Let’s face it—human nature often intrinsically prefers the predictability and comfort of the status quo. But what happens when the environment shifts, and the need for change becomes unavoidable? Leaders walk a tightrope, balancing the need to hold on to stability while letting go to embrace innovation.
In a recent conversation with Chetak Buaria, Vice President of Global Commercial Operations in Oncology at Merck, we explored this tension between stability and change—and the leadership required to navigate it. According to Chetak, much contemporary leadership is defined by this interplay, given that “we need to be continuously adapting to the next innovation opportunity, which means that the status quo will be short-lived—and is even getting shorter in this VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) world.” But stability and change are not mutually exclusive; they can coexist, though only if you, as a leader, actively manage their connectedness.
So, what are three challenges you need to tackle?
1. Know your reasons: Do you see a critical mass for change?
Understanding the need for change begins with clearly articulating the why. Reflecting on this need, Chetak emphasized that “if I have to call out one single most important skill that we need to have as a leader, even before we embark on any kind of change, it is to be able to articulate the why—being able to articulate the value that we bring to the table.” However, knowing why change is needed is only the starting point.
Leaders need to envision the organization’s possible future pathways and assess which structures will enable those paths—and which, if left untouched, might become liabilities. But waiting too long comes at a cost. The challenge for leadership is to act before external pressure turns into internal breakdown. Then detecting certain pain points—a drifting environment, workforce misfit, and constraining structures— becomes a way of recognizing early signals that stability is giving way to tension, indicating that the organization may need to act. According to Chetak, “we should not be changing for the sake of changing”, but rather as a response to shifting internal and external conditions that cause strain on the organization. Thus, “there is a minimum threshold for change to be triggered…”
There is a cost of inflicting change—and a cost of not changing as well
Leaders must then carefully weigh whether a critical mass of reasons supports the change endeavor—and ensure that any transition is both justified and prepared for. Change carries cost, but so does inertia. As Chetak notes, “there is a cost of inflicting change”, and also a cost of not changing. These costs must be weighed against each other.
Once the ‘why’ has been identified, the existing structures that are meant to be changed need even further investigation—not only considering their visible, manifest functions, but also their hidden or latent roles in maintaining business continuity, for example. What you need to ask is if you change a process, what else will be lost, other than what you are already planning to change.
For example, closing a physical office might seem like a logistical shift to reduce costs, but it could also disrupt the social connections resulting from seeing colleagues in person every day. Replacing a structure without fully understanding its multiple functions risks unintended consequences. As Chetak puts it, “You cannot just say as a leader: ‘This needs to change’. It doesn’t work like that. You need to really understand why those processes were designed in the first place to fully understand and address the consequences of the change.”
In other words, identifying the problems that warrant change, weighing the critical mass of reasons, and ensuring that existing structures are not dismantled without replacing their latent functions are essential steps before engaging in an organizational discourse around change.
2. Understand diverging interests: Is the organization ready to adapt?
Change will inevitably introduce tension because almost every actor in an organization operates from a distinct local rationality. Embedded in their different roles, routines, and perspectives, people see an organization and what they believe it should do in different ways. Attempting to harmonize all these viewpoints may seem ideal, but it can also be counterproductive if carried out indiscriminately. Some heated discussions can be easily resolved through minor decisions, which might include upsetting someone. Hence, not every discourse turns out to be functional. Instead, leaders must carefully consider where alignment is necessary and where divergence can be tolerated.
For instance, Chetak highlighted the difficulty in evolving the skills and roles of existing customer-facing staff in the pharmaceutical industry. One example is the desire to align commercial teams with the scientific depth of Medical Science Liaisons (MSLs) due to market needs to have a simplified single point-of-contact, go-to-market structure. He realized that merging these competencies could undermine the engagement-focused training of commercial teams, which still remains crucial, and demands a structural rethink of the capabilities of future customer-facing staff.
Understanding the needs of employees goes beyond surface-level communication; it requires a nuanced approach to balancing dialogue and direction. Leaders must recognize when to foster open conversations—creating discursive spaces where employees can collectively rethink and contribute to the change process—and when a straightforward approach of informing or explaining decisions is more appropriate. These spaces for dialogue help build trust, surface diverse perspectives, and ensure that change is not perceived as imposed but as a shared journey.
“You are at risk being labeled as a rabblerouser”
As Chetak emphasizes, “While change is essential for growth, it inherently brings volatility to the organization.” This volatility destabilizes expectations and can manifest itself as uncertainty, resistance, or even fear among employees. To navigate this, leaders must adopt a lens of empathy—understanding the emotional and practical concerns of their teams and conduct a dialogue directed to stabilize trust in the new structure. Empathy becomes the bridge between the organizational need for transformation and the individual’s need for stability, enabling smoother transitions and stronger alignment.
Not all decisions require full consensus, but they might require sound justification. “You need people behind you to make sure the organization is willing to change… otherwise you are at risk of being labeled as a rabblerouser.” Sometimes, the task is to act as a “shock absorber for a section of the team”, managing emotional responses to disruption.
3. Find the path of least resistance: Where can change be initiated?
After having articulated “why change” and understanding “diverging interests”, leaders must also identify where change can be initiated with the least resistance and highest potential impact. “Instead of boiling the ocean at one go, maybe there is a way to slice and find the path of least resistance to embark on that journey.” This approach acknowledges that not all processes are ready to be replaced, and not all teams can transform at the same pace.
Again, the legacy behind existing processes has to be respected while their limitations are pragmatically confronted: “If you want to challenge the status quo, you need to be very structured in your argument.” In order to launch change step-by-step, leaders need to ask: What can be tried out on a small scale? Where can a pilot project be launched? These are the initial questions that help identify low-risk entry points for change. From there, internal stakeholder involvement can be gradually expanded. However, this approach should not be viewed as a linear sequence. As participation broadens, so do perspectives and competing interests—often giving rise to new ideas and avenues worth exploring. As Chetak aptly puts it, “instead of someone disrupting us, we might as well keep disrupting ourselves.”
Conclusions
The default mode in organizations is paradoxical: simultaneously trusting and distrusting their own structures. This duality—between preserving what works and rethinking what could be done differently—creates a productive but delicate tension. Stability depends on trust in your established doings, while change requires a willingness to question or even defy them.
This interplay of trust and doubt is a thread that runs through all three challenges, resisting any attempt at easy resolution. First, you must trust the existing structures enough to work within them, and yet remain alert to the very reasons they might no longer serve you. The second challenge lies in navigating organizational discourse—trusting the voices that need to be heard, regardless of them being potentially opposed to the change proposal, while cutting short discussions that can be resolved with simple decisions. Finally, not every moment is the right one to initiate a change effort. So, ask yourself: which parts of the system are most ready—most likely to absorb and sustain a first step toward change?
The views expressed in this article are personal opinions of Chetak Buaria and do not represent the views or official stance of his employer, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.