We live in a period that often feels defined by anxiety: Technology moves
quickly, business practices evolve, expectations shift, and cultural norms continue to
change. Against that backdrop, the familiar phrase "the only constant is change" is
usually meant to comfort us. In practice, it can have the opposite effect; it suggests
that we are destined to live in a state of permanent instability.
A more useful way to think about change is that it is not constant disruption
but is a movement between constants. We begin with a status quo, move through a period
of uncertainty, and eventually arrive at either a new status quo or a return to the old
one. The disruption is real, but it is also temporary.
That distinction matters for leaders, organizations, and professionals who are
trying to navigate innovation without being consumed by alarmism. The most difficult
part of change is rarely the final state; it is the psychological discomfort of the
space in between.
The Status Quo Sandwich
Change often follows a predictable structure. First, there is a
familiar baseline: the way work is done, the tools people use, the assumptions teams
share, and the routines that create a sense of safety. Then disruption appears: A
new technology, process, regulation, market expectation, or cultural norm challenges
the existing order. During that transition period, people can feel uncertain,
exposed, or skeptical.
However, the disruption eventually resolves: The new practice may
be adopted and normalized, or it may fail and fade away. Either way, the anxiety
declines because the uncertainty declines. The brain is not necessarily opposed to
the future; it is reacting to ambiguity.
In other words, the fear is not located at the beginning or the
end; it lives in the middle.
We Do Not Always Hate Change
It is also worth noting that people do not resist every form of
change. In many personal contexts, we actively seek novelty. We look forward to
vacations, new restaurants, new seasons, new routines, and new experiences.
Anticipation itself can be rewarding; the planning, countdown, and imagining of what
comes next often create energy before the event even arrives.
This helps explain why the same individual may welcome change in
one setting and resist it in another. The difference is often trust: When people
believe a change is voluntary, beneficial, understandable, or aligned with their
goals, novelty can feel exciting. When they believe a change is imposed, unclear,
risky, or poorly explained, novelty can feel threatening.
For organizations, this is a critical distinction: Resistance is
not always evidence that employees are inflexible. It may be evidence that the
transition lacks clarity, trust, or psychological safety.
The Chasm of Innovation
The pattern is especially visible in technology adoption. Consider
the shift from fax machines and paper memos to email. At one time, the old system
was not "old"; it was simply the way business communication worked. It was familiar,
accepted, and embedded in daily routines.
When email appeared, not everyone embraced it. Some dismissed it
as a passing trend. Others hesitated because crossing from one way of working to
another required effort, learning, and vulnerability. The fear was not only about
the technology itself; it was about the risk of looking behind, needing help, or
losing competence in a system where one had previously felt capable.
Once email became standard, the anxiety disappeared, and it became
ordinary. Few people now long for the fax machine as the center of workplace
communication. The chasm was uncomfortable, but it did not last.
I think about this whenever I hear predictions that a new technology will "never take off." My grandfather worked as a computer programmer in the 1950s and used to tell me how often people dismissed personal computing as impractical. Decades later, he was using AOL instant messaging to stay connected with family. What once seemed unlikely had become ordinary enough to be personal.
Historical Alarm and Everyday Normalcy
History is full of innovations that initially triggered skepticism and later became ordinary.
Companies once questioned whether cloud computing could ever be secure enough for sensitive business operations.
Professionals debated whether electronic signatures could truly replace wet ink.
Consumers hesitated before entering credit card information online or depositing checks through a mobile app.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders questioned whether remote work could sustain productivity and culture.
Patients and providers wondered whether telemedicine could deliver care that felt effective, private, and personal.
In each case, the early concern was not irrational; it reflected uncertainty, risk, and unfamiliarity. But as systems matured, trust developed, and behavior normalized, the innovation either became part of everyday life or faded into the background.
The particulars change, but the pattern is familiar: alarm,
resistance, adaptation, and normalization. Sometimes the innovation fails, and
sometimes it succeeds. But the emotional intensity of the transition rarely lasts
forever.
Two Outcomes, One Important Lesson
When facing a new phenomenon, it can be helpful to remember that
there are usually two broad outcomes. The first is success: The innovation works,
spreads, and becomes the new standard. In that case, people adapt, routines
stabilize, and the unfamiliar becomes familiar.
The second outcome is failure: The innovation proves poorly timed,
poorly designed, overhyped, or unnecessary. In that case, the disruption fades, and
people return to existing habits or move on to something else.
Both outcomes reduce uncertainty. This does not mean every change is good, nor does it mean every concern is irrational. It means that the heightened anxiety surrounding a new development should be understood as a transitional state, not a permanent condition.
From Change Management to Self-Management
This is where the phrase "change management" can become misleading. Organizations can and should manage communication, implementation, training, governance, and risk. But no leader can fully manage the external pace of innovation or eliminate every discomfort associated with transition.
What individuals can manage is their response. A growth mindset
does not require blind optimism; it requires the discipline to ask better questions.
What is actually changing?
What remains stable?
What do I need to learn?
What support would make this transition easier?
What opportunities might exist on the other side of the chasm?
For leaders, the implication is practical: People may not need to
be persuaded that change is good; they may need help trusting the path through it.
Clear communication, visible support, realistic timelines, and permission to learn
can reduce the fear that comes from uncertainty.
Conclusion: The Anxiety of the New Is Temporary
Fear-based predictions about new technologies and social shifts are easy to find. They often attract attention because alarm is more clickable than nuance. But history suggests that many of these predictions overstate the permanence of our discomfort.
When the next disruption appears, the more useful question may not
be "Will this change everything?" but "Where are we in the transition?" If the new
thing succeeds, we will likely adapt. If it fails, the disruption will pass. Either
way, the space in between is temporary. The goal is not to eliminate uncertainty
altogether; it is to recognize it for what it is—a temporary condition that can be
navigated with clarity, patience, and self-management.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.
We live in a period that often feels defined by anxiety: Technology moves quickly, business practices evolve, expectations shift, and cultural norms continue to change. Against that backdrop, the familiar phrase "the only constant is change" is usually meant to comfort us. In practice, it can have the opposite effect; it suggests that we are destined to live in a state of permanent instability.
A more useful way to think about change is that it is not constant disruption but is a movement between constants. We begin with a status quo, move through a period of uncertainty, and eventually arrive at either a new status quo or a return to the old one. The disruption is real, but it is also temporary.
That distinction matters for leaders, organizations, and professionals who are trying to navigate innovation without being consumed by alarmism. The most difficult part of change is rarely the final state; it is the psychological discomfort of the space in between.
The Status Quo Sandwich
Change often follows a predictable structure. First, there is a familiar baseline: the way work is done, the tools people use, the assumptions teams share, and the routines that create a sense of safety. Then disruption appears: A new technology, process, regulation, market expectation, or cultural norm challenges the existing order. During that transition period, people can feel uncertain, exposed, or skeptical.
However, the disruption eventually resolves: The new practice may be adopted and normalized, or it may fail and fade away. Either way, the anxiety declines because the uncertainty declines. The brain is not necessarily opposed to the future; it is reacting to ambiguity.
In other words, the fear is not located at the beginning or the end; it lives in the middle.
We Do Not Always Hate Change
It is also worth noting that people do not resist every form of change. In many personal contexts, we actively seek novelty. We look forward to vacations, new restaurants, new seasons, new routines, and new experiences. Anticipation itself can be rewarding; the planning, countdown, and imagining of what comes next often create energy before the event even arrives.
This helps explain why the same individual may welcome change in one setting and resist it in another. The difference is often trust: When people believe a change is voluntary, beneficial, understandable, or aligned with their goals, novelty can feel exciting. When they believe a change is imposed, unclear, risky, or poorly explained, novelty can feel threatening.
For organizations, this is a critical distinction: Resistance is not always evidence that employees are inflexible. It may be evidence that the transition lacks clarity, trust, or psychological safety.
The Chasm of Innovation
The pattern is especially visible in technology adoption. Consider the shift from fax machines and paper memos to email. At one time, the old system was not "old"; it was simply the way business communication worked. It was familiar, accepted, and embedded in daily routines.
When email appeared, not everyone embraced it. Some dismissed it as a passing trend. Others hesitated because crossing from one way of working to another required effort, learning, and vulnerability. The fear was not only about the technology itself; it was about the risk of looking behind, needing help, or losing competence in a system where one had previously felt capable.
Once email became standard, the anxiety disappeared, and it became ordinary. Few people now long for the fax machine as the center of workplace communication. The chasm was uncomfortable, but it did not last.
I think about this whenever I hear predictions that a new technology will "never take off." My grandfather worked as a computer programmer in the 1950s and used to tell me how often people dismissed personal computing as impractical. Decades later, he was using AOL instant messaging to stay connected with family. What once seemed unlikely had become ordinary enough to be personal.
Historical Alarm and Everyday Normalcy
History is full of innovations that initially triggered skepticism and later became ordinary.
In each case, the early concern was not irrational; it reflected uncertainty, risk, and unfamiliarity. But as systems matured, trust developed, and behavior normalized, the innovation either became part of everyday life or faded into the background.
The particulars change, but the pattern is familiar: alarm, resistance, adaptation, and normalization. Sometimes the innovation fails, and sometimes it succeeds. But the emotional intensity of the transition rarely lasts forever.
Two Outcomes, One Important Lesson
When facing a new phenomenon, it can be helpful to remember that there are usually two broad outcomes. The first is success: The innovation works, spreads, and becomes the new standard. In that case, people adapt, routines stabilize, and the unfamiliar becomes familiar.
The second outcome is failure: The innovation proves poorly timed, poorly designed, overhyped, or unnecessary. In that case, the disruption fades, and people return to existing habits or move on to something else.
Both outcomes reduce uncertainty. This does not mean every change is good, nor does it mean every concern is irrational. It means that the heightened anxiety surrounding a new development should be understood as a transitional state, not a permanent condition.
From Change Management to Self-Management
This is where the phrase "change management" can become misleading. Organizations can and should manage communication, implementation, training, governance, and risk. But no leader can fully manage the external pace of innovation or eliminate every discomfort associated with transition.
What individuals can manage is their response. A growth mindset does not require blind optimism; it requires the discipline to ask better questions.
For leaders, the implication is practical: People may not need to be persuaded that change is good; they may need help trusting the path through it. Clear communication, visible support, realistic timelines, and permission to learn can reduce the fear that comes from uncertainty.
Conclusion: The Anxiety of the New Is Temporary
Fear-based predictions about new technologies and social shifts are easy to find. They often attract attention because alarm is more clickable than nuance. But history suggests that many of these predictions overstate the permanence of our discomfort.
When the next disruption appears, the more useful question may not be "Will this change everything?" but "Where are we in the transition?" If the new thing succeeds, we will likely adapt. If it fails, the disruption will pass. Either way, the space in between is temporary. The goal is not to eliminate uncertainty altogether; it is to recognize it for what it is—a temporary condition that can be navigated with clarity, patience, and self-management.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.