Why Systems Resist Change (And It’s Not Because People Are Difficult)

When change slows down, the first explanation is usually people.

People are resistant.
People don’t want to change.
People are stuck in their ways.

But in many cases, resistance has less to do with attitude and more to do with how work actually happens.

In this episode of Behind the Measures, Geremy Hurley explores why systems resist change and how that resistance often comes from the way work is structured, coordinated, and sustained over time.

Systems don’t function exactly as they’re written. They function as people adapt to them. Over time, workarounds, informal coordination, and learned routines become what actually keeps things moving.

When change is introduced without understanding that reality, it can unintentionally disrupt the very things that make the system work.

This episode breaks down what people are really protecting when they push back, why many improvement efforts fade over time, and what effective change actually looks like in practice.

Because improvement doesn’t start with solutions. It starts with understanding.

The views and perspectives shared in this podcast are my own and do not represent the views of my employer or any organization I am affiliated with. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome back to Behind the Measures, a podcast about public sector leadership, quality, and accountability, and the work that doesn't show up in dashboards or reports. My name is Jeremy Hurley, and I work inside systems building programs, examining processes, and navigating a space between compliance and real improvement. This isn't about theory, it's about the work. This is episode nine of why systems resist change. And it's not because people are difficult. So let's just hop into it. When systems resist change, the first explanation is usually people, right? People are resistant. People don't want to adapt. People are comfortable with the way things are. But in many cases, resistance has less to do with attitude and more to do with how work actually happens. In this episode, I want to talk about why systems resist change and why understanding how work actually functions is often the key to making improvement possible. When systems try to change and things don't move the way we expect, the first explanation is usually people, right? Like I already said, people are resistant, people don't want to change, people are stuck in our ways. Because what leaders see is visible, they see hesitation, they see questions, they see pushback, and it's easy to interpret that as attitude. It requires slowing down, and oftentimes it requires looking beyond what's immediately in front of you. So instead, people become the explanation. When changes slow down, people become the explanation, right? When improvement doesn't happen quickly, frustration builds. Leaders start asking these questions right here. You know, why isn't this moving faster? Why aren't people getting on board? And then lastly, why is there so much resistance? And those questions often lead to a focus on the individuals. Change takes time, alignment takes time, understanding how a system actually functions takes time. And when that time isn't built into the process, the pressure increases. There's more urgency, there's more expectation, and there's more emphasis on the outcomes. But without a deeper understanding of what's happening inside the system, that pressure doesn't remove resistance. It usually increases it. Friction in how workflows, friction in how processes connect, friction in how expectations are interpreted. Resistance is often interpreted as unwillingness when it's actually friction inside the system. That distinction matters because if resistance is interpreted as unwillingness, the response becomes accountability focused. There's more oversight, more direction, more pressure on the individuals. But if resistance is understood as friction, the response changes. Now the focus shifts to where is the process breaking down? What's making this harder than it needs to be? And what is a system asking people to do that doesn't quite work in practice. But asking what the system is doing that makes change difficult. You know, if if we step back from individuals for a moment, we start to see something different. Systems don't just exist as they're written, they evolve. Over time, systems develop routines, not because every step was perfectly designed, but because people figure out how to make the work function. They adjust, they adapt, and a lot of times they find ways to keep things moving. And in that process, something important happens. The system on paper and the system in practice start to separate. On paper, the process might look clear, steps are defined, roles are outlined, expectations are documented, but in practice, the work rarely, let me emphasize that the work rarely follows that path exactly. Because real systems are more complex than they appear. So people begin to create workarounds, and they don't they're not creating workarounds to avoid the systems, but to make it work. They find ways to navigate delays, they adjust timing between steps, and they fill in gaps where the process doesn't fully connect. They also develop informal coordination, conversations that aren't documented, decisions that aren't written down, and sometimes agreements that exist because people have learned what works over time. And those informal pieces become extremely critical because they're what actually hold the system together. It's not stability from perfect design, it's stability from adaptation. They've developed shortcuts, they've developed timing, and they've developed an understanding of how things actually move from one step to the next. And that leads to an important insight. The system people are protecting may not be the official one, but it's the one that actually works. What's written, what's expected, what's documented, but it doesn't always account for the informal system that people built around it. And that's where the tension begins. And it's not because people are unwilling, but because the change is interacting with a system that already has its own logic, its own rhythm, and its own way of functioning. If that underlying system isn't understood, even the well-intended changes can feel disruptive. It's not because they're wrong, but because they're incomplete. Once you understand how systems stabilize themselves, the idea of resistance starts to look different. Because when people push back on change, they're not always pushing back on the idea of improvement, they're often protecting something. The way work currently moves from one step to the next, the timing that they've learned, the secret, the sequence that allows them to get through the day without constant disruption. They're also protecting manageable workload. Even if the system isn't perfect, people figured out how to operate within it, right? They know where things take longer, they know where they can sort of move faster, and they know how to balance competing demands. When change is introduced, that balance can definitely shift. And what looks like a small adjustment on paper can feel like a significant increase in effort and in practice. People are also protecting coordination, how work connects across teams, how information flows, and sometimes how handoffs happen. A lot of that coordination isn't formally documented, it's it's sometimes learned, it's sometimes experienced, and it's often what's the right word? It's often fragile. And then there are the informal fixes, the small adjustments that people make every day to keep the system functioning. The workarounds, the extra steps, the judgment calls. Those fixes aren't always visible, but they're often the reason the system the system works at all. So when a change is introduced, it doesn't just interact with the formal process, it interacts with everything people have built around that process to make it workable, and that's where the disconnect happens. What leadership sees as improvement, it can feel like disruption to the people doing the work. Not because a change is wrong, but because it's colliding with a system that has already adapted. Sometimes they're protecting the system that currently keeps the work moving. That perspective shifts everything, right? Because instead of asking, why are they pushing back, you start to ask, what are they trying to protect. When you understand that resistance becomes information. Information about where the system is fragile, where coordination matters most, where change might need to be adjusted instead of enforced. And that's what makes improvement possible, right? Once you understand how systems stabilize themselves and what people are protecting, you can start to see what happens when change is introduced without that understanding. On paper, the change often looks straightforward, right? A new step is added, a process is updated, a requirement is clarified, and from a from a design perspective, it could very well even make sense. But in practice, something different happens because that change is entering the system that's already functioning in a very specific way, a way that includes workarounds, timing adjustments, informal coordination, and the day-to-day decisions people make to keep things moving forward. When change doesn't account for that, it starts to create friction. New processes add additional steps. What used to take three steps now takes five. What used to flow smoothly now requires extra coordination. Workload increases, not always in obvious ways either, but in small increments. Extra time for clarification. You know, and over time, those small increases they they add up. Confusion also grows because now people are navigating two systems at once: the formal process that was introduced and the informal system that already exists. And when those two don't align, people have to make a choice. Do they follow the new processes exactly or do they adjust it to make the work manageable? Most of the time they adapt. And it's not because they're resisting change, but because they're trying to make the system workable. So new workarounds are created, new shortcuts are developed, and the system stabilizes again. People have learned how to implement changes in their own way to make it workable for them. But it stabilizes around the reality of the work. It's not the design of the change. And that leads to an important insight. When change ignores how work actually happens, the system quietly absorbs it and often returns to its previous state. It's not because people rejected them, and it's not because they didn't care. But because the system couldn't sustain them. The change didn't align with how the work actually functioned. So what happened? The system adapted around it. And eventually it returned to what it could support, right? No, it went back to the way it was before. From the outside, that can look like resistance, but from the in from inside the system, it's often survival. So if resistance isn't really about people and systems stabilize themselves over time, then the question becomes: what does effective change actually look like? Because the answer isn't more pressure, and it's not more instruction. Effective change starts with observation, not jumping straight into solutions, not assuming the problem is already understood, but it's taking the time to see how the work actually moves through the process and through the system. Not just looking at dashboards, but observing how work flows from one step to the next. You're looking at where it moves smoothly, where it slows down, and then where it requires extra effort to keep it going. This is probably for me personally, this is probably the most important part. It also means listening. Listening to the people doing the work. And you're not listening just for answers, but you're listening for patterns. You're listening for where they hesitate, where they compensate, and you're listening for where they've had to adjust just to make things function. Because those moments reveal where the system isn't fully supporting the work, and that's where improvement should start. It also requires understanding where friction already exists. Before adding something new, leaders need to ask themselves these couple of questions. Where is this already difficult? Where is the system already stretched? And finally, what is this change going to interact with? Because every single change enters an existing system, and if that system isn't understood, the change will always let me say it again. If the system isn't understood, the change will always be incomplete. Improvement doesn't start with solutions, it starts with understanding. When leaders take that approach, something shifts. Change stops feeling like something that's being imposed, and it starts to feel like something that's being built together. Instead of disruption, there's alignment. Instead of pushback, there's conversation, and instead of resistance, there's participation. Not because people suddenly changed, but because the approach changed. And that's the difference. Effective change doesn't fight the system. It works with it, it understands it, and then it improves it in a way that the system can actually sustain it. Systems don't resist change because people are difficult. They resist change because work is complex. Coordination is fragile. And stability matters to the people responsible for keeping things running. When change disrupts that without understanding it, resistance shows up. Not as defiance, but as friction. Understanding that doesn't make improvement easier, but it makes it possible. You know, next time I want to talk about something many organizations struggle with, and that's the difference between activity and progress. Because the work doesn't end at the measure.