resistance-diagnosis

name	resistance-diagnosis
description	This skill should be used when the user describes "resistance to the change," "people pushing back," "adoption stalling," or "blockers on the people side" and needs root-cause split and response options before escalation or comms rework.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob
metadata	{"version":"0.3.0","owner":"change-management practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"hypothesis-driven-analysis","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"}

Resistance Diagnosis

When to use

Diagnose observed resistance — separate symptoms from root causes; offer response options across sponsor, comms, training, and structural levers without mandating a single fix.

What this skill does not do

• Does not log governance decisions — route continue/escalate calls to /pmo:decision-log when installed.
• Does not label people as blockers — describes behaviors and incentives, not character.
• Does not recommend punitive action by default — escalation is an option, not the default response.

Preconditions

Input	If missing
Observed resistance (quotes, behaviors, metrics)	Ask for specific examples
Stakeholder segment affected	Ask who; link to map if available
Practice profile resistance taxonomy	Use loss/competence/habit/politics defaults

Provisional mode

With anecdote only: hypothesize root causes; flag [review] — need corroboration before major escalation.

Trust spine

• Confidence bands (hypothesis-driven-analysis):
  • High: Multiple independent observations; root cause tied to named loss or incentive.
  • Medium: Single source or manager report; hypotheses labeled.
  • Low: Vague "they don't like it" — ask for behaviors before prescribing.
• Failure modes:
  • Analytical rigor: Distinguish active sabotage from passive workarounds from capacity overload.
  • Strategic advice vs. support: Present response options; leadership owns escalation and trade-offs.

Workflow

1. Read practice profile — resistance taxonomy, escalation thresholds, sponsor model.

2. Document observed resistance — behaviors (skipping training, shadow IT, public criticism, quiet non-use), not labels ("toxic," "blocker").

3. Classify root cause (may be multiple):

   • Loss — status, autonomy, relationships, job security.
   • Competence — fear of failing at new process; insufficient skill.
   • Habit — old way is faster under pressure; no muscle memory yet.
   • Politics — incentive misalignment; another leader's priority conflicts.
   • Capacity — change stacked on BAU with no time budget — often misread as attitude.

4. Test hypotheses — what evidence would confirm or falsify each cause; what question to ask the segment or manager.

5. Response options (pick subset relevant — do not recommend all):

   • Sponsor — visible removal of conflicting priority, personal ask to holdout influencer.
   • Comms — reframe WIIFM, address loss explicitly, manager talking points.
   • Training — job aid, coaching, safe practice environment.
   • Structural — metric change, role clarity, decision-rights fix (hand off to operating-model if needed).
   • Timing — narrow scope, pilot, defer — with trade-off stated.
   • Escalation — per profile threshold; what decision is needed from steering.

6. Flag if resistance is rational — when the new process is genuinely worse for the segment, say so [review] — comms cannot fix a bad design.

Output format

SEGMENT: [name]
OBSERVED BEHAVIORS: [specific, sourced]

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS:
  Loss: [evidence or "not primary"]
  Competence: [...]
  Habit: [...]
  Politics: [...]
  Capacity: [...]

PRIMARY HYPOTHESIS: [cause] — [mechanism]
FALSIFICATION TEST: [question or evidence to gather]

RESPONSE OPTIONS:
  Sponsor: [option or "N/A"]
  Comms: [...]
  Training: [...]
  Structural: [...]
  Timing: [...]
  Escalation: [decision needed, or "below threshold"]

RATIONAL RESISTANCE FLAG: [yes — design issue | no]

Worked example

Input: "Sales won't use the CRM."

Expected output: Split competence (slow on mobile) vs habit (spreadsheet faster); primary hypothesis = habit under quota pressure; sponsor option = remove parallel reporting ask; not "mandatory training again" as sole fix.

Quality checks before delivering

• Behaviors documented, not personality labels
• Multiple causes considered
• Response options include trade-offs
• Rational resistance checked

Propose profile update

When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/change-management/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /change-management:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.

Outputs

Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: sponsor-roadmap, communications-plan, or /pmo:decision-log for escalation.