Strategic Business Leader · Managing strategic change

Resistance to Change and Stakeholder Management in SBL

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Resistance to change is people's opposition to a proposed change, caused by fear, self-interest, misunderstanding or disagreement. You manage it by analysing stakeholders with Mendelow's matrix, then choosing approaches such as education, participation, facilitation, negotiation, manipulation or coercion (Kotter and Schlesinger), matched to the scenario.

Understand Resistance to Change and Stakeholder Management

Change fails more often because of people than because of the plan. Resistance is a normal reaction. It is not always bad. It can expose real flaws in your proposal, so treat it as information first.

Resistance comes from two levels. Individuals resist because of fear of the unknown, loss of status, job or pay, habit, low trust in management, or a belief that the change is wrong. Groups and organisations resist because of entrenched culture, threats to power bases, sunk investment in current systems, structural inertia, and union or professional norms.

Kotter and Schlesinger name four common causes: parochial self-interest, misunderstanding and lack of trust, different assessments of the situation, and low tolerance for change. They then give six approaches: education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, and explicit and implicit coercion. The first ones are slower but build commitment. The last ones are fast but damage trust and can raise ethical issues.

Stakeholder management tells you who to spend effort on. Mendelow's matrix plots stakeholders by power (ability to influence the change) and interest (willingness to use that power). High power and high interest are key players: involve them in decisions. High power and low interest are keep satisfied. Low power and high interest are keep informed. Low power and low interest need minimal effort.

In the exam, link the two. Identify who resists and why, place them on the matrix, then pick an approach that fits their position, the urgency and the culture. Always justify the choice.

Key rules to remember

Kotter and Schlesinger: causes of resistance: Parochial self-interest | Misunderstanding and lack of trust | Different assessments | Low tolerance for change; Use these to diagnose why a named group resists before choosing a remedy.
Kotter and Schlesinger: six approaches: Education and communication | Participation and involvement | Facilitation and support | Negotiation and agreement | Manipulation and co-optation | Explicit and implicit coercion; Rough order from slow and low-resistance to fast and high-risk. Match to the situation.
Mendelow's matrix: High power + high interest = Key players | High power + low interest = Keep satisfied | Low power + high interest = Keep informed | Low power + low interest = Minimal effort; Power is the ability to influence. Interest is how much they care. Positions can move over time.

How to solve Resistance to Change and Stakeholder Management questions

Use this order for any question on resistance or stakeholders in a change scenario.

1Read the requirement and note the verb (identify, assess, recommend, advise) and who you are writing for.
2List the affected stakeholders from the scenario and state each one's likely attitude to the change.
3Explain why each group resists, using the scenario facts and Kotter and Schlesinger's causes.
4Place the key stakeholders on Mendelow's matrix, giving a reason for the power and interest level of each.
5Choose an approach for each group, such as education for the uninformed or negotiation for those who lose out, and explain why it fits.
6Consider the context: time available, size of change, culture, power of the resisters and the cost of delay.
7State the risks of your approach, for example slow progress from participation or lost trust from coercion.
8Close with a clear recommendation in the format asked, such as a report or memo, showing professional skills.

Quickest way: Who, why, where, how

When to use it: Use when time is short and you need a structured answer fast.

Who: jot down three or four named stakeholder groups from the scenario.
Why: write one cause of resistance next to each, using scenario facts.
Where: mark each as key player, keep satisfied, keep informed or minimal effort.
How: assign one Kotter and Schlesinger approach to each, with a one-line reason.
Add one risk and a final recommendation sentence.

Common mistakes in Resistance to Change and Stakeholder Management

Listing Kotter and Schlesinger's six approaches without applying them
Students memorise the list and write it out as theory.
Fix: Tie each approach to a named group in the scenario and explain why it suits them.
Treating all resistance as irrational
Students assume management is right.
Fix: Acknowledge that some resistance reflects valid concerns. Recommend listening and adjusting the plan where justified.
Placing stakeholders on Mendelow's matrix with no reasoning
Students think the label alone earns marks.
Fix: State why the group has high or low power and interest, using evidence from the case.
Recommending coercion or manipulation without discussing ethics
Students focus on speed.
Fix: Say when they might be a last resort, and note damage to trust, morale and ethical concerns.
Ignoring that stakeholder positions change
The matrix is drawn as a fixed picture.
Fix: Note that interest and power can shift, for example a union gaining power if redundancies are announced, and plan to review.
Giving one approach for everyone
Students want a simple answer.
Fix: Use a mix. Different groups need different approaches, and the answer should show that.

Worked examples

Example 1

A retail chain plans to replace its store-based inventory clerks with an automated system. Clerks fear redundancy, store managers say the system will fail in busy periods, and the board is fully supportive. Identify why the clerks and managers resist and recommend an approach for each.

Show the solution

Clerks: the cause is parochial self-interest, because they fear loss of jobs and status. There may also be low trust if the reasons were not explained.
Store managers: the cause is a different assessment of the situation. They believe the system is unsuitable for peak trading, and they have operational knowledge that may be valid.
For the clerks, use communication about job impact, then facilitation and support through retraining or redeployment. If some roles must go, use negotiation on terms such as severance.
For the managers, use participation: involve them in testing the system and setting peak-period requirements. This uses their knowledge and builds commitment.
Risks: participation takes time and may delay rollout. Negotiation adds cost. Ignoring the managers' concerns could cause a real operational failure.
Recommend a phased rollout with a pilot in a busy store, so evidence rather than opinion resolves the managers' concern.

Answer: Clerks resist from self-interest and fear, so use clear communication, retraining support and negotiation. Managers resist from a different assessment, so involve them through participation and a pilot. Accept some delay and cost in exchange for commitment.

Example 2

A university is merging two departments. Using Mendelow's matrix, classify these stakeholders and recommend how to manage each: the academic staff union (strong influence, very concerned), the local council (can block planning permission, little concern about the merger), current students (little influence, very concerned) and a regional newspaper (little influence, little concern).

Show the solution

Academic staff union: high power and high interest, so key player. Involve in decision-making and negotiate on job terms. Early involvement reduces the risk of strikes.
Local council: high power but low interest, so keep satisfied. Give brief, reassuring updates on any planning needs, but avoid over-involving them. Monitor in case interest rises.
Current students: low power but high interest, so keep informed. Use regular communication about timetables and teaching. Collectively they could gain power through protest or complaints, so do not neglect them.
Regional newspaper: low power and low interest, so minimal effort. Issue routine press statements. Watch for a change if the merger becomes controversial.
Overall priority: win the union's support first, because it can stop the change, then protect relationships with the council.

Answer: Union: key player, involve and negotiate. Council: keep satisfied. Students: keep informed. Newspaper: minimal effort. Review positions as the merger develops.

Exam tips

Always anchor your answer in named groups and facts from the scenario. Generic theory scores poorly on both technical and professional skills marks.
Justify every matrix position and every chosen approach in a sentence. The justification carries the marks.
Show commercial judgement by weighing speed against commitment. Say why you would choose a slower approach or when a faster one is defensible.
Format the answer as the requirement asks, for example a briefing note, with a clear recommendation at the end.
Link to ethics where relevant. If you suggest manipulation or coercion, comment on the ethical and trust implications.

Practice questions from Managing strategic change

Resistance to Change and Stakeholder Management: frequently asked questions

What are Kotter and Schlesinger's approaches to resistance?

There are six: education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, and explicit and implicit coercion. Each suits different situations. You should justify your choice using the scenario.

How does Mendelow's matrix help with change?

It shows which stakeholders have the power to help or block a change and how interested they are. This lets you focus effort on key players and decide how much communication others need. It is a starting point, and positions can shift.

Is resistance to change always bad?

No. It can highlight genuine risks or weaknesses in a proposal. Good answers recognise this and suggest listening and adapting where it makes sense, while still managing the change.

When is coercion acceptable in change?

Coercion is usually a last resort when speed is essential and other approaches have failed or there is no time, for example in a crisis. It can damage trust, morale and future cooperation, and can raise ethical concerns. Say so in your answer.