MENTALHEALTH.INFOLABMED.COM Leaders frequently express a strong desire for their team members to demonstrate greater autonomy, ownership, and proactive agency.
Yet, when significant organizational shifts occur—be it restructures, new technology rollouts, cost-cutting initiatives, or role redesigns—the very manner in which these changes are managed often dismantles the essential conditions that allow autonomy and ownership to flourish.
This paradox represents a long-standing challenge within leadership dynamics.
The Pitfalls of Traditional Change Management
The outdated command-and-control model for organizational change has not merely faltered; it became obsolete ages ago.
However, its lingering influences persist across numerous contemporary organizations, particularly during periods of uncertainty.
In such moments, organizations inadvertently revert to behaviors that actively erode trust, escalate anxiety, stifle initiative, and provoke widespread resistance.
To navigate complexity effectively, organizations must transition from a 'power-over' change paradigm—where change is imposed upon people—to a 'power-with' model, where change is collaboratively undertaken with people.
This fundamental shift extends beyond mere operational adjustments; it encompasses profound psychological, relational, and deeply human dimensions.
The Disconnect: Decisions Made, Not Shared
A majority of organizational transformations are conceptualized within exclusive senior leadership circles.
The fundamental issue lies in how these decisions, meticulously deliberated in top-tier rooms, are subsequently disseminated as irrefutable decrees.
Leaders rigorously debate options, evaluate risks, and process their own uncertainties long before any public announcement.
By the time employees finally receive the news, the decision has already been socialized, accepted, and emotionally processed by those at the top, presented to everyone else as a completed, non-negotiable solution.
While leaders operate in a solution-oriented mindset—future-focused, ready for action—employees are often just absorbing the initial information, consequently experiencing shock, denial, or even anger.
This stark contrast creates a significant leadership and organizational disconnect.
The Psychological Toll of 'Parent-Child' Dynamics
The chasm between leader mindset and employee psychology does more than just impede progress; it triggers a predictable psychological response.
Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis framework effectively elucidates this dynamic.
When leaders adopt a directive, 'we-know-best' posture, they unconsciously assume a 'parent' role.
Conversely, employees, excluded from the decision-shaping process, are inadvertently relegated to a 'child' role, perceiving a significant reduction in control, voice, and autonomy.
Under these specific conditions, individual ownership is fundamentally undermined.
People disengage not due to a lack of capability, but because the systemic structure has positioned them where meaningful agency is neither expected nor encouraged.
This growing gap between leadership perspective and employee psychology significantly hinders progress by undermining several critical areas:
A profound sense of security, as individuals fear unstated implications and hidden agendas.
Innovation and creativity, which diminish rapidly when people feel insecure or excluded from the process.
Risk-taking and initiative, because uncertainty inherently narrows cognitive bandwidth and encourages caution.
Collaboration, as individuals instinctively retreat into self-protection rather than working together.
Commitment and retention, as employees become emotionally disengaged from the organization’s future.
When people lack clarity and psychological safety, their natural inclination is to step back, not forward.
This reality holds immense significance for organizations striving to cultivate high-performing teams.
Extensive research, notably from Google’s Project Aristotle, reveals that the defining characteristics of exceptional teams include psychological safety, clear structure, reliability, a stable sense of direction, meaning, and individual impact.
When change is introduced in a manner that destabilizes people’s emotional footing, teams lose their capacity to constructively challenge ideas, experiment, or undertake intelligent risks.
Instead of functioning as interdependent units capable of innovation, they default to protectionism, excessive caution, and mere compliance—precisely the opposite of what high performance demands.
Understanding Resistance: A Signal, Not a Flaw
Psychologist Jack Brehm’s Reactance Theory clarifies that when individuals perceive their freedom, influence, or control to be restricted, they instinctively push back.
This reaction occurs not necessarily because they oppose the direction of the change itself, but because they resent being denied agency in its implementation.
Such resistance can manifest as quiet dissent, compliance without true commitment, or simply performing the absolute minimum required tasks.
The encouraging news is that even resistance itself serves as an indicator that a change has been acknowledged, therefore representing a constructive outcome to be embraced and strategically addressed.
For instance, one organization introducing new competencies wisely chose to test them with a group of employees before official launch.
The employees confirmed their acceptance of the new competencies but strongly objected to the communication method, which used the widely employed 'Stop, Start, Continue' framework.
They pointed out that 'Stop, Start, Continue' inadvertently reinforces the 'parent-child' dynamic.
Instead, they proposed conveying the same content using 'Keep, Increase, Decrease' as a more 'adult-to-adult' approach.
Reactance, therefore, is not an inherent flaw within our team members; it is a critical signal of poor change architecture.
Shifting to a 'Power-With' Approach: Co-Creating Change
Change thrives when leaders acknowledge that high performance is something co-created with, rather than extracted from, the very individuals performing the work.
Methodologies such as Lean, Kaizen, Agile, and continuous improvement have long demonstrated that the most effective and sustainable changes originate from those closest to the actual work.
These robust processes are frequently adopted in manufacturing environments.
High-performing teams consistently illustrate that decentralized problem-solving generates superior innovation, enhanced safety, and greater resilience.
Yet, paradoxically, during moments of organizational discomfort, many leaders revert to hierarchical control.
Precisely when collaboration is most critically needed, it is often abandoned.
This tendency frequently stems from leaders' discomfort with the emotions inherent in change, leading them to rush into action and use the need for speed as a convenient excuse to avoid their own unease.
Research investigating why organizational change efforts fail consistently reveals that the primary reasons share common 'people factors.'
Failure is less about the 'why' or the 'what' of change, and predominantly about the 'how.'
Embracing Empathy: The 'Cool Head, Warm Heart' Principle
Intentionally dedicating time upfront to establish a safe environment where individuals can express their feelings without judgment has been proven to mitigate negative emotional responses within the amygdala.
Counterintuitively, the more time leaders invest with their people in the initial stages of change, the smoother the overall change process will unfold over time.
Former Tetra Pak CEO Nick Shreiber famously applied the mantra “Cool Head, Warm Heart†during significant organizational changes.
This philosophy ensured that while the organization made necessary tough business decisions, all changes were implemented in alignment with the company’s core values and with profound respect for the individuals involved.
This approach is paramount because people are capable of processing both good and bad news; what causes substantial stress is prolonged uncertainty and the feeling of not being treated respectfully.
A compelling example of a 'power-with' approach is Hubert Joly’s remarkable transformation of electronics retailer Best Buy.
Instead of initiating change through a unilateral, executive-driven strategy, Joly commenced by visiting stores and intently listening to feedback from his frontline employees.
Their invaluable lived experiences directly shaped the direction of the subsequent Renew Blue strategy.
This early invitation actively rebuilt trust, unearthed crucial practical insights, and reconnected employees to the organization’s overarching purpose.
The commercial impact was extraordinary: between 2012 and 2019, Best Buy’s share price soared by over 300%, unequivocally demonstrating that deep listening and early involvement are not detrimental to performance, but rather foundational to its achievement.
Designing for Ownership: Six Pillars of Human-Led Change
Leadership teams that aspire to cultivate true ownership, creativity, initiative, and resilience must design their change processes with these qualities paramount in mind.
These essential attributes cannot simply be mandated; they must be actively enabled and made possible.
But how can this be achieved?
1. Bring People In Early, Before All Decisions Are Final
Share the core problem or challenge, rather than merely presenting a finished solution.
Actively invite diverse perspectives, highlight constraints, discuss potential risks, and solicit innovative ideas.
Even when every minute detail cannot yet be disclosed, early involvement powerfully signals respect and preserves human dignity.
2. Lead with Conversation, Not Declaration
Replace one-way broadcast communication with meaningful, sense-making dialogue.
Change should inherently be a human process rooted in reflection, genuine curiosity, and active participation, as opposed to a mere cascade of information.
3. Leverage Coaching Skills with a Secure Base Approach
Leaders evolve into potent catalysts when they establish a secure base for their team members—a supportive environment where people feel both profoundly supported and appropriately challenged.
By thoughtfully encouraging individuals to care, dare, and share, leaders foster deeper connections.
People innovate most effectively when they feel inherently safe, not when they feel overly managed or controlled.
Swiss electricity producer and service provider Alpiq exemplifies this approach in practice, accelerating a cultural transformation by strategically leveraging coaching skills.
Following comprehensive leadership training for its top and mid-level executives, the company established internal 'Coaching Ambassadors,' comprising 17 senior volunteers.
These ambassadors subsequently ran multi-cohort 'Co-Creating Our Future Together' programs.
This innovative internal, peer-led model successfully built psychological safety, enhanced credibility, and established a common coaching vocabulary across the organization.
Alpiq further deepened its commitment by internalizing coaching capability: the company supported several ambassadors to complete an external accredited coaching program.
These certified coaches now dedicate up to 10% of their time to an in-house coaching hub, offering one-to-one, team, and transition coaching.
Simon Reber, Head of Organizational Development and Leadership at Alpiq, noted, “Leaders now utilize shared language, model coaching micro-skills, and act as multipliers who 'transmit' trust and guiding principles into everyday decisions, thereby transforming secure base concepts into a sustained, internally led coaching culture.
In 2025, Alpiq proudly earned certification as a 'Great Place to Work' across all its country locations.â€
4. Design Operating Systems, Not Just Organization Charts
Simply altering reporting lines without fundamentally changing how decisions are made will inevitably reproduce the same constraints within a new structural framework.
'Power-with' leadership actively redesigns:
Decision pathways, ensuring broad involvement.
Feedback loops, making them continuous and bidirectional.
Autonomy levels, clearly defining spheres of influence.
Accountability systems, fostering shared responsibility.
How voice moves through the organization, amplifying diverse perspectives.
5. Honor the Human Transition, Not Only the Structural Shift
Change inherently disrupts identity—how individuals perceive themselves and their position within the organizational system.
It is absolutely vital that leaders intentionally create space for rituals surrounding endings, allow for neutral zones of uncertainty, acknowledge grief, and facilitate renewal.
This is not 'soft work'; it forms the rigorous foundation upon which renewed commitment and sustained performance are meticulously rebuilt.
6. Prioritize Human-to-Human Connection Throughout the Process
Transformational change is rarely driven by polished slide decks or meticulously crafted messaging plans alone.
It genuinely succeeds when people feel truly seen, heard, supported, and deeply connected to one another.
Leaders who intentionally dedicate time for personal conversations, empathetic emotional check-ins, and cultivate relational warmth create the optimal conditions under which people can confidently move forward.
The Promise of Co-Created Change
When organizations embrace a co-created 'power-with' approach to the 'how' of change, they begin to unlock an authentic sense of ownership.
Individuals feel intrinsically part of shaping the future, rather than having it unilaterally imposed upon them.
This approach forms the bedrock of sustainably high-performing, adaptative organizations.
One biotech organization, following a series of significant restructures, recognized that its declining momentum stemmed not from flawed design, but from unresolved emotional impacts lingering from previous reorganizations.
In response, leaders deliberately shifted their focus from rigid structure to the nuanced process of human transition.
Time was intentionally allocated for teams to fully process endings before being asked to commit to renewal.
They explicitly acknowledged loss and uncertainty, created dedicated space for leader-led conversations about identity ('Who are we now?'), and maintained clarity and transparency regarding how affected employees were being treated and supported.
As a direct result, engagement and energy significantly recovered, and performance stabilized much more rapidly than in prior change cycles.
The Invitation: Make Change Human-Led
This profound shift demands that leaders exhibit the courage to evolve from mere directors, controllers, or sole solution-owners into genuine catalysts and conveners.
In this new role, they:
Co-create the essential conditions for people to contribute meaningfully and authentically.
Become secure bases who actively build trust and cultivate psychological safety.
Co-shape purpose, organizational structures, and future pathways collaboratively.
Maintain clarity of vision without resorting to coercion.
Uphold dignity through unwavering transparency and active collaboration.
In a world characterized by relentless complexity, the most invaluable resource is not absolute certainty; it is human potential, powerfully unlocked through robust relationships.
When global asset manager Robeco aimed to drive cultural transformation, they looked beyond senior management, ensuring the change became a shared responsibility across everyone.
As CEO Karin Van Baardwijk articulated, “We firmly believe that our performance is a synergistic combination of both our results and our behaviors.
To truly unlock our full potential, we need to carefully balance caring, daring, and sharing at every single level of the organization.â€
The co-creation of leadership priorities ensured direct relevance and strong buy-in, while a hands-on, team-based approach made the change feel real and ensured its lasting impact.
Before announcing the next restructure, AI implementation, redesign, or any new transformation initiative, leaders would benefit immensely by pausing to ask themselves a few crucial questions:
How can we involve people earlier in the process, even if all the intricate details are still developing?
How can we intentionally create a safe space for human emotion—the sharing of questions, grief, confusion, and hope—to be openly expressed?
How can we design decision rights and workflows that actively build, rather than diminish, a sense of ownership?
How can we remain genuinely connected to people as complete human beings, not merely as functional roles within a change plan?
When organizations collaboratively co-create change, they accomplish far more than simply implementing new structures; they profoundly transform the social fabric that is essential for making high performance truly possible.
When people are consistently treated as adults possessing agency, valuable insight, and inherent capability, they consistently rise to meet that expectation.
