At the heart of every organization is a clear pursuit of outcomes: stronger performance, healthier culture, better results.
And yet, even the smartest teams… experienced leaders, capable professionals, people who genuinely care… find themselves stuck.
They agree on the strategy.
They invest in the right tools.
They attend the workshops.
They say all the right things.
Still, progress stalls…
When that happens, the instinctive response is to push harder:
More alignment.
More accountability.
More urgency.
More solutions.
Yet here’s the uncomfortable truth I’ve learned as a team coach:
Most teams don’t struggle to change because they lack commitment.
They struggle because they’re protecting something they can’t yet see.
A Pattern I Kept Running Into
In February 2024, I wrote a post reflecting on a pattern I couldn’t ignore.
I was being brought in to help teams clarify Purpose, Vision, Tenets, and Values (read The Purpose Playbook). When that didn’t fully work, we moved into The Five Behaviors: trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, results. When teams still struggled to sustain change, we added Positive Intelligence to strengthen mental fitness and reduce reactivity.
Each step was grounded in solid research.
Each approach worked… to a point.
And yet, something deeper was still at play.
Teams understood what they needed to do.
They wanted to do it.
Yet, under pressure, old patterns returned.
At the time, I could describe what I was seeing… endless deconstruction, cycling through solutions… yet I didn’t yet have language for why this kept happening.
That language came later, when I began learning about Immunity to Change.
The Misdiagnosis of “Resistance”
When teams don’t move forward, resistance is often the label that gets applied.
Someone isn’t fully on board.
A decision keeps getting revisited.
Conflict is avoided or endlessly debated.
Accountability feels uneven.
Resistance gets framed as:
- A mindset problem
- A motivation issue
- A leadership gap
So leaders respond with persuasion, pressure, or another framework meant to “fix” the problem.
What gets missed is this:
What looks like resistance is often a self-protective system doing exactly what it was designed to do.
Not laziness.
Not defiance.
Not incompetence.
Protection.
What Immunity to Change Actually Explains
Immunity to Change is a coaching methodology rooted in adult development research by Harvard psychologists Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey. Their work explores why individuals and organizations can sincerely want change, and still remain stuck.
At its core, the insight is simple and profound:
People don’t resist change because they don’t care.
They resist change because something important feels at risk.
According to this research:
- We hold stated improvement goals (what we say we want).
- At the same time, we hold hidden or competing commitments (what we’re also committed to protecting).
- These commitments are reinforced by big assumptions: deeply held beliefs such as, “If I do X, then Y bad thing will happen.”
Until those assumptions are surfaced and tested, they quietly override even the best intentions.
Why “More Buy-In” Doesn’t Work
One of the most common refrains I hear is:
“We just need more buy-in.”
Yet buy-in isn’t the issue when:
- People nod in meetings but hesitate afterward
- Decisions are made but not fully owned
- The same issues cycle back quarter after quarter
What’s happening isn’t a lack of agreement, it’s a lack of safety around what the change threatens.
For many teams, the unspoken fear sounds like:
- “If I speak up, I might damage trust.”
- “If we move fast, we might get it wrong.”
- “If I challenge this, I could lose credibility.”
- “If we change this, something that works might break.”
These assumptions are rarely examined.
They simply run the show.
Reframing the Problem
This is where the real shift happens.
When leaders stop asking:
“Why won’t they just do this?”
And start asking:
“What might this team (this person) be protecting?”
Everything changes.
Resistance becomes information.
Stall points become clues.
Tension becomes something to explore, not eliminate.
Practical Steps Teams Can Take
Based on what we know from Immunity to Change work, progress doesn’t start with solutions. It starts with visibility.
Here are a few meaningful first steps:
- Name the improvement goal clearly
Not “be better communicators,” instead: “What specifically needs to change?” - Identify behaviors that work against that goal
Without judgment. Just observation. - Surface possible competing commitments
Ask: “What might we be committed to protecting if this change feels risky?” - Articulate the assumptions underneath
Finish the sentence: “If we really did this, then ______ might happen…” - Test assumptions instead of debating them
Through small, low-risk experiments rather than sweeping mandates.
Yes, this work is uncomfortable, because it is complex. Yet, more importantly, because it touches identity, safety, and belonging.
That’s why teams rarely do it well on their own.
What Changes When Teams See the Invisible
When teams learn to surface what’s underneath their stuckness:
- Conversations become less defensive
- Blame gives way to curiosity
- Patterns replace personalities
- Progress becomes possible
Instead of piling on frameworks, teams begin addressing the conditions that prevented those frameworks from taking hold in the first place.
That’s when change stops being performative and starts to stick.
A Final Thought and an Invitation
If your team feels smart, committed, and exhausted by change that doesn’t hold, the issue probably isn’t effort or alignment.
It’s that something important hasn’t yet been named.
This is often where an experienced outside partner can help, someone who understands adult development, team dynamics, and the invisible systems that shape behavior.
Not to “fix” the team.
Instead to help make the unseen visible, so real movement can begin.
If that resonates, I’m always open to a thoughtful conversation!