Leading Through Change and Transformation

Direction does not come from having an immediate answer to every question.

The more important distinction is:

What do we know? What has been decided? What remains open? And when can we expect further information?

In dynamic change processes, this clarity creates more trust than premature certainty.

More communication does not automatically solve the problem. What matters is whether actions match what has been announced and what people have been led to expect.

Change affects people differently.

For one person, a new structure means greater scope to shape the work. For another, it means losing a familiar role. Some employees focus mainly on new demands, while others are concerned with influence, status, belonging or security.

Reluctance is therefore not always an adjustment problem. Sometimes it is an understandable response to genuine change.

Leadership means looking more closely. What does this employee need in order to act effectively again? More information? A concrete next step? Clarity about their role and expectations? Time to adjust to something new?

At the same time, support has limits. Not every change remains open to negotiation. Where decisions have been made, expectations for the future must also be clear.

Managers are not neutral messengers for organisational decisions.

You have your own professional judgement. You see risks, know the reality of your area and may personally experience disadvantages as a result of the change.

Professional loyalty does not mean pretending to be enthusiastic.

Relevant objections and risks need to be raised upwards while there is still scope to influence a decision. Once the decision has been made and implementation forms part of your role, the task changes.

The question then becomes:

How can I represent a decision responsibly without pretending to believe something I do not?

Statements such as “I think it is wrong too, but those at the top want it this way” may create closeness with the team in the short term. At the same time, they weaken your own leadership role.

If you can no longer change a decision, you do not have to pretend you approve of it. You should, however, be able to state clearly what was decided, why the organisation is taking this route and what now follows for the team.

A transformation may have been formally agreed by the leadership team and still proceed in different directions in daily practice.

One manager demands speed. Another relies on intensive involvement. A third waits until there is more clarity. Each approach may be understandable in itself, but employees still receive conflicting signals.

More communication is no substitute for consistent leadership.

It is therefore not enough to agree on a shared objective. Leadership teams also need to clarify what that objective means for priorities, decisions and leadership behaviour.

This is not about complete uniformity. Different areas require different solutions.

It becomes problematic when different interpretations coexist without even being made visible or discussed. Employees then have to work out for themselves which version of the change currently applies.

Not every change is an opportunity for everyone involved.

Roles may be removed. People lose responsibility, are transferred or have to leave the organisation. Positive change communication cannot make such decisions pleasant.

In a redundancy conversation, the purpose is not to persuade the person affected that the change is beneficial. It is to provide clarity, fairness and respect, and to bear the other person's response without glossing over the decision or hiding behind the organisation.

The leadership task does not end there.

Those who remain watch closely how affected colleagues are treated. New questions arise at the same time: Will I be next? Can I still trust what management says? Who will take on the additional work?

Such questions need honest answers, not another presentation about the benefits of transformation.

Criticism is not automatically resistance.

Employees may see genuine risks, identify losses or expose contradictions between official communication and everyday work.

Treating such responses too quickly as resistance may mean losing precisely the information needed for implementation.

At the same time, criticism can persist even after a decision has been made and all room to shape it has been used. Leadership then has to distinguish:

Where is there relevant information? Where is there still genuine influence? And where must a decision be implemented despite opposition?

Involvement also requires clarity. If employees are invited to contribute, they should be told openly what they can genuinely shape. Simulating participation in a question that has already been decided creates additional frustration.

It is also worth examining the change process itself. If information is contradictory, decisions are altered repeatedly, or participation is announced and later disregarded, some apparent “resistance” may be produced by the way the change is being led.

Transformations rarely take place within one team alone.

Senior management expects pace, progress and results. Your own team needs direction and workable decisions. Other departments follow their own priorities and may compete for the same resources.

Contradictions that cannot be removed still have to be managed.

That means distinguishing clearly: What lies within my mandate? What requires coordination? Where must a decision be escalated? And which tension has to be tolerated for a while because there is currently no clean solution?

It becomes difficult when a manager tries to absorb every interest personally and keep every side satisfied at the same time. This not only increases their own strain. It also conceals where the real conflicts lie.

Change does not affect only the team.

Managers also lose certainties, influence or familiar structures. At the same time, they are expected to convey confidence, represent decisions and keep daily work stable.

One question is therefore especially important:

How is my own uncertainty changing the way I lead?

Someone who feels under pressure may increase control, make decisions more cautiously or avoid conflict. Others increase the pace in order to escape the sense of standstill.

None of these responses is automatically wrong. What matters is whether it fits the situation or unintentionally intensifies what is already difficult.

Especially during longer transformations, it is worth looking not only at the team but also at your own position: What do I stand for? Where am I affected myself? Where do I need clarity? And how am I currently affecting others?