There is an effect researched in 2011 by Michael Norton, Daniel Mochon, and Dan Ariely, which they named after the Swedish furniture company: people systematically overestimate the value of things into whose creation they have invested their own labor—even if the result is objectively worse than an off-the-shelf solution from the outside.
In the original experiment, participants who assembled IKEA furniture themselves were willing to pay significantly more for it than for the exact same furniture that was already assembled by someone else. Moreover, this difference appeared even when the self-assembled furniture looked downright messy.
In organizations, this manifests almost literally the same way—except instead of furniture, there are HR processes, evaluation systems, and regulations. A team that came up with a grading grid, an onboarding system, or a performance review process on their own will defend it more vigorously than an objectively superior, ready-made framework that was simply "brought from above" or "copied from consultants." It's not about the quality of the solution—it's about the fact that labor was invested in their own solution, creating a psychological attachment that has nothing to do with objective criteria.
Hence a practical implication for implementing any ready-made HR tools, methodologies, and platforms: the resistance an objectively good solution encounters is not always a signal that it is bad. Sometimes it is simply a signal that the team invested nothing into its creation.
What helps: not implementing a ready-made solution as a finished product, but involving the team in adapting it to their own context—even minimal customization of terminology, structure, or process dramatically increases acceptance. People need to feel their own footprint in the system to start defending it rather than sabotaging it.