People don’t experience change as an average
27 September 2026 | 6 minute read
A transformation can produce a positive result overall and still create a deeply negative experience for some of the people inside it. Leaders often communicate the total benefit while employees assess what they will personally gain, lose or have to carry. When those two perspectives diverge, the problem is not always resistance or poor communication. Sometimes the average is hiding something leaders have failed to examine.
BHP has been negotiating a new four-year agreement with operators and maintenance workers at its Port Hedland facilities.
The company’s offer includes a 17% pay increase over four years, a $25,000 transition payment and higher roster allowances. The unions representing the workers argue that approximately 40% of employees covered by the proposal could still be worse off.
I’m not close enough to the detail to judge which position is right. That isn’t the point I want to examine.
What interested me was how two sides can describe the same proposal using numbers that may both be accurate, while presenting entirely different experiences of the change.
A 17% increase describes the total package.
Being worse off describes where an individual may end up within it.
Leaders tend to assess transformation in aggregate: total savings, overall productivity, average remuneration, combined headcount or enterprise-wide benefit. People experience it from the position they have been placed in: their role, their team, their workload, their flexibility, their authority and their future.
The overall business case can be sound while the cost is distributed unevenly.
This is where leaders can become frustrated. You have explained the benefit, shared the evidence and presented a commercially rational case, yet some people remain unconvinced.
The assumption is often that people do not understand the strategy; but in fact, sometimes they understand it very well. They can see the benefit to the organisation and the cost being assigned to them.
That is not a communication problem or people being difficult. It is a leadership question about fairness, trade-offs and who is expected to pay for the transformation the organisation aspires to.
1. The average can hide the most important part of the decision
Averages are useful. They help you see patterns, compare options and build a case for change.
They can also make an uneven experience appear more balanced than it is.
A technology implementation might save thousands of hours while transferring exception handling, checking and frustrated customers to a handful of operational roles. An operating-model redesign might reduce workload by 10% across the organisation while doubling the coordination required from one team. A restructure might remove management layers overall while leaving a smaller number of leaders with substantially wider spans and less support.
None of those outcomes necessarily makes the transformation wrong.
But the average does not tell you whether the burden has been placed somewhere the organisation can sustain it. Nor does it tell you whether the people carrying that burden have the capability, capacity or authority to manage it.
Try this: before approving the next transformation decision, divide the affected groups into three categories: those who clearly gain, those whose experience remains broadly neutral and those who will carry a material loss or additional burden. Look at each group separately before returning to the overall benefit.
Insight: the average can establish the commercial case. It cannot establish whether the consequences are workable or fair.
2. People assess change from what they already have
Leaders often describe transformation by comparing the current organisation with the future organisation.
Employees usually make a more personal comparison. They compare what they will have after the change with what they have now.
That reference point is important.
Someone may understand that the new structure creates greater value overall while also seeing that their influence will reduce. They may support the system implementation while knowing that their role will absorb more complex exceptions. They may accept that standardisation is sensible while losing flexibility that made their working life manageable.
These are not irrational responses. Nor do they automatically mean the decision should be reversed.
They do mean you should stop assuming that a larger organisational gain will neutralise a specific personal loss.
The usual response is to communicate the future benefits more forcefully. But when someone is telling you what they stand to lose, another presentation about what the organisation will gain may reinforce the sense that nobody has understood their position, making them feel dismissed.
Try this: ask affected people, “what do you believe you will have less of after this change?” Listen for more than pay or position. People may be describing a loss of competence, identity, access, influence, certainty, relationships or control over how they work.
Insight: people do not assess change against the organisation’s future state. They assess it against their current reality.
3. Not every objection is resistance; some are consequence data
The language of resistance is too convenient.
It can allow leaders to categorise an uncomfortable response without investigating the information inside it.
Sometimes people do resist because they prefer the familiar, distrust leadership or do not want to change established habits. But sometimes the person raising the objection understands an operational consequence that decision-makers cannot see from their position.
They know where the additional work will land.
They know which experienced person holds the process together informally.
They know which apparently duplicated activity catches mistakes before customers see them.
They know that the proposed accountabilities do not match the authority people will actually have.
This does not mean every concern deserves a veto. It means you should test the substance before judging the response.
People closest to the work are not always right about the strategy. But senior leaders are not always right about how easily the strategy can be executed.
Both forms of knowledge matter.
Try this: when a credible objection is raised, ask three questions before deciding it is resistance:
What consequence is this person identifying?
What do they know from their position that we may not?
If their concern proves correct, what will it cost us to discover it during implementation?
Insight: not every objection should change the decision. Every credible consequence should improve your understanding of it.
4. Transparency about loss is stronger than relentless positivity
Leaders often worry that openly acknowledging loss will undermine confidence in the transformation.
In reality, people usually know when something is being taken away. Avoiding the subject makes leaders appear unaware of the impact or unwilling to discuss it honestly.
You can believe a decision is necessary and still acknowledge that it creates a genuine loss.
You can say:
“We believe this is the right decision for the organisation. We also recognise that this team will carry more disruption than others.”
“This creates significant benefits, but those benefits will not be distributed equally.”
“We considered other options. Here is why we did not choose them.”
“We cannot remove all the uncertainty yet. Here is what has been decided, what remains open and when you will hear from us again.”
That is not negative leadership. It is an honest account of the decision.
Transparency does not require you to disclose confidential information, speculate about unresolved matters or apologise for acting. It requires you to stop presenting a partial truth as though it is the whole experience.
Try this: add a specific section called “losses and trade-offs” to your next transformation paper, executive discussion and communication plan. If the section remains empty, test whether the team genuinely believes there are none or is simply uncomfortable naming them.
Insight: people do not need you to pretend there is no loss, they need confidence that the loss has been seen, considered and not casually assigned.
5. Fair does not mean everyone wins
This is where the conversation can become too soft.
Transformation cannot depend on making every person happy. Some decisions will reduce roles, change conditions, remove discretion, alter reporting lines or require particular groups to carry more disruption than others.
Leadership sometimes means making a decision that is right for the organisation and unfavourable to some of the people within it.
The obligation is not to eliminate every disadvantage but instead make sure the disadvantage is necessary, proportionate and defensible.
Fairness has several dimensions.
There is outcome fairness: who gains, who loses and how much.
There is process fairness: how the decision was reached, whose knowledge was considered and whether alternatives were genuinely examined.
There is interpersonal fairness: whether people were treated honestly and respectfully, particularly when the outcome was not the one they wanted.
You may not be able to give someone their preferred outcome, but you can still explain the reasoning, acknowledge the impact, provide meaningful influence over implementation and avoid diminishing the person for raising a legitimate concern.
This is also where employee voice matters. Involving people does not mean handing over accountability or leaving every decision open indefinitely.
Try this: test one consequential decision against three questions:
Is the distribution of benefit and loss defensible?
Was the process capable of surfacing information that challenged our preferred answer?
Can we explain the decision honestly to the people carrying its greatest cost?
Insight: fairness is not the promise that everyone will receive the same outcome. It is evidence that you understood the differences and exercised judgement responsibly.
A question to sit with this month
Instead of thinking about how to gain buy-in, which places the problem with the employee, a better question is to understand the consequences fully, make deliberate trade-offs and create conditions in which people can execute the decision even when they would not have chosen it.
You do not need to carry every person’s disappointment or make everyone happy with the outcome but you are responsible for understanding what the decision asks of them.
If this raised a question about how the benefits and costs of change are being distributed in your organisation, I’d be interested to hear what you are seeing. If someone in your network is leading a consequential transformation, send this one on.
Sources and further reading
Key Takeaways
Organisational benefits can be positive overall while costs fall heavily on particular people or teams.
People assess change from what they currently have, not only from what the future organisation may gain.
Some apparent resistance is useful information about consequences leaders have not yet considered.
Naming loss and uncertainty strengthens credibility when leaders are clear about what has and has not been decided.
Fairness does not require identical outcomes; it requires a defensible distribution, a credible process and respectful treatment.
Leaders cannot outsource responsibility for the human consequences of a commercially sound decision.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this mean every transformation decision needs to benefit everyone?
No. Some consequential decisions will disadvantage particular people or groups. The leadership obligation is to understand that disadvantage, determine whether it is necessary and proportionate, and explain the reasoning honestly. Fairness is not the same as universal satisfaction.
Isn’t some employee resistance simply self-interest?
Of course. People are allowed to care about what a decision means for them. Thats why we assess and communicate the WIIFM (what’s in it for me) for individuals. Self-interest does not automatically invalidate the information they provide. Leaders still need to distinguish between a preference for the status quo and a credible warning about workload, capability, risk or execution.
How much influence should employees have over a decision leaders are accountable for making?
Enough to surface relevant knowledge and shape how the change will work in practice. Employee voice does not require consensus or give everyone veto power. It improves the evidence available to leaders while leaving decision accountability where it belongs.
What should leaders communicate when significant details are still unresolved?
Separate what has been decided from what remains under consideration. Explain the criteria that will shape the remaining decisions, who will be involved and when the next credible update will be provided. Focus on the process of decision making, being transparent taht you simply do not have all teh information yet. Do not fill uncertainty with reassurance you cannot support.
How can executives test whether a transformation is distributing costs unfairly?
Examine the impact by role, team, location and employee group rather than relying only on enterprise averages. Identify who receives the benefit, who absorbs the additional effort and who loses something they currently value. Then test whether the distribution is necessary and whether mitigation is available.
About Louise
Louise Zawada is an executive coach, change strategist and leadership mentor based in Perth, Western Australia.
She works with senior leaders and executive teams navigating complex organisational change, helping them close the gap between strategy and execution by strengthening executive judgement, reducing leadership friction and improving the quality of conversations that drive performance.
Her work spans mining and resources, government, infrastructure and corporate organisations, where she coaches leaders to make better decisions under pressure, build trust through uncertainty and lead change with greater confidence and clarity.
Louise is the creator of the Leadership Friction framework and writes regularly on executive judgement, organisational legibility and the behavioural evidence that determines whether strategy becomes action.
If you're leading significant change and need a trusted thinking partner, connect with Louise or book a conversation.