When your team says yes but really mean no
Consent and evade
Have you ever noticed how your team enthusiastically agrees to new initiatives in meetings, but somehow those changes never quite materialise? During my time in the Royal Navy, we had a playful twist on military terminology for this - "consent and evade."
While the military uses action verbs like "destroy," "contain," and "neutralise" for special tactical manoeuvres, we coined this more subtle term. “Consent and evade" describes when a unit appear to accept an order or directive but then systematically finds ways to avoid carrying it out. They don't openly refuse—they just never quite get around to it.
This might sound familiar. This same pattern plays out in businesses every day. Your team smiles and nods in the meeting about the new system. They agree the new process makes perfect sense. They commit to the change in working patterns. But months later, you still see the old spreadsheets, familiar workarounds, and comfortable routines.
Welcome to corporate consent and evade.
What’s really going on here?
Let's be honest - it's often easier to say yes in the moment than deal with the perceived consequences of saying no. Your team isn't being deliberately difficult. They're doing what humans do when faced with change they're not bought into.
Your team might be:
Playing nice in meetings while quietly sticking to what they know
Lacking the confidence to say they're not sure how to implement the change
Sitting on genuine concerns because it doesn't feel safe to raise them
Missing the 'why' behind all this disruption to their working day
Carrying battle scars from previous changes that went sideways
The leadership trap
The real challenge isn't the resistance itself - it's how we respond to it. When faced with this situation, most leaders fall into one of two traps:
The Hammer Approach: Pushing harder, increasing oversight, demanding more updates and basically trying to force compliance. This usually leads to more sophisticated evasion tactics.
The Surrender: Giving up on the change entirely. This approach just teaches your team that if they avoid something for long enough, it’ll go away!
Neither works. Trust me. I’ve seen both approaches enough times and all that happens is leaders end up more frustrated than when they started.
Breaking the pattern
I’ve told you what doesn’t work. But, what does work?
Instead of surrendering or going with a dictatorial hammer approach, consider these suggestions:
1. Listen before you lead
If your team is saying yes but meaning no, they're telling you something important - you just need to learn to hear it. The resistance often contains valuable intelligence and insight about potential problems or overlooked considerations.
2. Make ‘No’ okay
Counterintuitive? Perhaps. But make it safe for your team to say no. When people can openly share their real concerns, you can address them rather than fight phantom resistance.
3. Connect to purpose
People don't resist change - they resist loss. Help your team see what they gain from the change, not just what they need to give up. And no, “because I said so” is not a compelling reason.
4. Build capability alongside change
Sometimes your team is saying yes while thinking “I have no bloody idea how to do this.” Are you giving them the tools and support they need, or just expecting them to figure it out?
Holding up the mirror
There is often an uncomfortable truth in my blogs, this one is no different. If your team is consistently saying yes but doing no, it could be a reflection of the leadership environment you've created. You may have taught them that consent and evade is the safest option.
Consider these questions:
When was the last time someone on your team openly disagreed with you?
What happened the last time someone raised a concern about change?
Are you actually open to hearing (and considering) the difficult stuff?
Now, let’s be clear, I don’t want to point fingers and assign blame. This is about understanding and recognising where the power to change the dynamic lies.
Your move, leader
Breaking the consent-and-evade cycle doesn’t require more oversight or writing stricter policies. It demands a fundamental shift in how we think about resistance and creating an environment where your team doesn’t need consent and evade because they feel safe being straight with you.
Start by asking yourself:
What makes my team feel they need to dodge rather than discuss?
How am I contributing to this dynamic?
What would make it safe for my team to be honest with me?
The answers might be uncomfortable, they might even make you squirm. Good. They are the key to moving from superficial compliance to genuine commitment.
What looks like resistance is often a sign that something is missing - clarity, capability, or confidence. Fix that gap and watch how quickly the consent and evade pattern disappears. You’ll find your team's "yes" starts meaning exactly that.
Are you struggling with resistance in your team? Is there a pattern of people saying yes, but nothing actually changes? Sometimes, you need someone who can help you see the wood for the trees. Drop me a message, and let’s talk about how to turn surface-level compliance into genuine commitment.
