208 Transition

As I become more familiar with the ubiquitous nature of change and transition in the contemporary context, my thinking increasingly shifts toward understanding — and acting on — what those impacted by change can actually control.

This is a departure from orthodox change thinking that focuses on developing and implementing overarching strategies designed to take people from point A to point Z.

Daryl Conner’s work on change resilience touches on this, with references to what change recipients can reasonably absorb before they begin to display dysfunctional behaviour. He rounds this out with the idea of Human Due Diligence — the responsibility change leaders have for employees impacted by change. In other words: planning must account for what change actually costs people.

Framing the impact of change as “resistance” is thankfully becoming outdated. Often it’s a sign of laziness.

Making sense of prospective change now has to account for the human element. Consider this: in modern life, change occurs in non-stop overlapping waves across our professional and personal worlds. Sitting over the top of this are macro-societal shifts and pressures.

It is not unreasonable to think change is unending — and the personal cost of this is profound.

Zygmunt Bauman studied the continuously shifting nature of post-modern life and labelled it Liquid Modernity. In this context, “change is the only permanence, and uncertainty the only certainty.”

There are opportunities in this environment — but they can only be realised through determined effort:

• an effort by employers and policy makers to account for Human Due Diligence, and
• an effort by individuals to exercise agency: to focus on what is within their grasp.

In other words: to stabilise.

What is stabilisation?

A useful working definition of stabilisation is:

Stabilisation is the deliberate act of restoring enough clarity, rhythm, and psychological safety for people to function well again — even while change is still unfolding.

For the cricket fan, stabilisation is what happens between each delivery as batter and bowler reset.

In football, stabilisation routinely occurs when a team is under pressure. Individual players — and the collective — go back to the basics of their game and their structure.

Stabilisation sustains human performance.

This is why workplace change sense-making must account for a mutuality of stability: the shared responsibility leaders and change recipients have for creating conditions that support stability during change and transition.

It sounds contradictory: stability and change.

But it hinges on how the organisation — and the individuals within it — frame agency, or their sphere of control.

For the individual, stabilisation during change looks like managing the day and the flashpoints within the day. It involves developing “stability katas” such as:

• prioritising and chunking tasks
• regulating emotions (especially under pressure)
• asking for help early
• helping others
• reflecting on what you can influence

Over time, this becomes a pattern of cumulative effort that protects the individual during continuous change.

For the organisation, stability is created through:

• clear priorities for the next day or week (including what the organisation will not be doing)
• predictable check-ins, decisions, and routines
• leadership presence that is calm and non-reactive

In this context, time slows — as much as possible.

Organisational stability lowers the white noise of change without altering the momentum of change.

Great sportspeople are adept at slowing the game down. They always look like they have a few seconds more to make decisions.

In a world of non-stop change, stabilisation is the ability for organisations and employees to “slow things down” enough to perform — within what they can control.

It should be simple, cumulative, and mutual.

And over time, it builds change resilience.