Notes on Change: Real Change vs. Fake Change and How to Move Forward

Overview: The speaker argues that resistance to change is often expressed with convenient but non-real objections, and provides a practical framework to move from passion to real, implementable change.

Common framing of resistance (the wall):

• A person stands up and declares a better way, sparking initial excitement.
• In the workplace and with friends/family, the idea is greeted with optimism, e.g., “rejoice, there is a better way.”
• The reality check comes when people respond with one or more objections:
• “It’s not the way we do things around here.”
• “It’s traditional.”
• “It’s complicated.”
• “We’ve done it before” or “now’s not a good time.”
• “We haven’t got the money.”
• “It’s not in the charter.”
• “It’s political.”
• The speaker asks the audience to recognize these as common, non-real obstacles that are easy to refute.

Refuting the fake reasons (clear examples): these lines are not real blockers, and each can be countered:

• It’s always been like this → This means the problem is older than you, not that it can’t be changed now.
• It’s the same everywhere → The problem is broader; that’s an argument to fix it everywhere, not an argument to resist here.
• It’s not in the budget → Money was misallocated; resources can be redirected.
• It’s not in the charter → The vision wasn’t big enough; broaden the charter.
• It’s political → People have learned to keep ideas to themselves; encourage openness rather than fear.
• It’s traditional → We don’t know why we do it this way; it’s a grasping for continuity rather than rational justification.
• It’s complicated → Offer simplification; the counter is: we can make it simpler or fit it with more nuance.
• It sounds too simple → Acknowledge depth but be willing to add necessary complexity.
• This isn’t what we pay you to do → The speaker responds: “That’s okay. This one’s a freebie.”

The seven classic (identified) reasons for resistance (and framing):

• Note: the speaker presents a bundle of classic pushbacks as a set to address. The following themes recur in discussions of change:
• Fear and strong emotion (emotional resistance)
• Perceived lack of fit or ownership (I don’t see how I fit into this)
• Frustration with “phony” or inauthentic change (I’m fed up with phony change)
• Feeling unprepared for the magnitude of the transition (I don’t know how big a deal this change really is)
• Uncertainty about handling the journey (I’m scared of the transition, not the idea)
• Perceived lack of consultation or voice (Is there a sense of ownership or contribution?)
• Broader context concerns (the problem is bigger than our unit; it’s systemic)

Real reasons people resist change (and how to respond):

• Primary emotional states when hearing about change:
• I feel scared
• I’m angry
• I feel betrayed
• I feel stupid
• Approach: don’t try to argue people out of their negatives immediately. Do the following for about 15 minutes:
• Listen to their feelings rather than pushing the positives first.
• What they feel becomes a map of their emotional landscape; you’ll often hear variations of the same four feelings.
• After enough listening, people typically shift to constructive thoughts:
• I kind of knew this was coming
• I’ve never liked it here
• I’ve been putting up with this
• I need a push, change could be good for me
• Outcome of this process: people move from negativity to action, and some will pursue new opportunities (study, travel, new roles) and form support networks.
• Analogy: a small child learning to walk doesn’t know if the fall is good or bad; the caregiver’s reaction matters. Positive reinforcement leads to experimentation; overactive reassurance can hinder risk-taking.
• Core lesson: the change process often reveals a path to growth when people feel heard and supported.

The emotional-space model (positive–interesting–negative):

• The “neutral space” between good and bad is the space for artists, innovators, and inventors.
• As adults, we tend to compress this space into a binary view of good vs bad, which reduces willingness to explore.
• To foster creativity, allow room for the “interesting” and not just the binary categorization of change.

The status quo vs the unknown: how people judge risk and momentum

• The status quo is familiar, proven, and known—even if insane it feels safe.
• The unknown is unproven, uncertain, and potentially frightening, but it is where growth happens.
• The remedy: give people a heads-up about the ride: it will be bumpy, it will be weird, fasten your seat belts, this will be the ride.
• The unknown is navigable when people have forewarning and a credible path forward.

The four doors of change (to map what is changing and what stays the same):

• Door 1: Things we could do before and can still do now (unchanged capabilities)
• Example: allowing flexible work hours, continuing to use email and phone, etc.
• Door 2: Things we couldn’t do before and still can’t do now (things that won’t change)
• Example: we can’t poison products; we won’t cheat or steal; legal/ethical limits persist.
• Door 3: Things we could do before and can’t do now (trade-offs due to change)
• Example: long meetings, peak-hour commuting, etc.—things we might sacrifice.
• Door 4: Things we couldn’t do before but can do now (new possibilities)
• Example: work-life harmony (or “work-life balance” reimagined) enabled by new processes.
• Purpose: Help stakeholders see edges of change, understand what remains, and embrace new opportunities.

Ownership vs. authorship in change

• The problem: being told what must change and reporting back can create resistance.
• Ownership: people feel they must own the change themselves; this often leads to rejection if mandated.
• Authorship: instead of ownership, give people authorship – they explain why change is needed, outline what must change, and then propose how to make it work.
• Outcome: When people contribute how they will implement change, they’re more likely to support and drive it forward rather than merely comply.

The renovator’s delight (a practical tool for change design): four questions

• Think of renovating a house:
• What would you keep? (keep values, passion, best people)
• What would you chuck? (remove negativity, bureaucracy, red tape)
• What would you change? (culture, attitude, thinking)
• What would you add? (empowerment, innovation, creativity, fun)
• Why it works: it surfaces the organization’s own preferences and aligns change with participants’ values; it’s owned by them because they framed it.

Debunking the claim “people hate change”

• The speaker argues this is false: different sectors (fashion, tourism, gyms, elections, etc.) rely on change.
• What people actually want is real change: they don’t want superficial or fake change; they want something genuine that they can believe in.
• The implication: do not stereotype audiences as anti-change; instead, demonstrate authenticity and a credible path forward.

Real vs fake change: critical criteria

• Is the change real or fake?
• Is it cultural or structural?
• Is the change offered (invited) or foisted (imposed)?
• Key distinctions:
• Structural change (reorganizing charts, names, reporting) without changing culture tends to fail.
• Cultural change (changing how people think, behave, and interact) is necessary for durable change.
• Real change is cultural and offered; fake change is structural and foisted.
• Practical takeaway: aim for cultural evolution and invite participation, not coercion.

The mindset: open vs closed (two choices) and their consequences

• You have a choice: mind open or mind closed.
• Possible outcomes of these choices when confronted with change:
• Open mind + no real substance (no genuine opportunity) → high risk of disappointment (empty hopes).
• Closed mind + fake change (phony) → you win the right to say “I told you so” but miss real opportunity.
• Closed mind + real opportunity → you lose the opportunity to make a difference.
• Open mind + real opportunity → you have a genuine chance to make a real difference.
• The speaker frames the choice as a practical decision with clear consequences; open minds facing real change offer the best prospect for impact.

What we’re here for: purpose and legacy

• Questions to consider:
• What was I here for?
• What will I do? What did it amount to?
• Common responses observed in organizations:
• “Here lies me. I protected the status quo.”
  • Not an appealing life achievement.
• “I met all my KPIs; I satisfied all standards.”
  • Not inspiring or meaningful to most people.
• “Is this a life? Is this a death?”
  • Indicates a lack of meaning or contribution.
• Core belief: a fundamental human need is to contribute and make a difference; life should amount to something meaningful.
• Final aphorism (Tolkien referenced):
• “All we have to decide is what to do with the time we have.”
• The speaker reframes this in modern terms: you can keep things the same or you can make a difference, but you cannot do both.

Summary takeaway

• Change is real and often resisted with non-real excuses.
• To move from passion to practical change, acknowledge emotions, grant authorship, use collaborative tools (Renovator’s Delight), and ensure the change is cultural, invited, and authentic.
• The long-term measure of success is whether the change leads to meaningful contribution and impact, not just meeting KPIs or maintaining the status quo.