Can change really be imposed by decree? – An op-ed by Alain Manoukian, President and Founder, Croissance & Coaching | ICF P.C.C. Coach | Over 8,000 hours of coaching since 2003
Can change really be imposed by decree?
Many leaders have launched transformation plans that, despite initial enthusiasm, quickly lost momentum. The reality is stark: according to Gallup (2025), barely 8% of French employees say they feel engaged in their company—the lowest engagement rate in Europe, for the fifth consecutive year. This decline is not inevitable. It reflects an overly mechanical approach to change management, where the human dimension is often relegated to the background. And that is precisely where the root cause of failure lies.
The Leader: The Primary Obstacle to the Change They Demand
There is one essential factor in organizational change: the leader themselves. They can become the primary obstacle to the desired change. Not because of a lack of vision or determination, but because they unconsciously refuse to include themselves in the change they are advocating. How many are capable, when faced with a stalled transformation, of making a sincere assessment that does not spare them?
It is not uncommon to hear this comment from leaders when faced with resistance to change: “The strategy is sound; it’s the execution that’s holding us back.” The leader’s vision thus remains above all criticism, while responsibility trickles down floor by floor to those with the least power and the least voice. The same goes for the executive committee: “We’re fully committed at the executive level, but it’s getting stuck in middle management.” A classic refrain. No one, at any level, asks whether it is the project itself that is the problem or the way it was conceived and imposed.
As long as the leader does not include themselves as a potential source of the problem, there is little chance of finding the right answers. The posture of the omniscient guide whose ideas are self-sufficient must be reevaluated. This is not a weakness—it is the first act of transformational leadership.
Confusing two types of change is a common initial mistake
One of the most common mistakes is confusing the nature of the change one wishes to implement. Not all changes are alike.
Incremental change modifies things in small steps, at the margins: a new process, an updated tool, a minor reorganization. It is generally well-received because it does not shake the foundations. This is particularly the case when a leader wants to improve a process, split a department, or use feedback to enhance customer service. It is generally well-received because it does not shake the foundations.
Transformational change, on the other hand, affects the structure, governance, culture, and professional identities. Sometimes the vision. It reshuffles the deck of meaning and power. It is sought and implemented in two fundamental situations:
– In the first case, when the company’s survival is at stake and it must make a radical pivot in its market, processes, vision, and culture.
– In the second case, when the company is experiencing hypergrowth. A company that grows from 100 to 500 to 2,000 employees in a very short period of time. Its entire internal environment must change; sometimes its vision is called into question, along with its managerial culture and values…
Transformational change requires a clear vision, sustained human support over time, and the ability to withstand collective uncertainty without resorting to control.
Second mistake: neglecting the human dimension of change
We reorganize organizational charts, roll out new tools, and draft procedures, but it doesn’t work. Because we forget the essential: change happens in people’s minds and hearts. Without buy-in, without a shared sense of purpose, without psychological safety, any transformation breeds uncertainty, mistrust, quiet quitting, and even burnout, conflicts, and the loss of top talent. The domino effect is predictable, but here’s the good news: it’s avoidable.
Transformation, therefore, is not just about reviewing processes or tools: it’s also about rethinking one’s stance, way of thinking, and relationship to power and collaboration. Nothing should be left to chance—from the CEO’s vision to the cohesion of the executive committee, from governance models to managerial culture and the values embodied in daily life.
Change in the Age of AI: A Litmus Test for Leadership
Artificialintelligence significantly amplifies this challenge. It simultaneously drives incremental change (automating and optimizing processes) and transformational change (fundamentally reinventing business lines, roles, and governance). Yet only 34% of executives have begun to reinvent their business models accordingly (Deloitte, 2026). For SMEs and mid-market companies that are still relatively immature in managing change, the risk is twofold: AI does not deploy in a vacuum. It becomes embedded in cultures, routines, and perceptions. A leader who has not yet worked on their own approach to change will find that AI amplifies resistance rather than dissolving it.
AI is, above all, a litmus test for leadership. It reveals the quality of governance, managers’ ability to engage their teams, and the collective maturity in the face of uncertainty.
Organizations whose leaders already know how to question themselves and drive human change will approach this revolution with a decisive advantage. The others will simply endure it.
Change begins with oneself
Leading transformation should never be viewed as just another project. It is now a core competency of modern leadership. And this competency requires true courage: the courage to question oneself, to acknowledge one’s own role in resistance, in order to better pave the way for renewal.
The issue, therefore, is not “should we change?” because, in a world in constant flux, that question no longer arises. The real question becomes: are you ready to transform yourself to enable your organization to change?
