[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ custom_padding=”0px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” max_width=”800px” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
An ambitious leader from an international mobile telco in transition towards becoming a ServCo called me, after his third leadership offsite in 6 months. He sounded calm, but defeated: \u2018We\u2019ve got a strategy, a roadmap that makes logical sense, ambitious goals, a fresh management layer, new people\u2026 budgets. But still \u2014 no movement. And yet\u2026 nothing moves. I don\u2019t get it anymore!\u2019<\/p>\n
Can you help me?!?<\/p>\n
So, last month, I was invited into this mobile telecom company \u00a0\u2014 a well-known player transitioning from a traditional mobile Telco-operater towards what they proudly call a \u201cServCo. It\u2019s a necessary shift: from product-centric to customer-centric. From transactions to long-term value.<\/p>\n
And everyone agrees: this change needs to happen. Now! No time to lose.<\/p>\n
But something else is happening too. Or rather, not<\/em> happening.<\/p>\n The transformation isn\u2019t landing. Teams are circling in polite compliance. Vision slides aren\u2019t turning into felt ownership. And the people on the floor \u2014 the ones who need to carry the new way of working \u2014 are stuck in what I can only describe as systemic hesitation<\/em>.<\/p>\n We know what to do. But it is not happening.<\/strong><\/p>\n I hear this phrase in every corridor conversation, whether it’s with mid-level managers, project leads, or even the C-suite.<\/p>\n On the surface, the problem seems operational:<\/p>\n If you\u2019re reading this thinking, \u2018yes \u2014 this is me\u2019… then I want to offer you a different lens.<\/p>\n You need to scratch a little deeper and you\u2019ll see something else emerge.<\/p>\n A company trying to transform \u2014 without looking at what\u2019s holding the current system in place.<\/p>\n This is where many transformations derail. Not in the ambition. Not in the tooling. Not in the PowerPoints.<\/p>\n But in the invisible. When an organisational system protects itself from transformation<\/strong><\/p>\n Let me explain what this really means.<\/p>\n Most people inside organisations don\u2019t resist change because they\u2019re cynical, lazy, or disengaged. They resist because change threatens something they haven\u2019t named \u2014 yet.<\/p>\n In the case of this telecom company, I started listening for finding the competing commitments<\/em> that sit just beneath the surface:<\/p>\n These are not signs of sabotage. These are signs of protection<\/em>.<\/p>\n And this is the real heart of Immunity to Change: The cost of not addressing the undercurrent<\/strong><\/p>\n In this organisation, the leadership is putting all its focus on implementation: timelines, reporting, dashboards, KPI\u2019s. The hard and rational-stuff. Here\u2019s what\u2019s actually at stake:<\/p>\n You can’t solve that with another comms campaign or a sharper rollout plan.<\/p>\n Maybe you\u2019ve been in that leadership room already, watching your team nod and smile \u2014 only to fall back into the old way of working by Monday and trying to fix this with very operational and rational solutions.<\/p>\n But here is the thing!<\/p>\n You solve it by naming what\u2019s not<\/em> being said. Leading change is not a technical exercise<\/strong><\/p>\n This is the trap many (commercial) leaders fall into.<\/p>\n They treat change like an operational puzzle:<\/p>\n You all know the drill.<\/p>\n But if the real issue is a competing commitment<\/em> \u2014 like the need to stay seen as competent, in control, or indispensable \u2014 then no tool will touch it.<\/p>\n You\u2019ll just keep experiencing the same pattern:<\/p>\n People say yes. And the leaders? So what now?<\/strong><\/p>\n This is where I do my work, because there is more in the lives of organisations than meets the eye.<\/p>\n Not in adding more process \u2014 but in creating space to surface what\u2019s underneath.\n
The Immunity to Change<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n
You can genuinely want to grow \u2014 and still be deeply invested in not<\/em> changing, because changing would mean letting go of something that feels essential to your safety, status, or identity.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s getting less attention? The emotional reality of change.<\/p>\n\n
By mapping the invisible forces.
By allowing leaders to see that what looks like resistance might actually be loyalty, grief, fear \u2014 or a legacy identity trying to protect itself.<\/p>\n\n
Behaviour says no.<\/p>\n
Ending up exhausted, doubting themselves, or forcing harder \u2014 which only strengthens the immune response.<\/p>\n
To ask the inconvenient questions.
To hold the mirror up long enough for the real story to emerge.
To let leadership teams see their own role in the stuckness \u2014 not with blame, but with clarity.<\/p>\n