"She's just resistant to change."
I've thought it. I've heard it. Maybe you have too.
When teachers don't embrace our coaching suggestions or new initiatives, the “resistant” label is a shorthand that’s always within reach. But what's happening beneath the surface when we assume a comment or behavior is rooted in resistance, and what opportunities might we miss?
The Fundamental Attribution Error in Coaching
As humans, we're wired with lots of mental shortcuts that shape how we interpret behavior. These shortcuts can include identifiable patterns like cognitive bias, cognitive errors, and thought distortions. It’s important that instructional coaches learn about these common mental moves and consider how they can show up in thought patterns for ourselves or those we work with.
One of those shortcuts is the fundamental attribution error, and it can show up in many of our interactions, including with students, parents, and colleagues. Labeled and explored by social psychologists Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett, the fundamental attribution error refers to our tendency to attribute others' actions to their character or disposition (something fundamental about them) while attributing our own actions and decisions to circumstances.
Here’s how that might play out in coaching:
I’m holding back on trying something new because I'm considering complexities and constraints. But when they hesitate, it’s because they're resistant to change or set in their ways. It’s because of how they are.
And I get it. Most of us aren’t walking around explicitly thinking this way or ascribing blame on others’ character while knowingly giving ourselves a pass grounded in nuance. But it’s exactly because it’s often unintentional that we need to tune into our thought processes and interrogate our assumptions.
The fundamental attribution error in instructional coaching can sound like assuming a teacher is resistant to change. When we do that, we might:
Stop exploring legitimate concerns
Miss actual implementation barriers
Create a self-fulfilling prophecy in our approach
How We Reinforce These Perceptions
Our perceptions about others are often developed and reinforced through what organizational experts Chris Argyris and Peter Senge call the Ladder of Inference, which I was first introduced to in the context of culturally responsive teaching by Zaretta Hammond.
The Ladder of Inference is a framework for understanding how we selectively process information and make quick, almost imperceptible assumptions based on our values, what we’ve been taught about the world, and prior experiences, and assigning meaning and taking action based on those assumptions.
If you imagine a ladder where each rung represents a step in how we take in, make meaning of, and act on information around us, then the fundamental attribution error, cognitive distortions, and cognitive biases are our brains rapidly zipping up the ladder. The process unfolds quickly, and we may not even realize we’re doing it.
In instructional coaching, it might unfold like this:
Data: A teacher says, "I'm not sure this approach will work with my students."
Selected data: We focus on the "not" and ignore the contextual concerns and the uncertainty.
Added Meaning: We interpret this as resistance based on previous experiences and how we understand the world.
Assumptions: We assume they don't want to change their practice.
Beliefs: We form the belief that this teacher is generally "resistant." We attach that to our beliefs about resistant people, their coachability, their dedication to improving their craft, and their care for students.
Actions: In the moment we respond matter-of-factually that this is a school-wide initiative and expectation. We adjust our coaching approach accordingly, perhaps providing less support, shifting to more directive, controlling, or top-down approaches.
If the teacher doesn’t respond well to our actions, the pattern is reinforced, and we climb up the ladder again.
The Cost of These Perceptions
When we perceive teachers as "resistant," we:
Lose curiosity about what could be valid concerns, past experiences, and systemic barriers
Narrow coaching possibilities that might better address their actual needs
Risk damaging trust in the relationship central to effective coaching
Overlook systemic issues that may be generating similar responses across teachers
Breaking the Pattern
Here are some reflective practices we can use to shift these perceptions:
Analyze a recent interaction where you perceived resistance. What specific observable behaviors led to this perception? What assumptions might you have made? What data might have been left out?
Generate alternative explanations. Challenge yourself to write down three possible situational (not dispositional) reasons for the teacher's response.
Prepare contextual questions for your next meeting: "What past experiences have you had with similar approaches? What constraints are you navigating that I should understand better?"
View hesitation as data. When you encounter what feels like pushback, try to see it as valuable information about the teacher's reality rather than an obstacle.
From Perception to Partnership
In my early coaching days, I worked with an experienced teacher who declined most of my suggestions. I mentally labeled him as "resistant," which led me to invest less in our meetings.
When a trusted colleague suggested I was missing something, I forced myself to get curious. I discovered his previous instructional coaches had been evaluators in disguise. His hesitation wasn't about the strategies themselves but about well-founded caution based on past experience.
Once I understood this context, we could address the trust deficit. We built a productive partnership—not because he became "less resistant," but because I stopped applying that lens and started seeing the legitimate concerns driving his responses and finding in-roads to work productively together.
If you find yourself thinking of a teacher as "resistant," try this reframe: They might not be resisting change; they could be responding based on their professional context, past experiences, and legitimate concerns. This shift—from perception to understanding—opens new possibilities for meaningful coaching partnerships.
Elena Aguilar’s Mind the Gap framework continues to be what I think is one of the most useful tools for challenging a perceived lack of will, and for considering where there may be needs around skills, knowledge, emotional intelligence, cultural competence, and/or capacity.
A Note on Equity, Urgency, and Exceptions
If you’re thinking any of the following:
Some people really are just resistant to change.
Our kids can’t wait for adults to get it together.
Sometimes our role (especially if our role involves evaluating or managing teachers) is to be direct for the benefit of students.
We can’t wait for everyone to get on board with what’s right for students.
People just need to be professional.
Yes. I’m with you.
Here are some other truths. From human to human: we’re all imperfect, as people and as educators. None of us have arrived. We’re all on the road towards better. We can afford a moment of grace. We might also be wrong in our assumptions. From a practical perspective, at no point in my career has there been a surplus of teachers in the United States. So not only do we need to be serious about coaching who we have and doing so well, but I try to remind myself that there are lots of ways people could be making a living. For the most part, our teachers are choosing to teach our students. And, most importantly for deciding how we want to show up in our coaching approaches and holding ourselves accountable to high expectations: we have each chosen to do people work. People work is inherently messy and non-linear and complex. Checking our assumptions around responses we wish were better formed is part of the package.
So I invite you to play the long game… to slow down and make sure the diagnosis is right before moving towards a potentially mismatched solution. Pause for a beat and step back. This doesn’t mean negating the need for accountability, challenging conversations, or strategic and well-executed professional development. But before zipping up the Ladder of Inference and reaching for the ever-available “resistant” label and the bundle of actions that come with it, I invite you to create a little space and invite a moment of curiosity, to loosen the grip on certainty, and to explore options while remaining clear on the non-negotiables for our students.
What about you? What perspectives have you caught yourself forming about teachers? How has reframing those perceptions changed your coaching approach?
