You Can’t Solve an Emotional Problem with Logic

My dad gives great career advice. One piece of wisdom that has stayed with me for years is this:

You cannot solve an emotional problem with logic or reason.

It sounds obvious, but it’s surprisingly hard to put into practice. It’s also one of the most common reasons organizational change gets stuck.

When change efforts stall, we tend to assume we’re dealing with a logic problem. We believe others have misunderstood our thinking. To close that gap, we explain the rationale again—this time with more detail to make sure they “get it.” We present our analysis, walk through our assumptions, and defend our conclusions. On paper, the math adds up.

But the problem isn’t on paper. And math won’t solve it.

Your reasoning may be sound. Your conclusions may be impeccable. And still, they do very little to address the ambivalence people feel. Ambivalence is not a logical problem. It’s an emotional one, and emotional problems require different methods.

So how can you tell when you’re dealing with an emotional problem rather than a rational one?

One simple test is to look for an energy mismatch between words and actions. People may acknowledge the necessity of the change. They may agree with the strategy and even articulate the steps required to move forward. And yet—nothing happens. Action stalls. Momentum never quite materializes.

This isn’t passivity or laziness. It’s not incompetence, insubordination, or resistance. It’s an emotional issue that hasn’t been named, much less addressed.

In change contexts, emotional problems often take longer to surface because they are rarely simple. They tend to be layered and contradictory. Fear and loss coexist with hope and excitement. Relief sits alongside grief. People can genuinely want the future being proposed and still feel deeply attached to what they’re being asked to leave behind. If they’re aware of this contradiction, they may dismiss their own feelings as illogical and determine they are therefore irrelevant to the business at hand.

But feelings about change do matter. When we ignore or oversimplify the emotional complexity of change, we stay stuck longer than necessary. As the saying goes, what we resist, persists.

Explaining the rationale for change is important—but it’s often insufficient. When momentum stalls despite shared understanding, the problem landscape has shifted. At that point, doubling down on logic only reinforces the stalemate.

Different problems require different tools.

In my next article, I’ll share some practical techniques for working more effectively with the emotional side of change. Until then, I’m curious about your experience. How do you recognize when an emotional problem—not a logical one—is what’s really holding things up?