Well, really, it depends on a number of things.
People will handle change when a number of issues have been addressed and acknowledged:
Thus, they will accept change when, 1) the reasons for initiating it have been clearly explained to them, 2) they feel that they have been consulted and that their concerns have been taken into account, rather than having the changes unilaterally dumped on them, 3) their concerns are not belittled, and 4) the nature of the changes are clearly explained and flagged in advance so that they don't feel as though they are complete morons for not grasping what this is all about immediately.
Once those who seek to initiate change take the time and the trouble to engage with those who will be affected by the change, the number of negative responses and their intensity will be reduced.
What change seekers (in every walk of life) fail to see is that the onus of persuasion - the onus of making the case - is on them, not on the defenders of the status quo; there is no point in dismissing the concerns - or mindsets - of others, that won't win the battle of hearts and mind, because the default setting of most people is 'not change' - it is easier, less hassle, and besides, it is what they are used to. Change is - or can be - unsettling, and challenging.
Therefore, if you want change - any sort of change - (political, social, economic, technological) you must make the case for it, in a way that does not belittle those whose default setting is inertia or the status quo. Your arguments must be strong enough to either win them over, or render them indifferent to the status quo.
Change only becomes considered compelling and desirable and necessary when the status quo is dire, not when it is tolerably mediocre, and casually competent. In other words, the status quo must be pretty poor, to give people the motivation to seek change of there own volition, rather than being obliged to accept change.