Resistance is often rational

Lately, my 10‑year‑old has been frustrated with one of his classes.

Not the material — he’s engaged and still putting in effort.

It’s the experience of the class itself.

From his perspective, the rules feel inconsistent.

Situations are interpreted differently depending on who’s involved.

Outcomes feel… negotiable — but not in his favor.

A small example, but a telling one:

At Easter, the girls received beaded bracelets.

The boys received rocks with “Jesus loves you” painted on them.

It’s not about the gift.

It’s about what the system communicates.

Over time, that kind of inconsistency does something predictable.

You keep showing up.

You keep doing what’s expected.

But you stop believing that effort actually changes outcomes.

That’s where his frustration lives.

He hasn’t stopped caring.

He’s stopped trusting the system to be fair or consistent.

As a parent, my instinct is to fix it.

But he’s perceptive enough to know that confronting the issue right now won’t resolve it. So instead, we talk about how to limit its impact — how not to let an inconsistent system shape who he is.

Watching this has been a familiar reminder.

In healthcare, we often interpret frustration or guarded engagement as “not caring.”

As resistance.

As a people problem.

But more often, it’s a rational response to systems that feel inconsistent, opaque, or disconnected from day‑to‑day reality.

When people don’t trust that the process will be applied consistently, engagement becomes cautious.

Questions go unasked.

Effort becomes measured.

That’s not defiance.

That’s experience talking.

Rules exist because of system failures.

If we want engagement, we have to be willing to examine how the system is experienced — not just how it’s written.

Compliance works best when people believe the process is predictable, grounded, and worth investing in.

That’s true in a classroom.

And it’s just as true in healthcare.

How consistent are your processes?