WINNER AND LOSERS

You must have heard this from somewhere, that in any change initiatives,  there will always be losers and winners. But this is not as clear-cut as we think this to be. With varying degrees of complexity, everyone can be  in the same page on issues but with different positions approaching solutions.

Problem-centric people try to diagnose the problem and beat it until it's blue in the face. 
Solutions-centric people deny the magnitude of the problem and want to jump straight to solutions.
Radical change leaders want to overthrow the whole organization from bottom to top.
While the incrementalists are taking their sweet time to effect changes.

These are stereotypes and the binary of losers and winners, if you still have that perspective in your organization is very 60s. Champion a win-win approach to any substantial changes in the organization. Yes, there will be groups that will be mostly affected and mitigation should be front-and-centre and not an afterthought. 

I just recently observed a massive transformation in a large organization. When asked, middle managers don't know what's actually going on. The top executives will gladly do a rodeo on each unit/department, taking the most expensive, yet direct route to engagement. What about these middle managers who can act as natural bridge between those at the top and those at the bottom? What about these natural spokespersons and representatives of specific groups, are they engaged in a way that ensures change outcomes are retained in the best way? 

People will believe in the change based on what they see, not on what your Townhall proclaims. 
​