When Resistance Meets Reality

When someone tells the board: “This strategy isn’t going to work.”, what happens next may depend less on the quality of the argument than on what the board thinks of the person making it. “Are they simply resisting change?”, or “Do they have the credibility to challenge the strategy?” But sometimes, the people resisting are seeing something the board cannot.

Strategic disagreement can emerge at different points in an organization. Sometimes the board pushes a direction that management questions. Sometimes the CEO and executive team develop a strategy that the board supports, but the people responsible for implementation believe it will not work. And sometimes the disagreement is directly between the board and the CEO.

The underlying challenge remains the same: When someone says, “This won’t work,” how do board members know whether they are hearing resistance or reality?

Challenge the Label Before You Challenge the Argument

Hearing the truth often requires a willingness to question how we interpret the person delivering it. If board members want to understand the real source of disagreement, they need to listen beyond the messenger, and become aware of the biases that may be shaping how they hear the message.

Reputation plays a significant role in determining who is considered credible. So do labels. Because board members do not always know every key player responsible for implementing a company’s strategy, they may rely on the executive team to understand the people behind the presentations and recommendations they receive. And the way someone is introduced can have long-term consequences. A simple: “Oh, Jane? She always has an opinion…” can go a long way toward labeling Jane. And, from that point forward, every argument she makes may be interpreted through that label.

If someone is introduced as “the contrarian,” disagreement confirms that they are a contrarian. “The old-timer’s” concerns about a new strategy become resistance to change. “The nerd’s” technical explanation can be dismissed as getting lost in the weeds.

On the other hand, reputation can also become a substitute for evidence. Someone may have strong executive presence, access to senior leadership, confidence when presenting, or unique expertise in a region or market. And because of that, their interpretation of reality can be accepted before anyone asks for evidence.

The person with the best reputation isn’t always right. And the person with the most inconvenient reputation isn’t always wrong.

A reputation for credibility can make people stop asking for evidence just as easily as a reputation for resistance can make them stop listening to it. Board members should aim to listen beyond the messenger.

Before challenging the argument, challenge your assumptions about the person making it.

• Am I reacting to the content of this argument, or to my perception of the person delivering it?
• If someone else had presented the same evidence, would I take it more seriously?
• What evidence do I have that this person is simply resistant?
• Have I allowed a label to become a shortcut for evaluating their ideas?

When Resistance Contains a Warning

Resistance and operational reality are not mutually exclusive. A person can dislike the strategy, resist the change, and still be pointing to a problem the organization needs to understand.

Management may be resistant to change, discouraged by previous initiatives, or concerned that the organization lacks the capacity or stamina required to see an initiative through. But they may also understand something fundamental about the business that suggests the idea genuinely will not work.

When management teams raise concerns, are overruled, and continue to believe that there are fundamental problems with the strategy, their response can take several forms — all potentially detrimental to the health of the company.

They may quietly sabotage implementation by repeatedly finding new reasons not to move forward. They may agree with the direction in front of the board and executive team, but undermine the initiative when speaking with their direct reports: “I don’t agree with this, but that’s what they told us to do.” They may continue running the business the old way until they are forced to implement the changes. And by then, the initiative may already have lost momentum, or failed altogether. They may also stop challenging the strategy itself and begin resisting the implementation instead. They may question every detail, slow decisions, and raise objections without proposing alternatives.

But the opposite response can be equally damaging. Management may embrace a strategy they privately believe will fail and execute it with enough commitment to demonstrate alignment, even when they no longer believe in the outcome. While this approach may appear more cooperative — and may please the board and executive team — it can also result in significant resources being invested in an initiative that was unlikely to succeed from the beginning.

This is why resistance should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the underlying concern is invalid. Resistance and legitimate warnings can coexist.

When the board encounters resistance, the goal should not be to immediately determine whether the person is committed to the strategy. The more important question is: Is there something in this concern that we need to understand before moving forward?

Test the Assumption Before Testing People’s Loyalty

So how can a board distinguish resistance driven primarily by aversion to change from concerns rooted in operational reality? The answer is not to rely on instinct, or on the reputation of the person raising the concern. 

Test the assumption. When an executive raises a concern, ask for evidence. Not simply opinions, but concrete information that supports the argument. Statements such as: “This doesn’t work in my region.” or “We’ve tried this before.” may be valid starting points for a conversation, but they are not evidence by themselves.

At the same time, boards should not confuse evidence with certainty. Data can be incomplete. Correlation does not necessarily establish causation. And even a well-supported concern may ultimately prove to be wrong.

The goal is not to demand certainty. It is to understand the reasoning behind the concern. If the concern appears credible, ask for alternatives. Keeping the desired outcome in mind, boards should remain open to different approaches that may achieve the same objective.

Undestand the concern. Boards are expected to operate at the strategic level. But sometimes, understanding a strategic disagreement requires temporarily going deeper into the operational reality behind it. Take the conversation down a notch. If concerns are raised about entering a new market with an existing technology, for example, it may be necessary to understand the technological limitations that could make that expansion unviable. Ask for demonstrations. Request explanations from subject-matter experts. Run a pilot program. Ask what would have to change for the initiative to become viable.

And throughout the process, pay attention to the substance of the concern:

• Can they clearly explain why something won’t work?

• Can they demonstrate the problem?

• Do they bring evidence?

• Do they offer alternatives?

• Can they identify what would have to change to make the initiative possible?

These questions will not always reveal a clear answer. But they move the conversation away from: “Are these people committed?” and toward “Are our assumptions correct?”

When strategy and operational reality disagree, test the assumption before testing people’s loyalty.

Don’t assume resistance based on reputation. There may be something happening that you simply cannot see from the boardroom.

Alignment, or Silence?

When boards face objections from management regarding strategic direction, they should resist the temptation to immediately interpret disagreement as resistance to change.

Stay curious. Ask: “What are we missing?” Request evidence. Ask for alternatives. Bring in experts to explain the nuances. Distinguish between: “This cannot work.” and: “This cannot work the way we are currently trying to do it.”

The board does not need to agree with every objection. And companies cannot endlessly debate every strategic decision. But disagreement deserves to be examined before it is dismissed, and silence should not automatically be interpreted as alignment.

Sometimes people have stopped disagreeing because they have been convinced. Sometimes they have stopped because they no longer believe anyone is listening. Knowing the difference may be one of the most important responsibilities of the board.