Introduction: why this action matters for adoption
Resistance is often treated as an employee problem, but in many change initiatives it is a system signal. People may be unclear about the reason for change, worried about workload, unconvinced by the solution, unsupported by managers, or blocked by processes and incentives. Sponsors matter because they control many of the levers that change teams cannot: priorities, trade-offs, resources, decision rights, accountabilities and visible leadership signals. ACMP identifies sponsors as important for building support, mitigating resistance-related risks, removing obstacles and setting expectations [ACMP, 2025]. (acmpmexico.org)
Engaging sponsors in managing resistance is therefore a stakeholder engagement and commitment intervention. It is not simply asking a senior leader to send another email. The goal is to create a structured way for sponsors to understand resistance, decide what needs to change, visibly support adoption and remove barriers that prevent impacted groups from working in the future state.
What this action is and when to use it
This action actively involves the primary sponsor and sponsor coalition in diagnosing and resolving adoption barriers. It may include sponsor coaching, alignment sessions, facilitated resistance reviews, issue-resolution meetings, listening sessions with managers, or design input workshops. ACMP describes engagement as stakeholder involvement and influence in the change process, and its Standard places sponsorship and stakeholder engagement within change strategy and planning [ACMP, 2025]. (acmpmexico.org)
Use this action when resistance is material enough to affect adoption, benefits or credibility. Typical triggers include inconsistent leadership messages, managers withholding support, unresolved cross-functional impacts, low readiness scores, slow adoption, high issue volume, or repeated concerns that require authority to resolve. AWS guidance similarly frames resistance management around identifying root causes and pockets of resistance, developing corrective actions and enabling sponsors and champions to manage resistance [AWS Prescriptive Guidance]. (docs.aws.amazon.com)
Do not use sponsor engagement to suppress dissent. CIPD cautions that employee concerns should not automatically be labeled resistance; voice, dialogue and open two-way communication can help people make sense of change and strengthen commitment [CIPD, 2014]. (cipd.org)
Preparation: inputs, stakeholders, materials, timing and decisions needed
Before bringing sponsors into a resistance discussion, prepare evidence rather than anecdotes. Useful inputs include the case for change, change impact assessment, readiness assessment, stakeholder analysis, sponsor assessment, resistance log, adoption metrics, manager feedback, employee questions, issue trends and decisions waiting for sponsor action. ACMP recommends assessing readiness, stakeholder impacts, risks, communication needs and learning needs before finalizing plans [ACMP, 2025]. (acmpmexico.org)
Clarify who must participate. The primary sponsor should attend when enterprise priorities, funding, policy, scope or accountability are involved. Sponsor coalition members should attend when resistance sits across functions, regions or business units. Managers should be represented when the issue concerns workload, role clarity, local credibility or employee coaching; Gallup emphasizes that managers handle interpersonal aspects of change, answer questions and escalate feedback [Gallup, 2020]. (gallup.com)
Prepare three materials: a one-page resistance summary, a barrier-and-decision log, and an adoption dashboard. Also agree what is negotiable. Sponsors can only build trust if they are clear about which elements are fixed, which can be adapted, and which concerns require further investigation.
Step-by-step facilitation guide
Contract with the sponsor before the meeting. Explain that their role is not to “defend the change,” but to understand resistance, make decisions and remove barriers. Prosci describes effective sponsors as active and visible throughout the project, coalition builders and direct communicators [Prosci, 2026]. (prosci.com)
Diagnose the resistance. Separate symptoms from causes. For example, “people are not using the new process” may reflect unclear benefits, poor usability, fear of job impact, lack of manager support, insufficient training or competing priorities. Kotter and Schlesinger’s classic guidance is useful here: the response should depend on why people resist, not on a generic communication push [Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979]. (hbs.edu)
Align the sponsor coalition. Ask sponsors to agree on the change story, visible behaviors, escalation path and non-negotiables. PMI describes cascading or sustaining sponsorship as a network of sponsors and managers that helps sustain project progress across the organization [PMI, 2013]. (pmi.org)
Facilitate a barrier-resolution discussion. Present the top resistance themes neutrally. Ask: “What barrier can only this sponsor group remove?” “What decision are we avoiding?” “What support do managers need this week?” “What must we stop, simplify or sequence differently?”
Assign actions and owners. Convert discussion into decisions, owners and dates. Typical actions include changing a policy, adjusting workload expectations, funding extra training, clarifying role impacts, resolving data or system defects, or asking a senior leader to meet directly with a resisting stakeholder group.
Equip managers and local leaders. Sponsors should not bypass managers; they should enable them. Prosci identifies managers as communicators, liaisons, advocates, resistance managers and coaches, and notes that managers are closest to employees who must adopt new behaviors [Prosci, 2025]. (prosci.com)
Close the loop. Tell impacted groups what was heard, what will change, what will not change and why. McKinsey’s transformation research emphasizes that involvement means giving people real ownership of initiatives or milestones, not only cascading messages [McKinsey, 2021]. (mckinsey.com)
Example: how this could be applied in a real change initiative
Imagine a company implementing a new enterprise resource planning workflow for purchasing. Adoption is low because managers believe the new approval steps slow urgent orders. The change manager gathers system usage data, help desk themes and manager feedback. In a sponsor session, the COO, CFO, procurement sponsor and regional leaders review the evidence. They agree that the control objective is non-negotiable, but the approval threshold can be changed for low-risk purchases. The CFO sponsors the policy update, procurement creates a quick-reference guide, regional leaders host manager briefings, and the project team tracks cycle time and exception requests weekly. Resistance decreases because sponsors act on a real barrier rather than asking employees to “be more positive.”
Roles and responsibilities
Role | Responsibility |
Change manager | Designs the intervention, prepares evidence, facilitates sponsor alignment and tracks actions. |
Primary sponsor | Owns the business outcome, makes or escalates decisions, models commitment and removes enterprise barriers. |
Sponsor coalition | Aligns local leaders, resolves cross-functional resistance and reinforces consistent expectations. |
Project/change lead | Confirms what can be changed in scope, design, timing or resourcing. |
People managers | Surface local concerns, coach employees and reinforce new behaviors. |
Impacted stakeholder representatives | Provide reality checks on workflow, workload, risks and adoption barriers. |
PMI notes that sponsors should help define adoption metrics, review stakeholder support and convert resistance into support during execution [PMI, 2013]. (pmi.org)
Common mistakes to avoid
The first mistake is treating resistance as attitude rather than data. The second is involving sponsors only when the change is already in trouble. The third is asking sponsors to communicate but not decide. Other common errors include allowing sponsors to disagree publicly, failing to equip managers, exposing individual dissenters in unsafe ways, or closing the meeting without owners and dates. CIPD’s emphasis on trust, dialogue and employee voice is a useful guardrail: resistance management should increase candor, not punish it [CIPD, 2014]. (cipd.org)
Measures of success or adoption indicators
Measure whether sponsor engagement is changing the conditions for adoption. Useful indicators include sponsor attendance and action completion, time to resolve escalated barriers, reduction in repeated resistance themes, manager confidence, readiness scores, training completion plus demonstrated proficiency, usage or compliance data, exception rates, help desk trends, sentiment, trust in leadership, and benefit realization. ACMP includes measurement and benefits realization in change management planning, and PMI stresses that adoption measurement should occur throughout the project rather than only at the end [ACMP, 2025; PMI, 2013]. (acmpmexico.org)
Checklist for the change manager
Confirm the resistance issue affects adoption, benefits, risk or credibility.
Gather evidence from readiness data, managers, employees, usage metrics and issue logs.
Identify which sponsor or coalition has authority to act.
Separate fixed decisions from adaptable elements.
Prepare a neutral resistance summary and decision log.
Coach the sponsor on the purpose, tone and expected decisions.
Facilitate for root cause, not blame.
Assign owners, deadlines and communication follow-up.
Equip managers with clear talking points and escalation routes.
Track whether barriers are removed and adoption improves.
Optional reusable template: sponsor resistance session agenda
Time | Agenda item | Facilitation prompt |
10 min | Purpose and decision frame | “Today we are here to understand adoption barriers and decide what sponsor action is required.” |
15 min | Evidence review | “What are we seeing in data, manager feedback and impacted-group sentiment?” |
20 min | Root-cause discussion | “What is the concern underneath the resistance?” |
20 min | Sponsor decisions | “What can we stop, start, simplify, fund, escalate or clarify?” |
10 min | Manager enablement | “What do managers need to say or do next?” |
10 min | Close-loop plan | “What will we tell impacted groups we heard, changed or cannot change?” |
5 min | Actions | “Who owns each action, by when, and how will we measure impact?” |
References
ACMP. Standard for Change Management©, 2nd edition. Association of Change Management Professionals, Aug. 26, 2025. https://www.acmpglobal.org/general/custom.asp?page=the_standard
AWS Prescriptive Guidance. “5.3 Gap and resistance management.” Amazon Web Services. No date shown. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/oca-framework-enable-capacity/resistance.html
CIPD. Landing Transformational Change. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Sept. 2014. https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2014-landing-transformational-change_2014_tcm18-16180.pdf
Gallup. “Proven Change Management Principles: How to Effectively Initiate It.” Gallup Workplace, July 15, 2020. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/315602/proven-change-management-principles-effectively-initiate.aspx
Kotter, John P., and Leonard A. Schlesinger. “Choosing Strategies for Change.” Harvard Business Review, March–April 1979. Harvard Business School listing: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=45328
McKinsey & Company. “Losing from day one: Why even successful transformations fall short.” Dec. 7, 2021; includes “The people power of transformations,” Feb. 10, 2017. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/successful-transformations
PMI. “The Sponsor as the Face of Organizational Change.” Project Management Institute white paper, Nov. 2013. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/sponsor-face-organizational-change-11131
Prosci. “Core Roles in Change Management.” Published May 20, 2020; updated May 1, 2026. https://www.prosci.com/blog/core-roles-in-change-management