You’ve proposed a new process, technology, or way of working that promises to save time, improve outcomes, or increase efficiency. Yet, instead of enthusiasm, your team responds with resistance—hesitation, skepticism, or outright pushback. Why does this happen, especially when the benefits seem so obvious?
The answer lies in evolutionary mismatch—a concept that explains how our brains, shaped for survival in ancient environments, often struggle to adapt to the demands of modern life. Let’s explore why humans instinctively resist change and how these ancient instincts manifest in today’s workplace.
For our ancestors, change often signaled danger. A new food source might be poisonous. Moving to a new area could bring predators or unfamiliar challenges. In a world where survival depended on minimizing risk, sticking to familiar routines and strategies was often the safer bet.
Mismatch Today: In the workplace, even positive changes can trigger this deep-seated aversion to risk. A new system or process feels unfamiliar, and the potential for failure looms larger than the promised benefits.
Humans are wired to avoid losses more strongly than they seek equivalent gains—a bias known as loss aversion. Our ancestors prioritized holding onto resources and routines that worked because losing them could mean life or death.
Mismatch Today: Even when a change promises improvement, your team is likely focused on what they might lose: comfort with the current system, skills they’ve mastered, or even a sense of control.
In ancestral environments, uncertainty often meant danger. Unfamiliar situations could lead to injury, conflict, or starvation. As a result, humans evolved to prefer predictability and resist the unknown.
Mismatch Today: Change introduces uncertainty. Your team might wonder: Will this make my job harder? Will I lose relevance? What if it doesn’t work? This fear leads to resistance.
Our brains evolved to conserve energy. Familiar routines and habits require less cognitive effort, allowing our ancestors to focus mental energy on survival tasks.
Mismatch Today: New processes demand mental effort to learn, adjust, and implement. This reluctance is not laziness—it’s an instinctive preference for efficiency.
In small ancestral groups, maintaining social harmony was critical for survival. Resistance to change was often a group-wide phenomenon, as everyone relied on shared norms and practices for stability and cooperation.
Mismatch Today: In modern teams, groupthink and peer influence can amplify resistance to change, prioritizing social cohesion over embracing the proposed change.
Resistance to change isn’t a sign of laziness or incompetence—it’s the result of ancient instincts clashing with the demands of modern workplaces. By understanding these evolutionary roots and addressing them with thoughtful strategies, you can guide your team through change in a way that feels natural, empowering, and ultimately successful.
Subscribe to Mind the Gap! – my weekly newsletter.