Stefan Norrvall doesn't believe in change resistance.
He calls it a ridiculous term. What we label as resistance, he says, is more likely a rational response to something poorly designed being forced on people. It's a signal, not a flaw in the person.
Stefan has spent over 20 years inside big, messy organisations, and he's tired of the theatrics. As he puts it, someone has to call out that the emperor has no clothes. Fair warning: this is his opinion, and it challenges a lot of how we run change.
Resistance is a signal
Most interventions target mindsets, skills and behaviours. Very few ask what structural conditions are producing those behaviours in the first place.
Stefan's point is that people behave rationally inside the situation they're in. If we want different behaviour, we shouldn't be working on the person. We should be working on the conditions around them.
What the confusion tax looks like
Stefan calls the hidden financial and human cost of running an organisation that isn't designed to carry its load the confusion tax. You'll probably recognise it:
- Escalation loops and slow decisions
- Back-channel pre-approvals before anything is official
- Duplicated analysis because teams don't trust each other's work
- Handover disputes, and conflicts that only get resolved on an executive's desk
- Governance forums that exist for show
- Accountability labels that mean something different to everyone in the room
Stefan described a workshop of around 20 very senior people with 20 different views of who was accountable. The labels, he said, were like bumper stickers with no substance. Everyone walked out with a different idea of what had been decided.
People fill the gaps with workarounds and informal effort. That burns them out, and it's a real risk if one or two hidden carriers leave.
I see the same pattern from the recruitment side: a $30 million programme with one change manager, and the box gets ticked. Change has been considered!
Blockers and ironists
Stefan describes two roles that incoherent organisations create. Blockers hold on to the old way to manage risk, because the new feels too scary. Ironists see how far reality is from what's on paper, and find it almost laughable. Neither is a personality type. Both are rational responses to a structural gap, and in different conditions the same person could play either role.
Five things to try
- Ask a different question. Instead of "how do we get people on board?", ask: why does the way we're set up make this the sensible thing to do?
- Stress test the design. The org chart and role descriptions are the drawing. You also need to test whether the structure holds under pressure. Take two or three scenarios that cross team boundaries and check who decides, by what rule, with what default, and where it escalates.
- Baseline the cost first. Measure today's dysfunction, such as decision speed and how many governance forums actually govern, so you can show what a redesign changes.
- Try pit-stop governance. Stefan shared an idea from a panel he was on: bring only the decisions you need, make them, and get out. Status goes on a dashboard.
- Score your organisation. Stefan has a five-minute confusion tax diagnostic. Have several people complete it and compare the results.
His closing thought is the one I'd pin to the wall: fix the structure, and the behaviour is likely to follow.
A word of caution, though. What these diagnostics surface isn't always politically safe to raise, so tread carefully!
Listen and next steps
- Listen to the full episode with Stefan Norrvall
- Try the confusion tax diagnostic
- Hiring for change or org design roles in Australia? Talk to us about employer search
