In the world of business, change is the only constant, yet a staggering three out of four employees believe their organizations are failing to manage it effectively. To understand this disconnect, we sat down with Sofia Khaira, a specialist in diversity, equity, and inclusion who helps businesses transform their talent management. She brings a unique perspective on navigating the complexities of transformation, particularly across a workforce that spans multiple generations with vastly different outlooks on change itself.
A recent report found that only 25% of employees believe their organization manages change effectively. Why is this number so low, and what are the most common communication failures you see? Could you walk me through the key steps for successfully explaining the “why” behind a major transformation?
That 25% figure is startling, but it doesn’t surprise me at all. I see this reality in my work every day. The number is so low because many organizations still treat change as a top-down mandate, a memo that gets sent out without any real dialogue. The biggest failure I witness is the complete neglect of the “why.” Leaders get so focused on the logistics—the what, when, and how—that they forget the most crucial element. To do it right, you have to start with a foundation of clarity and empathy. First, leaders must be crystal clear on the strategic reasons for the change and be able to articulate it simply. Then, they need to communicate it with authenticity, connecting it not just to the company’s bottom line, but to the employees’ day-to-day reality and future growth. It’s about building a narrative that people can see themselves in, not just a project plan they have to follow.
The report notes a stark difference in optimism, with 70% of Gen Z believing in the positive impact of change versus only 36% of Gen X. Beyond pairing them on teams, what practical strategies can managers use to bridge this gap? Share an example of a message that resonates with both groups.
That gap between 70% and 36% is a chasm, and it highlights a deep-seated difference in perspective. For Gen Z, change is often synonymous with opportunity and progress. For a Gen X employee, who has likely been through multiple restructurings, it can feel like another empty promise. To bridge this, a manager’s communication has to be tailored. A powerful strategy is to frame the change in a way that honors both viewpoints. For example, a manager could say, “As we roll out this new platform, we’re relying on the institutional knowledge of our seasoned team members to guide the implementation and act as a stabilizing force. Your experience is invaluable. Simultaneously, we’re looking to our newer team members to explore its full capabilities and push us to innovate in ways we haven’t thought of.” This message validates the expertise of the veteran employee while harnessing the enthusiasm of the emerging one, making them partners rather than opponents.
The report suggests change succeeds or fails based on a manager’s day-to-day interactions. How can organizations better equip team leaders to tailor their approach, providing coaching for junior staff while respecting the autonomy of seasoned employees? Please describe a specific technique a manager could use.
It’s absolutely true—change doesn’t happen in a boardroom; it happens in the daily huddles and one-on-ones led by managers. The problem is, we often promote people into management for their technical skills, not their ability to lead through ambiguity. To better equip them, organizations need to invest in training that focuses on situational leadership. A very effective technique is what I call “calibrated engagement.” For a junior employee who needs hands-on coaching, this might look like a short, daily check-in focused on the new process, offering direct support and answering questions. For a seasoned employee who values autonomy, it would be a less frequent, more strategic conversation. A manager could ask, “From your vantage point, what potential roadblocks do you see with this change, and how can we leverage your experience to navigate them?” This approach respects their expertise and enlists them as a strategic partner, rather than just another person to manage.
With a third of employees feeling that change isn’t worth the effort, leaders often face fatigue. How can they re-engage veteran employees who see change through a “lens of disappointments delivered”? What specific metrics could a company track to measure engagement and buy-in during the process?
That “lens of disappointments delivered” is such a powerful and accurate phrase. You can’t erase that history, but you can change the narrative going forward. Re-engagement starts with acknowledgment. Leaders need to be honest about past shortcomings and explicitly state how this time will be different. The key is to frame the change not as something that replaces their knowledge, but as an opportunity to extend their expertise and legacy within the company. For tracking buy-in, we need to move beyond basic productivity metrics. I recommend using frequent, short pulse surveys with questions like, “On a scale of 1-5, how confident are you in the direction of this change?” or “Do you feel you have the resources to succeed?” Tracking the trend of these scores is invaluable. You can also measure participation in voluntary training sessions or analyze the sentiment in team meetings. An increase in proactive, solution-oriented questions is a fantastic indicator that you’re turning skeptics into stakeholders.
The article also mentions that workspace design must reflect a multigenerational workforce. What are some specific, tangible design choices that support both seasoned professionals who value practicality and emerging talent who prioritize company culture? Can you share an example of this in action?
Workspace design is a silent but powerful communicator of company culture and priorities. A one-size-fits-all open office is often a disaster because it serves no one well. To bridge the generational needs, the key is variety and choice. For seasoned professionals who need to focus, this means providing quiet zones, private pods, or bookable offices where they can do deep, practical work without distraction. For emerging talent who thrive on collaboration and social connection, you need to design dynamic, communal spaces—areas with whiteboards, comfortable lounge furniture, and a central café that encourages spontaneous interaction. I’ve seen this work beautifully in a tech firm that created “neighborhoods.” Each department had a home base with a mix of assigned desks, but the office also featured a large, vibrant “town square” for all-hands meetings and social events, as well as a library-like “quiet car” floor for heads-down work. It empowered employees to choose the environment that best suited their task, satisfying both the need for practicality and the desire for a strong, connected culture.
What is your forecast for the future of change management, especially as new generations enter the workforce and technology continues to accelerate the pace of transformation?
My forecast is that the very concept of “change management” as a distinct, episodic project will become obsolete. The future is about building “change-ready” organizations where transformation is a continuous, integrated muscle, not a painful, one-time surgery. As the pace of technological disruption accelerates, successful leadership will be defined by the ability to foster psychological safety and resilience. We’ll see a much greater emphasis on hyper-personalizing the change experience, using data to understand how different demographics are reacting and equipping managers with the emotional intelligence to lead with empathy. The companies that thrive will be those that stop managing change and start leading through it, creating a culture where adaptation is simply part of how business gets done every day.
