A company-wide change may be as good as a rest, but it rarely feels that way. It’s often exhausting, messy and made harder by leaders acting on a whim and in a rush. While most change efforts start with sound strategy, many stumble on the people management side.

One of the clearest examples of this tension is the current wave of return-to-office (RTO) policies.

Major Canadian organizations, including all five big banks, Loblaw and Rogers have mandated that some or all corporate employees get back behind their office desks full time. The main goal behind the change, according to reports, is to boost employee collaboration and company culture. However, after receiving the benefits of hybrid and remote work for the last five years, not all employees are on board.

When Starbucks, for instance, ordered staff back to the office four days a week, many felt blindsided and posted flyers around headquarters reading: “This is the wrong direction. Please stop.” There are more than 20,000 employee signatures attached to a petition to walk back the RTO policy that advertising holding company WPP enacted last year. And Reddit has become a running log of frustration, with anonymous employee threads voicing their dissatisfaction over longer commutes, morale dips and work-life trade-offs under new RTO mandates.

One of the biggest mistakes organizations can make is springing these changes onto employees without warning, says John Oesch, an associate professor at the Rotman School of Management. When employees feel major change management efforts are a surprise, they almost always fail.

In comparison, when leaders start to engage their front lines and build understanding at least 18 to 24 months before implementing the change, then the odds of success increase dramatically, he says.

Oesch adds that there is a common misconception that “change management” is the same as “change leadership,” when in fact, there is a distinct line between the two.

“Change management,” is simply the planning and execution of systems that make change happen, he says. “Change leadership” is about listening, demonstrating and inviting employee participation to make change both palatable and sustainable. Many initiatives — some suggest as much as 70 per cent — fail because those in charge aren’t able to do both.

To bridge the gap between strategic intentions and lasting results, Oesch shares a few guiding dos and don’ts.

Don’t treat employees like one large monolith

Change fails fast when leaders see a crowd instead of individuals. “It’s a trap to say we’re going to impose a policy on everybody, because that would be treating everybody the same way when there are four different segments,” Oesch says.

These segments include early adopters who embrace change; cautious supporters who agree in principle but want to understand what it means for them and their teams; the late majority who aren’t saying yes or no, preferring to “wait and see”; and an entrenched group of outright resisters.

The danger lies in focusing too heavily on the last group, which is typically the smallest. (The largest group is typically cautious supporters.) He adds that most employees don’t resist change because they’re stubborn, but because they don’t understand it. Or because no one has answered their unspoken question: What’s in it for me?

Do overcome resistance with curiosity, not control

Instead of dismissing skeptics, effective leaders invite them in. Oesch points to a case study of a butter manufacturer that needed to overhaul its operations. Rather than impose new systems from above, leaders went directly to frontline employees to ask how they could make the process better.

“[The employees] all had lots of ideas. They were just waiting to be asked,” says Oesch. “When you get those frontline experts involved in designing the change, they’re sharing expertise that nobody in middle management or the top management team knows about.”

Don’t expect every resister to be converted

When faced with resisters, Oesch starts by testing their understanding of the change that’s being implemented. Can they clearly explain why it’s happening, what it means for them, and what it entails? If they can but still reject it, then he says it’s best to advise those employees to leave the company. “If you don’t agree with it, you’re going to be miserable,” he tells recommends telling resisters who struggle to accept a change. “And we don’t want you to be miserable.”

That advice might sound blunt, but it should come after every effort has been made to help the person make sense of what’s changing and why. “You have a duty to do everything you can as a change leader to help them understand the change,” he says.

Do respect the culture you’re trying to change

Culture plays a big part in the success of a new policy or direction. Organizations that prize collective purpose tend to adapt more easily. When employees ask what’s best for the organization (not just for themselves) change takes root faster.

The real risk lies in trying to change a culture itself. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast,” Oesch warns, adding that the unspoken norms of “how things really work here” tend to overpower any policy or CEO directive. So, while a leader can rewrite the org chart or roll out a new plan, if the underlying beliefs and behaviours don’t shift with it, then the culture will quietly rewrite the rules back.

Oesch says the corporate world is amid a “great national experiment” when it comes to RTO. “I believe we’re going to be able to tell, probably by the end of 2026, which organizations prepared for this well, because we won’t hear anything about it. The organizations that fail will be the ones in the headlines with people calling in sick and leaving, because they tried to impose something that wasn’t communicated or engaged prior.”

For more leadership best practices, subscribe to our bi-weekly newsletter.