: a quiet withdrawal of discretionary effort, a return to familiar workarounds, or visible compliance without genuine conviction.
This pattern – surface-level adoption – is one of the most dangerous outcomes in any transformation. KPIs may appear green and dashboards may look healthy, yet the fundamentals of change – behaviours, habits, and decision-making – remain largely unchanged.
An example from the field
In our work at Elm, we have seen these change management challenges play out in practice. In one large public sector finance transformation we supported – shifting organizations toward accrual-based accounting – the technical transition was clear. But adoption ultimately depended on whether people felt included.
The programme spanned approximately 300 entities. We helped design and deliver multiple change workstreams, build and operate an “Accrual Ambassadors” platform, run more than 50 workshops, and enable over 390 ambassadors and deputies across participating organizations.
The most consistent lesson? Where local finance teams had a respected voice and practical support, adoption accelerated. Where change was treated as a compliance exercise, we saw surface-level adoption – processes followed under supervision, followed by a return to familiar workarounds once oversight eased.
The difference was not more communication. It was co-ownership, clarity on what would – and would not – change for individuals, and a trusted network capable of translating the transformation into day-to-day realities.
Warning signs
Practitioners overseeing change transitions should closely monitor early warning signs of surface-level adoption. These include:
- People follow the new process only when they are being monitored
- Middle managers support the change publicly but express doubt privately
- Participation rates are high, but initiative and ownership are missing
In these cases, the solution is not more emails, more slides, or more training. These are often used as substitutes for real engagement. The real solution revolves around meaning. People need to understand not just what is changing, but why it matters, what it asks of them personally, and what they will not lose in the process.
Why resistance happens
Identifying the true source of resistance is one of the most challenging aspects of change management. In Kotter’s “Heart of Change,” the premise is that people do not resist change out of irrationality. Rather, poorly managed change can trigger perceived threats to status, certainty, autonomy, or relationships.
When those concerns are acknowledged and addressed, resistance often diminishes. When they are ignored, no amount of governance, structure, or reporting can compensate.
Closing view
For leaders driving transformation and change practitioners in the Middle East, the lesson is clear: change is ultimately a human experience. The real challenge lies in navigating the transition with people, not around them.
So before investing further in frameworks, tools, or communication cascades, leaders should ask a simple but critical question: have the people most affected by this change truly been heard – not merely informed, and not consulted as a formality, but genuinely heard?
Organizations that embrace this mindset develop a deeper understanding that resistance is rarely opposition to change itself. More often, it is a signal that the human experience of change has not yet been acknowledged. At the same time, they recognize that effective change management is a core leadership responsibility.
