A new lens on Leading Change
Why do we keep designing change for rational people — when there are no rational people?
That's the question at the heart of a recent conversation with coach Brian Gorman, and it's one every change leader should sit with for a moment.
Most change models assume a simple logic: persuade someone the change is a good idea, and they'll adopt it. But that assumes an idealised world where nothing else is competing for attention. Real organisations are a 24/7 battlefield of competing priorities, cognitive overload and tribal loyalties. We don't make logical choices — we make emotional ones, then rationalise them afterwards. The good news? We're irrational in predictable ways. And once you accept that, change stops being guesswork.
Start with anthropology, not methodology
Coaches, change agents and organisational behaviourists are, whether we admit it or not, cultural anthropologists. The models that held true in a Tokyo boardroom held true in Western organisations too — because underneath the surface differences, humans make choices in strikingly similar ways. Yet anthropology is the discipline we rarely talk about.
It matters because organisations aren't teams on an org chart. They're tribes. And tribes operate by their own rules. We're motivated less by our own opinions than by belonging, safety and keeping our tribal leader happy. The tribal leader is often not the person with the title — and the person with the title is often only surviving by keeping the tribe from firing them.
This is where most change efforts quietly die. We try to win hearts and minds one individual at a time, building awareness, desire, knowledge and all the rest. But the tribe has a stronger pull. Even if I think an idea is great, if my boss doesn't prioritise it, I will choose my boss every time. The distance between the change's priorities and the leader's priorities is the gap you must close. Nothing else matters until you do.
Design the environment, not the individual
Here's the counter-intuitive shift: stop trying to change people. Assume everyone is cognitively overloaded. Assume they're capable — modern hiring practices mean you're rarely asking people to do things they can't. The issue is never ability. It's willingness. So engineer the environment to make the right choice the easy choice. Find the moment of choice — the moment where value is realised, when a human chooses to do something differently — and work backwards from there. What's competing for their attention? What does their tribe say is acceptable? What does history tell them to expect? Then design accordingly.
Trust is the magic sprinkle dust
Executive teams are "bizarrely in conflict" — and the root cause is almost embarrassingly simple. They haven't spent time together, and the time they do spend is transactional: budgets, performance, numbers. Not getting to know each other. Trust needs proximity and purpose. And change happens at the speed of trust.
In a virtual world, this becomes existential. Command-and-control leadership doesn't survive the screen. You can't watch over people, and you can't fake authenticity — there are too many data points now. Leaders must accept any change before they can lead it, or everyone will see the disconnect and mirror it back.
Change is grief, not logic
We make the rational case for change: here are the benefits. But for people who built what's being dismantled, it's loss. Loss aversion is one of the most powerful biases we have. So never criticise the past — those decisions were the best possible at the time. Chunk the change into steps small enough to stay below the threat threshold. And genuinely involve people. Not "do you like the brochure cover?" involvement, but real co-creation. Once it's theirs, they'll defend it fiercely.
The uncomfortable truth
You can only achieve as much change as your leadership allows. So stop persuading, and start designing. Read the tribe. Build the trust. Close the disconnect. And work smarter, not harder.
Original Episode: A New Lens on Leading Change
