Changing the Language of Change

“Change is hard.”
“People don’t like change.”
“Our workforce is change fatigued.”

These phrases are so familiar they often pass without question. They appear in leadership conversations, strategy papers and APS Census debriefs year after year. But what if the way we talk about change is part of the problem we’re trying to solve?

Language is never neutral. The words we choose shape emotions, expectations and behaviours. When leaders consistently frame change as something disruptive, exhausting or poorly managed, it’s not surprising that people respond with anxiety, resistance or disengagement.

One of my favourite books for 2025 was James Healy’s ‘BS at Work’ (why so much of modern work is bullshit and how behavioural science can make it better). It’s a fantastic read, especially if you are a bit of a nerd about all things organisational culture. It does a great job of explaining why so many of the accepted rules around organisational change are actually pretty flimsy, repeatedly creating the tensions and friction we see over and over. Healy debunks some of the most common change doctrine (5 stages anyone? How’s that change curve going?) and rebuffs the idea that humans are bad at, or dislike change. Instead, he points to the need to examine our repeated assumptions, our framing and how we involve our people.

Language shapes how people feel — and how they act

Decades of research tell us that language influences how the brain interprets threat and safety. Words like change, transformation and reform are often associated with loss: loss of certainty, competence, identity or control. Over time, these words can trigger a stress response before the substance of the work is even understood.

When employees hear that another “major change” is coming, many don’t ask what’s improving? They ask what am I about to lose? That emotional reaction shapes behaviour, from passive resistance to compliance without commitment, to burnout. And alot of that reaction is driven from past experience – because organisations are often pretty woeful at being upfront about what’s changing and why, disguising it in overly opaque corporate waffle.

The pattern we keep seeing

Across most agencies, APS Census results repeatedly tell a similar story: people do not believe change is well managed. They report limited involvement, unclear rationale, and insufficient support to adapt. Despite significant effort and good intent, the perception remains stubbornly consistent. While results will vary across agencies, overall, the 2025 APS census ‘change’ results showed that around half of APS staff feel that they aren’t consulted and that change isn’t managed well.

• When changes occur, the impacts are communicated well within my workgroup – only 67% agree
• Staff are consulted about change at work – only 52% agree
• Change is managed well at my agency – only 48% agree

At the same time, in our regular conversations with leaders and clients, we often hear phrases like:

• “Our people are change fatigued.”
• “They just don’t handle change well.”
• “There’s resistance to change in this part of the organisation.”

While these statements may reflect genuine frustration, they subtly place the problem with the people. The implication is that employees lack resilience, flexibility or capability rather than questioning whether the system, language and approach to change part of the issue are.

And then we talk about the process – change is something to ‘manage’ with risks and impacts that need to be mitigated. It’s all in the negative.

When leaders talk this way, it reinforces a narrative that change is something done to people, rather than something they actively shape.

What if the issue isn’t change but how we frame it?

Human beings adapt constantly. We learn new technologies, adjust to new policies, refine processes and improve ways of working every day. Adaptation is not the exception; it is the norm. As Healy points out – we also often celebrate change in our lives, with weddings, baby showers, engagement parties, housewarmings and excitedly line up for the new iphone. It’s not that we don’t like change – but our perception of our autonomy, input and the nature of the change is critical.

When we label organisational shifts as “change”, we often package it as a disruptive event rather than a natural progression. We create artificial start and end points, launch dates and “change programs”, which can amplify pressure and fatigue, especially when people feel like its yet another thing to add to busy ‘to-do’ lists.

This raises an important question: what if people aren’t resistant to change, but resistant to how change is presented and experienced?

Talking about change differently

Shifting our language doesn’t mean pretending change is easy or avoiding honest conversations. Don’t be pollyanna about it.  But it does means choosing words that better reflect reality and support healthier responses. It’s also fundamentally more respectful – treating employees like grown adults who are generally good at change, as long as they understand the ‘why’ and feel like they’ve been heard in the process.

Some alternatives to the negative framing include:

• Evolution instead of change — signalling growth and continuity, and not that things were ‘wrong’ before
• Adaptation — acknowledging an active, human response to shifting conditions.
• Ongoing or continuous improvement — reinforcing that progress is incremental and normal.
• Learning and experimentation — legitimising uncertainty and reducing fear of failure.
• Building on what works — connecting the future to existing strengths, rather than discarding the past.

And most importantly, leaders can shift from talking about people to talking with them, using language that invites participation, agency and shared ownership. This means a rethink of the process, including the decision making. Investing the effort up front in genuine consultation is worth the time to reduce pain and friction longer term.

A small shift with big impact

Changing our language won’t fix poor planning, unrealistic timelines or lack of support. But it is a powerful starting point. Words set the emotional tone for everything that follows.

If we want people to engage differently, behave differently and feel differently about the future, we need to start by speaking differently about it.

Because how we talk about change shapes how people experience it — and ultimately, whether it succeeds.