When someone says the team is resistant, I want to know what the team is being asked to do differently.
A new workflow may look straightforward in a meeting. For the person using it, it might mean another handover, a decision they are not authorised to make or a task that now takes longer.
Those are useful things to learn before treating the response as an attitude problem.
Ask what changes in the work.
Try a concrete question: “Walk me through what happens differently when you use this process.” Listen for the steps, the interruptions and the moments where someone has to choose between the new process and getting the work done.
Compare that account with the plan. A gap does not automatically mean the change is wrong. It tells you where to look more closely.
Separate a concern from a conclusion.
“This will never work” is a conclusion. Underneath it may be a specific concern: the team has no time to practise, the information arrives too late or a previous promise was not kept.
Ask what has led the person to that conclusion. You can acknowledge the concern without agreeing with every interpretation. You can also be clear about which decisions are fixed and which are still open.
Make involvement meaningful.
Inviting feedback creates a responsibility to do something with it. Before the discussion, identify what people can influence. Afterwards, show what you changed, what you could not change and why.
If the launch date is fixed, the team may still be able to shape preparation, support, sequencing or escalation. Be specific about those choices.
Return with an answer.
A listening session is only a beginning. Give someone responsibility for taking the concerns back into the work. Agree when the team will hear a response.
Some concerns will lead to changes. Others will need an explanation, a decision or a clear boundary. Leaving them unanswered makes the next conversation harder.
Take one piece of pushback from your current initiative. What practical concern might sit underneath it, and who can help resolve it?