But people do not experience change in exactly the same way.
One person may see an opportunity to improve something that has frustrated them for years. Someone else may be concerned about their role, workload or influence. Others may be unsure what the announcement means in practice and wait for more information before deciding how they feel.
These differences are sometimes treated as a problem to overcome. People may be described as positive, negative, engaged or resistant.
In reality, their responses can provide useful information about how the change is being understood and what the team may need next.
Organisational change does not arrive in a neutral environment.
Every team already has established relationships, expectations and ways of working. People have their own experiences of how decisions are made, how openly information is shared and whether concerns are taken seriously.
The team may be working well and feel confident about its ability to adapt. Alternatively, it may already be dealing with heavy workloads, unclear priorities or unresolved tensions.
These existing conditions influence how new information is received.
A team that trusts its leaders may be willing to tolerate a period of uncertainty while further details are developed. A team that has experienced poorly managed change before may be more cautious, even if the current proposal is well considered.
The announcement may be new, but the response to it has a history.
Leaders naturally focus on explaining the organisational reasons for change. They may talk about strategy, customer needs, efficiency or future growth.
Teams also need to understand what the change means for their everyday work.
Will responsibilities move? Will priorities change? Will people have the same level of autonomy? Are existing projects still important? Will the team be expected to deliver more while adapting to a new structure or process?
Until questions like these are answered, people are left to interpret the change using the information available to them.
Two colleagues can hear the same announcement and reach very different conclusions. This does not necessarily mean that one has understood it correctly and the other has not. The change may genuinely affect their roles in different ways.
A shared message does not automatically create a shared experience.
People also draw on what has happened during earlier periods of change.
If previous changes were communicated clearly and followed by visible support, people may approach the next one with confidence. If earlier announcements created confusion, increased workloads or were quietly abandoned, the team may be less willing to accept reassurance at face value.
This can be frustrating for leaders who feel that the current situation is different. However, people are not responding only to what has been said today. They are using previous experience to judge what is likely to happen next.
Those expectations cannot always be changed through more persuasive communication. They are more likely to shift when people see consistency between what leaders say and what happens in practice.
During change, there is rarely a point at which every question can be answered.
People therefore have to decide how much confidence to place in the information they receive. Existing trust becomes particularly important.
When confidence is high, an honest “we do not know yet” may be accepted as a reasonable answer. When trust is low, the same response may be interpreted as avoidance or evidence that important information is being withheld.
This is why communication during change is about more than the frequency of updates. Teams notice whether leaders acknowledge uncertainty, follow up on questions and remain visible when conversations become difficult.
They also notice whether decisions and behaviour match the message being communicated.
Questions, caution and disagreement can be uncomfortable, particularly when leaders are under pressure to move ahead.
However, these responses can reveal something important.
A practical question may expose a gap in the implementation plan. Hesitation may indicate that priorities are unclear. Frustration may reflect the cumulative effect of earlier changes rather than opposition to the current one. Silence may suggest uncertainty about whether it is safe or useful to contribute.
Treating every difficult response as resistance can lead leaders to address the behaviour without understanding what is shaping it.
That does not mean every concern can be resolved or every preference accommodated. It means the response should be understood before deciding what action is appropriate.
Leaders do not need to create immediate agreement. They do need to help people develop a workable understanding of what is changing and what it means for the team.
This can include:
It can also be useful to pay attention to differences within the team. If people have interpreted the same message in conflicting ways, that is worth exploring. It may point to gaps in clarity, different experiences of leadership or concerns that have not yet been discussed openly.
There is no single correct way for a team to respond to change.
What matters is whether leaders can build an accurate picture of how the change is being experienced and what is influencing the team’s response.
This allows support to be based on what the team actually needs, rather than assumptions about what should help.
Visible reactions only tell part of the story. Amazing Team Performance helps organisations understand the performance patterns, emotional conditions and leadership influences shaping how a team is responding.