What Do I Do When Someone Resists Dialogue?

In almost every facilitation workshop, we end by leading participants in an exercise that asks them to reflect on their nightmare facilitation scenario. What is your worst fear for what might happen in a dialogue? The purpose is to support self-reflection around how to manage those moments.

For many facilitators, their biggest fear involves skeptical or cynical participants, participants who refuse to adhere to norms, and other disruptive behaviors. 

When I hear these examples, I think of one word: resistance.

Reframing Resistance

Everyone engaged in dialogic efforts is in the business of enabling shifts to happen. Shifting from dysfunctional to constructive communication patterns. Shifting from binary thinking—either/or and us/them—to more complex understandings of the issues at stake. Shifting from stuck patterns and stories to new possibilities and relationships.

Those kinds of shifts can feel uncomfortable, disorienting, even anxiety-inducing. As neuroscience tells us, change often feels like an attack on our sense of self or our identity. Our brains aren’t great at differentiating between social discomfort and physical pain. 

Resistance is a natural human response to change. It’s not something to avoid. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to eliminate resistance. Don’t ignore it either. Instead, reframe it. 

Start from the assumption that people want to participate in change, especially when the challenge or dysfunction impacts them directly. There’s a tension between knowing that a change will benefit them and feeling the fight-or-flight response. This tension shows up as resistance.

So resistance isn’t necessarily negative. It’s data. Resistance is a clue that there’s something meaningful here. People resist because they feel a strong connection to their community, the in-group identity, the institution, the topic, or all of these.

Level One: “I Don’t Get It”

Resistance can take on many different forms. Author and advisor Rick Maurer identifies three levels of resistance, which can help you understand and manage it. 

Level One resistance is rooted in thinking and rational action. The person may express frustration over a lack of information, understanding, details, or purpose. There may also be disagreement about the data or the assumptions underlying the program. This might sound like: 

• “I don’t understand why we’re sitting around talking. How is that going to make a difference?”
• “Why are we launching a new dialogue initiative? Don’t we have enough initiatives? I thought our campus climate survey said we needed to be doing less, not adding more to our plates.”

Here are two tips to reframe this resistance for yourself, for the individual, and for the group:

• Remain focused on purpose. Whether you’re leading a single dialogue or a campus initiative, have a well-defined shared purpose and refer back to it often. Helping people see the why behind a program lets them see that their participation is essential to its success.
• Reach for clarity. Create opportunities for people to ask clarifying questions to better understand the timeline, process, purpose, etc. Check for understanding and clarity along the way. 

Level Two: “I Don’t Like It”

Level Two resistance is rooted in emotion. It’s often rooted specifically in fear: fear of losing status, control, certainty, autonomy, relationships, trust, or even employment. This might sound like:

• “I can’t believe they’re asking me to start using this dialogic meeting template. Do they think I don’t know how to run an effective meeting?”
• “I’m not interested in being force-fed some new pedagogy from an external consultant who doesn’t know anything about our school. Plus, if my colleagues know I’m participating, I’ll lose all credibility.”

Here are three tips to reframe this resistance:

• Help them feel seen and taken seriously. Often people need to feel connected, understood, and secure. Design opportunities for engagement and participation using best practices or models that help mitigate threat responses, such as David Rock’s SCARF model.
• Invite them in. Ask: What do you think? What are we missing? Bringing people into the process and giving them opportunities to shape what you’re building creates a sense of agency, predictability, and security.
• Be honest and transparent. Be clear about what to expect and the potential impacts of the initiative—including the difficult ones. Honesty builds trust. Trust helps people be vulnerable and take risks.

Level Three: “I Don’t Like You”

Level Three resistance is rooted in a lack of trust. It could be a lack of trust in your leadership, in the institution, or in the people you represent. Even if resistors “get it” and “like it,” past histories, conflicts, and relationships can result in a lack of trust. Without trust, any new initiative is likely to fail. This might sound like:

• “No, I won’t be joining you for the launch. I love the idea of this program, but I just can’t get behind something that’s coming out of that office.”
• “How do I know this isn’t some kind of Trojan Horse, where you’re going to try to convince me to change my mind?”
• “Leadership is just using this as a way to appease people who question their decisions and the direction of this organization.”

Here are three tips to reframe this resistance:

• Leverage curiosity. Build connection and relationship through listening, curiosity, and being open to new ideas. Practice asking connecting questions as a regular part of your meetings or gatherings in advance of a dialogue. 
• Address the past. Often there has been genuine harm, frustration, or conflict. Acknowledge that and, if needed, take responsibility. Surfacing past issues can help people feel less isolated and more open.
• Start small to build trust. Create smaller opportunities to build or demonstrate trust. 

Resistance Is Not the End

Resistance is a natural human response to misunderstanding, fear, or lack of trust. It is also a signpost reminding leaders to get curious about what is missing, unclear, or needs to be addressed. 

Ask yourself: What unmet need is buried beneath the resistance? What unnamed hope is implied by this complaint? How can we leverage this feedback to build something that feels meaningful, collaborative, and achieves our shared purpose? 

Resistance should not stop a dialogue or dialogue initiative from moving forward. In fact, it’s often a clear sign that Reflective Structured Dialogue is needed. Resistance should be met with understanding, compassion, and forethought. That’s the best way to help the individual and the group move forward together.