Change Fatigue: Are You the Problem?

The constant barrage of organizational changes has left employees drained and skeptical. Research has long confirmed what many workers feel intuitively: poorly implemented change initiatives don’t just underperform—actively harm employee wellbeing. One revealing study of over 600 public sector workers discovered that concerns about impending organizational changes directly correlated with higher burnout rates and reduced engagement.

Today’s workforce drowns in change: fluctuating remote work policies, rapid AI adoption, unexpected layoffs, generational workplace tensions, and the mental burden of wondering what these shifts mean for futures. The common wisdom that people inherently “fear change” misses the mark. What people fear is change that excludes them from the process—a fear supported by recent findings showing nearly half of all workers (49%) believe the pace of change will leave them behind.

This widespread fatigue creates a troubling dynamic for organizations attempting legitimate transformation. Research reveals a dramatic decline in employee support for enterprise change initiatives—plummeting from 75% in 2016 to just 43% in 2022 in the post-pandemic environment.

Many change initiatives fail before beginning, rooted in defensive thinking rather than strategic necessity. But this outcome isn’t inevitable. Leaders don’t have to exhaust organizations with relentless, ineffective change cycles. If teams show signs of change fatigue during a transformation effort, here are practical approaches to ensure leadership isn’t contributing to the problem.

Examine True Motivations for Change

Recent research from organizational experts reveals that many major change initiatives stem not from strategic imperatives but from attempts to alleviate anxiety about performance challenges. This “defensive organizing” typically unfolds in four distinct phases:

First, leadership becomes concerned about persistent performance issues. Next, groups convene to discuss the problem and potential solutions. During these discussions, an appealing idea emerges, perhaps implementing new technology or forming a task force, that creates immediate, uncritical enthusiasm. This enthusiasm generates a collective sense of purpose against an external problem.

As the initiative expands to build broader buy-in, the initial energy begins to fade when the performance challenges persist. The third phase brings exhaustion that replaces the early enthusiasm, eventually leading to the final phase: widespread resentment for wasted effort and resources.

The cycle continues because the initiative’s true purpose was never to solve the performance issue but to disperse leadership anxiety across the organization. When the initiative stalls, that anxiety returns, prompting another round of activity, creating a destructive pattern of diminishing returns.

If leading change to address a persistent challenge result in enthusiasm for a seemingly perfect solution, pausing rather than celebrating becomes crucial. Consider whether the process is distributing anxiety rather than addressing the root performance issue.

Acknowledge Limitations

The notion that changing the world requires first changing one’s own perspective is relevant here. Organizations often operate under the illusion that leaders have greater predictive and control capabilities than exist. Many leaders resist confronting the limits of control.

The intense activity surrounding change initiatives often serves as a distraction that prevents facing uncomfortable realities. Organizations launch expensive innovation campaigns to combat declining market share while ignoring fundamental problems: core products becoming commoditized, growing irrelevance, or consumers’ disinterest in updated versions of outdated offerings. When marketing data suggests that “improvements” to existing products could revitalize sales, leadership eagerly embraces this path of least resistance.

For many leaders, acknowledging harsh realities—eroding market position, true causes of declining sales, or that meaningful transformation might take longer than shareholders would tolerate—proves too painful to confront. This self-deception traps organizations in cycles of defensive change that never address fundamental issues.

Before launching the next big initiative, honest reflection on what internal or external challenges might be avoided becomes necessary. Looking deeply at whether sidestepping an honest assessment of leadership limitations is occurring can prevent failed change efforts.

Creating Space for Authentic Dialogue

After decades of organizational change advisory work, a consistent observation emerges. People throughout organizations privately harbor doubts about change initiatives while publicly displaying support. These individuals often discuss skepticism in private conversations while maintaining a facade of enthusiasm in official settings.

This dynamic recently appeared during advisory work with an organization on return-to-office policies. The CEO had implemented seemingly arbitrary rules about office attendance. The CHRO privately expressed serious concerns about how employee reactions might affect talent retention. When asked about suggesting alternatives to the CEO, the response indicated futility due to the CEO’s decisiveness once decisions had been made. Though many team members shared these concerns, all nodded supportively during meetings about the change.

When questionable change is underway, determining whether genuine participation or simple co-option is occurring becomes critical. Sensing coercion often signals recognition of the initiative’s eventual failure.

If private feelings contradict public statements about change, recognizing self-deception matters more than deceiving others. Worse, modeling this disconnection between thoughts and words encourages others to adopt the same pattern. Without authentic dialogue, organizations cultivate the most damaging form of change fatigue: the exhaustion from maintaining false enthusiasm while suppressing genuine concerns. This cognitive dissonance eventually transforms into deep-seated resentment.

At the beginning of major change initiatives, establishing strict ground rules ensuring complete candor, defining objective progress measures, and actively gathering diverse perspectives on potential risks from throughout the organization can prevent failure. Building safeguards against groupthink and self-deception into the change process can prevent months or years of wasted resources.

Identify What Remains Beyond Control

Much of the anxiety driving defensive change stems from factors outside leadership’s influence. The euphoria surrounding new initiatives often comes from the illusion that collaborative leadership can overcome any challenge—regardless of precedent, uncertainty levels, or external dynamics.

A primary culprit in strategic change failures is untested assumptions that remain unexamined. When starting major change initiatives, documenting all assumptions about potential success, failure, team capabilities, organizational capacity, and desired outcomes reveals common patterns. These assumptions typically reveal a significant overestimation of control over uncontrollable factors. Acknowledging these limitations allows leaders to focus energy on what can genuinely be influenced.

When leaders face expectations of certainty precisely when everyone else feels uncertain, seeking assistance becomes difficult. The moments when acknowledging uncertainty or seeking ideas would be most beneficial often coincide with existential doubts about competence and worthiness for leadership roles.

Embrace the Responsibility of Change Leadership

Introducing change to an organization represents a profound privilege. Decisions leave lasting impressions on customers, shareholders, and employees’ careers. Honoring this responsibility requires avoiding both grandiose delusions and anxiety-driven reactions that blind leaders to limitations and uncontrollable factors.

Beginning change journeys with humility rather than presumed expertise sets the right tone. Modeling vulnerability by acknowledging concerns about unknowns and expressing hopes for collective learning creates psychological safety that encourages growth and constructive challenge throughout the process.

Approaching organizational change with this mindset energizes rather than exhausts teams, creating transformation that delivers on promises rather than perpetuating cycles of fatigue and disappointment.