We have all been in that steering committee meeting.
The project status is “Red.” Adoption metrics are low. The team is complaining about the new process.
The immediate reaction from leadership or the program leads? “We need a better communication plan.” Or, “They need more training.” Or the classic, “Let’s explain the ‘why’ one more time.”
We double down on logic. We add more slides to the deck. We send more emails. Heck yeah, I’ve done that too. But nothing changes. The resistance remains.
Why did nothing change? Because, after bouncing the situation over and over again, I realized I was applying the wrong medicine to the wrong symptom. I was treating a feeling as if it were a lack of information.
Why Logic Won’t Cure Grief
This isn’t just a “soft skills” opinion. The data backs this up. Research from McKinsey and Kotter has long suggested that roughly 70% of transformation programs fail, and the primary reason is rarely the technology or the strategy. It is “employee resistance and management behavior.”
We fail because we confuse Change (the external shift) with Loss (the internal experience). Change is situational. It is the new software, the new office location, the new reporting line. It is tangible. It is a logistical problem. Loss is psychological. It is the surrender of the familiar. It is the loss of mastery (“I used to be the expert”), the loss of community (“I miss my old team”), or the loss of autonomy (“I didn’t choose this”).
The Theory Behind It: William Bridges.
In the field of organizational psychology, this distinction is well known. William Bridges’ Transition Model argues that “Change” is just the event. “Transition” is the psychological process people go through to come to terms with the new situation. Bridges famously said, “It isn’t the changes that do you in, it’s the transitions.”
If someone is grieving the loss of their professional identity, autonomy, or leader a Gantt chart or a training manual is not going to help them. In fact, it often makes things worse. When you respond to someone’s fear with a logical project plan, it doesn’t feel like leadership. It feels like a cold-hearted, even unprofessional dismissal.
To lead effectively, you need two distinct playbooks. Here is how to treat them differently and the science of why it works.
Playbook A: Treating the Change
Open this when the barrier is confusion, lack of skill, or lack of clarity.
When the problem is logistical, our goal is competence. We need to remove the ambiguity that breeds anxiety. This means getting incredibly tactical and answering the boring questions that people are actually worrying about: What changes on Monday at 9 AM? How do I log in? Who do I call if it breaks? When 2 days at the office is enough?
People push back when their professional confidence is threatened. If a change turns an expert into a novice overnight, that is a painful status drop. So, we don’t just “communicate”, we equip. We bridge that gap with heavy, practical upskilling and clear roadmaps. The brain craves certainty; if we can’t give them certainty on the outcome, we must at least give them certainty on the process.
Playbook B: Treating the Loss
Open this when the barrier is fear, anger, cynicism, or withdrawal.
When the problem is emotional, our goal shifts to acceptance. This requires a completely different approach. Instead of rushing to “fix” the problem with benefits, we first have to validate the past. Before we can successfully sell the future, we have to honor what is being left behind. We have to say it out loud: “I know the old system was clunky, but it was ours. It’s hard to let that go.”
When a team member vents, the leadership instinct is often to counter with logic (“But the new way is faster!”). But that is a logistical solution to an emotional problem. Instead, we just need to listen and let the grief air out. We have to lower the pressure, acknowledging that grief physically reduces cognitive load. They aren’t being “difficult”, they are just processing.
The Neuroscience: Why “More Training” Fails the Grieving Brain
When employees feel their status or autonomy is threatened by a change, their brains trigger a “fight or flight” response. According to David Rock’s SCARF Model (Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, Fairness), a drop in status, like going from “Expert” to “Novice” or a sudden company RTO policy, is processed by the brain as a physical threat, like pain.
When the brain is in threat mode, resources are diverted away from the prefrontal cortex (logic and learning). This means if you try to “train” someone who is in a state of emotional loss, they physically cannot learn. You have to lower the threat (validate the loss) before you can build the skill.
The Magic Happens in the Mix
Great transformation leaders are ambidextrous. (Yes, I needed to find the word in the English dictionary and check the spelling :-)) Meaning these leaders do not have to put down the project plan to pick up the empathy.
They have the discipline to drive the Change with rigorous project management, ensuring everyone knows what to do.
But they also have the empathy to navigate the Loss, ensuring everyone feels safe enough to want to do it.
Next time you hit a wall of resistance, pause and ask yourself: Is this a logistics issue? Or is this a grief issue?
Make sure you aren’t trying to project-manage a broken heart.
