These words were penned in 1849 by the French journalist Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr but could have been written today, for with possibly as many as 70% of change initiatives failing according to many researchers; ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same.’

Notwithstanding that the odds are seemingly stacked against them the Harvard Business Review recently reported that the leaders of organisations globally are plunging themselves into more change initiatives than ever. That the organisations may need to ‘change’ is not the issue, it is that the ‘change leaders’ do not understand that designing and changing organisational structures, systems etc., is relatively easy but that getting the most important asset - their people – to change is far more difficult.

An earlier observer of human nature in history wrote: ‘It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system, for the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new one.’

Many may perhaps know these words of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) from the ‘The Prince’ but it would seem few have taken notice of them. Interestingly despite his reputation today, his book was not read by his ‘masters’ at the time, the ruling Medici family, for whom he wrote it as a form of job application, for he was ignored at the time with the book not being published until sometime after his death.

Humans have an instinctive need to be in control with this being a ‘hardwired’ survival need going back thousands of years. Our ancestors were naturally 'change-averse' because change more often than not posed real threats to their survival: they knew that change equaled danger. They needed to have, and had developed, a great deal of control over their environment, for this enabled them to escape or fight off any threats to their existence – the ‘fight or flight’ response we all still possess today.

In our modern world, changes are more complex, indeed often ambiguous, as well as frequent. The threats whilst they may not be physical nor present risks to our life still contain consequences that are uncertain to us. Subsequently, the instinctive need for ‘control’ when confronted with the slightest possible sense of change engages our ‘fight or flight’ need: an unconscious process based in beliefs about surviving.

Those leading and spearheading change need to recognise that in implementing organisational change, what may seem sensible, logical, and important to them (and let’s not forget the leaders have their own survival needs) may not be so to others. Two very differing sets of expectations being created.

An ‘expectation’ is what we think will happen before it does or does not (see post 2nd May, 2017). Our expectations are limited to our previous experiences; we are unable to expect something that we have not experienced before and we cannot expect something better than what we know. Expectations are beliefs that we have adopted that come from other people in our life and those formed from our own experiences, being taken on-board as ‘truths’ whether they are right or not.

There a few people, and they tend to be a minority, with positive expectations who see change as an opportunity. These are individuals, who are optimistic, proactive, and future focused. These are the individuals’ that every leader engaged in bringing about any change initiative would like to have in their team but that is not always the case.

The majority of people, on the other hand, have negative expectations with beliefs that trigger:

• Fear of the unknown

• Dread of leaving the ‘comfort zone’

• Anxiety (Loss Aversion)

• Trepidation of making mistakes

• Self-doubt

Often people displaying these attitudes and behaviours can be mistaken as being resistant to change whereas in reality they are acting only naturally like our ancestors.

Those leading organisational change need to recognise that people can and do change their beliefs and attitudes - it is why humankind has survived - by putting in place support and helping them maintain and develop their self-confidence, resilience, self-awareness, and esteem. This will of course take planning, patience, time and investment but without this they will not make the psychological transitions necessary for lasting and meaningful personal and organisational change to be achieved.

Any original estimate of how long the transitional process will take needs to be doubled or even possibly trebled, for it will not be easy as Karr observed and Machiavelli knew, for without it change has no constituency. It is crucial to understand the stake that a majority of individuals have in preserving the status quo is far stronger than the stake that the minority have in bringing about an alternative when it threatens the human basic needs of survival.