The Observation
Change is an inescapable operational constant driven by technological advancement and market shifts. Yet when organisations face structural transformations, a divide emerges within the workforce. Employees split into two distinct camps: those who take ownership to forge new paths, and those who retreat into the passive defences of static management, work avoidance and routine.
My perspective on this divide was forged in 1981 when I was a 21-year-old joining EMI Records. It was the era of Duran Duran, Kim Wilde and Kajagoogoo. Behind the scenes, our manufacturing operation was a heavily unionised environment gripped by a slow, painful transformation. The disruption arrived the day management decided to introduce a computer to assist in the vinyl build process. Every single stage of production, from the recorded music and lacquer disc to the electroplating and injection moulding, was fiercely guarded as a black art. Employees protected their piece of the process magic, terrified of what transparency might bring.
The Analysis
Organisations do not fail to transform because the technology fails. They fail because of human friction and behavioural misalignment. Forcing a modern application or workflow to adopt outdated, protected internal rules creates immediate conflict. Digitising a flawed, guarded process simply scales the flaw.
When EMI management created a team to build this new system, the cross-departmental workforce stratified into two specific behavioural categories. True leaders possess an inherent doer mindset that prioritises taking ownership. On our team, some members genuinely believed in the future and wanted to build it. Conversely, followers clung to established routines. Some only joined because their bosses volunteered them. Transformation leaders are visible, stepping into the open and modelling the exact behaviours expected of others. Meanwhile, those looking to hide from the weight of change used the team as an escape from daily routines, or stood on the periphery to create administrative noise and block progress.
Large-scale transformation requires a volunteer army who find meaning in the future state. Opposing them was a wave of proactive resistance. We faced clashes with department heads and union leaders who weaponised the fear of the unknown, insisting the computer would eliminate everyone's job. Populating the system's static data was a grueling, manual, and time-consuming gauntlet. We spent weeks entering and validating data under intense pressure, losing team members along the way.
When the system went live, the doom-mongering proved entirely false. The technology did not destroy jobs. It made the process efficient, removed the manufactured mystery, and dragged vinyl manufacturing into the 1980s. You cannot outsource the emotional and operational weight of disruption. Leading through uncertainty requires the resilience to confront real structural problems and the courage to step forward when others retreat.
The Tactical Step
Identify your Michaels early. Look past rigid job titles. I built the foundation of my entire career by stepping up as a young man on that integration team, leading in areas where others feared to go. Find the individuals who demonstrate proactive ownership and high operational velocity, regardless of their hierarchy, and put them in charge. Address work avoidance and fear directly. Call out deflections, legacy political protectionism and finger-pointing. Force your teams to focus on the core operational realities of the change rather than allowing them to hide behind outdated internal habits. Assign named human owners. Never delegate critical transformation goals to a vague department or an external vendor. Every major initiative requires a named human leader who is publicly accountable for driving the process through to completion.
Question for the network
That 1981 integration was the beginning of a lifetime navigating disruption. When your organisation hits a major milestone of change, are you actively cultivating the Michaels in your workforce who will embrace the chaos, or are you letting your culture be held hostage by those protecting their legacy black arts?
References
- Personal experience, EMI Records manufacturing operation, 1981
By Michael Lennard Gnaedinger. © 2026 Gnaedinger Consultancy. All rights reserved.
If any of this sounds familiar.
I work with a small number of founders and CEOs each year. The conversation starts here.