I wrote about the topic of change many years ago and reflected on why it can be so disliked and resisted. I’m back to discuss the same word, but from a different perspective, one of relevancy.
This topic occurred to me a few months ago when the question was asked (I forget the context): if we’re constantly changing, is change really a significant event at all? Is it not the norm?
Now, as human beings, we’re aging and evolving (so time plays a factor, for the good and the bad), until a particular end-point, so there is no doubt that change is a constant. Greying hair, a few more wrinkles on the face, slower (and maybe lesser) memory recall, changes are constantly occurring in our bodies, but what about the business world at large?
In business, we still talk about change as if it were an event. Something you planned for, managed through, and eventually came out the other side of, different, hopefully better. New system. New structure. New direction. A beginning, middle, and end. Change was a phase. A moment.
But I don’t think that framing holds up anymore.
If you’ve worked in a business, run a business, or even had an activity you were passionate about, you know the experience of continual change. One day blends into another, but never identical. Strategies pivot mid-year. Today’s “new normal” is tomorrow’s legacy process. And we barely catch our breath before the next wave hits.
So I’ve been sitting with this question: What happens when change stops being episodic and becomes the way we operate? Is it still ‘change’ at all?
Or are we misnaming something more fundamental?
Change Fatigue, or Change Misunderstood?
Let’s start with the human side.
One of the biggest risks with continual transformation is burnout, not just physical, but cognitive and emotional. People stop engaging. Teams numb out. They go through the motions because reacting to constant flux takes more energy than most leaders account for.
We label this “change fatigue,” but I think that term is misleading.
Fatigue implies resistance or weakness. Like, people just can’t handle it. But what if the issue isn’t the volume of change, it’s our framing?
If we continue to treat the change like an interruption, an exception to the rule, we’ll exhaust and frustrate everyone by expecting a return to “normal.” But what if this is the rule now? What if continuous adaptation is the baseline?
In that case, we’re not dealing with fatigue from change. We’re dealing with outdated mental models.
Living Systems, Not Machines
In my early years in IT, we managed change like clockwork. System upgrades, patches, and new tech implementations had crisp boundaries and defined timelines. And that made sense. The environment was relatively stable. Predictable, even. Outside of those technology issues, the most significant change would be a large wave of incoming employees and needing to get them all set up to use the systems.
But when I stepped into operations, everything shifted.
The pace of change was relentless, but not chaotic (well, okay, sometimes it was). 🙂 It was feedback-rich. Interdependent. Things evolved in real time. The idea that we could control or “complete” a change felt… off. Sure, there were tangible tasks to be done, but there was also a sense of infinite adjustments that came with it. How often do we say we’ve officially completed a change project, yet all the while realizing there’s still operational work to be done to get it just right? And knowing that tinkering could go on for months and quarters?
That’s when it clicked for me: the organizations I’ve found most alive and most effective don’t run like machines. They operate like living systems.
They respond to feedback, not just plans. They sense and adjust. They remain grounded in their values and purpose, yet are flexible in their approach. Change isn’t something imposed on them; it’s something they metabolize.
So… What Do We Call It?
If “change” implies a start and end point, but we’re in an environment where flux is constant, what language should we use instead?
Some possibilities:
- Evolution – organic, adaptive, implies continuity
- Iteration – reflects cycles, learning, refinement
- Flow – recognizes movement without suggesting disruption
- Adaptation – highlights responsiveness, survival, and growth
Each term carries different energy.
Personally, I lean toward iteration, partly because I love the structure of PDSA cycles. But more deeply, because it reinforces the idea that we’re never really “done.” That every strategy, system, or behaviour is a working version, not a final one.
There’s humility in that. And knowledge.
The Leader’s Role in Perpetual Motion
If you’re leading in this environment, it’s tempting to chase clarity through control. To micro-manage. To hold tighter.
However, continual change demands a different kind of leadership, one grounded in structure, yes, but also in presence. Listening. Coherence. Discernment.
Here’s what I keep coming back to:
- Purpose doesn’t change. It anchors you.
- Values don’t change. They guide behaviour.
- Vision evolves. It gets clearer as you move.
- Strategy flexes. It’s shaped by feedback.
That’s the structure I’ve found most useful. Not rigid, but reliable. Not static, but steady. Like a keel beneath a ship, it doesn’t stop the waves, but it gives direction through them. OK, maybe I’m going a bit too far with my analogies now. 🙂
And when you lead like that? Change stops feeling like a threat. It becomes part of your rhythm.
Making Peace With Motion
The biggest shifts in my own career have occurred when I stopped trying to get through change and instead worked with it, knowing there would be multiple iterations.
That meant letting go of the idea that clarity had to come first. I needed all the answers before acting (paralysis by analysis, anyone?) Instead, I started moving with structured intention, clarity in motion, not clarity before motion.
It’s the same with businesses.
We don’t need perfect information to take the next right step. We need aligned direction, honest data, and a willingness to learn. When that becomes the default way of working, “change” becomes less dramatic. Less jarring. It becomes… just how we grow.
Final Thought: A Better Normal
So, is continual change still “change”?
Technically, yes. But practically? I think it’s time we stop treating it like a disruption.
Let’s call it evolution. Let’s frame it as an iteration. Let’s anchor ourselves in what’s stable: purpose, values, direction, and loosen our grip on what’s not. Let’s teach teams not just how to survive disruption but how to function inside motion.
And above all, let’s lead with the humility to admit: there’s no steady state coming. No final form. Just today’s best version, and tomorrow’s chance to build again.
Clarity in motion. That’s not a tagline – it’s a necessity.
If you’re leading through continual change, you’re not behind or any different than most others. You’re just living in reality. Now the question is: how will you lead inside it?