But it does.
Change is inevitable. Change is constant. It is the engine for progress, but it is generally met with resistance that goes beyond logic and into the realm of the particularly emotional. In the corporate world, change management is more than just a functional exercise; it’s a fundamental, philosophical problem that strikes the core of those engaged.
My introduction to change management was really an accidental fall into this complex world, where I battled to implement critical changes only to quickly realize the dangers of pushing change in an atmosphere that wasn’t ready to welcome it.
As I naively tried to shake up internal processes and bring about much-needed improvements to a struggling organization, I experienced not only resistance but also actual sabotage. It then became clear that when change is forced too soon, it can unsettle the organization’s delicate balance, opening a door for fear, dissatisfaction, and clinging to the status quo. This experience was a harsh and honest lesson in the principles of change.
My first lesson.
The psychological battle: identity crisis, fear, and resistance.
On the same journey, I’ve learned that employees often identify with the organization they work for. Routines and well-known processes, even if inefficient, are part of our delicate balance that brings peace and predictability. And we love that, right? When these get threatened by change, especially one of a sudden character, forcerly imposed on them, it triggers the deepest fears and can even become an identity crisis, where we fear that if the company evolves, our place might not be in it anymore.
Simon Sinek, in his exploration of leadership and change management, when talking about resistance, argues that effective change management isn’t really about strategy – it’s about trust – and gets even deeper into the value of early adopters in the process. In his talks, he often says that real leaders need to be able to foster an environment where employees feel safe, secured, and valued, so that they can trust change to be made to align with their values and long-term interests.
Building trust and putting early adopters in play, I found, can be key parts of a broader, more complex framework that I’ve recently been able to explore and use.
The Knoster-Lipper Change Management Model: A Framework for Understanding Resistance
(As you’d guess, I wasn’t aware of this model back then. So, I couldn’t understand the turbulences I was facing). Let’s look at it for a moment,
- Lack of Vision leads to confusion.
- Lack of Skills results in anxiety.
- Lack of Incentives fosters resistance.
- Lack of Resources causes frustration.
- Lack of an Action Plan results in false starts.
At the core of this model lies the concept of vision, echoing Plato’s idea of ideal forms. According to it, everything that exists in the physical world is an imperfect reflection of something perfect. Unchanging ideal. In the context of change management, the ultimate vision is the ultimate goal that the organization is looking to achieve. When leading the change, the true leader must act as an “ideal form,” guiding and inspiring each part of it.
However, I failed. I failed spectacularly. In my rush to “impose” the necessary changes, I neglected to clearly articulate the vision to the team, get a consensus, and assess the skills and cultural dynamics. Without all these elements, the “ideal” was striving for something rather disconnected and without a true purpose. Ultimately, this has led to confusion, resistance, and even clear sabotage. Textbook examples of how one should not approach change.
The sabotage: A play for deep-seated fears
It was a far more than a refusal to change; it was a highly defensive response based on a deeply rooting fear. Going back to the identity issue, we build our own safety nets based on the company’s routines, processes, and even the inefficiencies that we’ve become accustomed to. When this gets threatened, especially when lacking clear incentives, vision, understanding, and common agreement and plagued by a toxic culture, the response is only one: resistance and sabotage. Did my direct approach “help” bring more and more of this resistance and protection culture? Yes, it did.
“Knowing what you know now, what would you change about the approach taken?” was a question that I got asked by the coach who has introduced me to this knowledge. “Would you take the same route?” he said. Absolutely not. If I could do it all over I would begin with a clear vision that everyone understands and embraces, a consensus on the steps we need to take, a proper skill assessment (combined with culture assessment, which I tend to believe is equally important; i.e. What are the behaviours currently? Which ones affect performance? What “rewards” and “punishments” we have?, etc.) This would also include discovery around the incentives that currently exist inside the org, both formal and informal, maybe they would need a new direction. Only, and really after this groundwork, I would move forward to an actual action plan.
From forcing change to cultivating it.
After hitting several walls, I realized I needed to rethink the situation. And that’s when I remembered Simon Sinek’s “why.” I started asking myself why. Had I failed to articulate the needed changes and the criticality they had for the organization’s existence? Yes. Had I managed to get a consensus on the steps moving forward? No. And so on, and so on. But the action plan was brilliant, though. And this was my turning point, and from there I moved my direction from forcing change to actually breeding change, cultivating change, and letting it to take its own natural course based on the shared vision and goals.
What happened next was what I’d call “company-altering,” event, where we addressed the team’s fears and aligned the change initiatives with a consensus on the purpose and steps. Soon after, I started to notice a gradual shift in attitudes. Structured meetings with a clear agenda, clear documentation, a clear product vision and backlog, cross-functional collaboration, a continuous improvement mindset, and massive picks in communication – internally and externally – all felt like the stepping stones towards achieving the shared vision.
My journey was both painful and enlightening. It reshaped my understanding of change management, revealing it as an exercise that demands empathy as much as it demands strategy. It’s about recognizing what the company needs to succeed as well as the human elements – the fears, the identities, and the attachments people have to their workplace. It’s about creating an environment of trust and safety; it’s about making change be not just accepted but embraced.
In the end, successful change efforts for me would be not only be ones that transform processes inside the organization but also ones that elevate the value of its people.