What a Butterfly Can Teach Us About Change Management

Posted on by
Reply

On uncertainty, preparation, vision, and the discipline of sustaining change

We like the idea of change, at least when we imagine its benefits. We want better systems, more efficient processes, bigger opportunities, and organizations that are ready for the future. What we are less enthusiastic about is everything that comes with getting there: the inconvenience, the uncertainty, the resistance, and the possibility that things might not work out as planned.

This is one of the fundamental challenges of change management. People may welcome the promise of a better future while resisting the disruption required to achieve it.

Perhaps the metamorphosis of a butterfly offers a useful way to understand this dilemma.

From Egg to Butterfly

A butterfly’s transformation begins with an egg. At this stage, the potential for something different already exists, even though the final form is not yet visible. In an organization, this is the stage of vision and initiation. Leaders identify what needs to change, define the desired future, and establish a direction.

But a vision, no matter how compelling, is not enough.

The egg develops into a caterpillar, which spends its time feeding and growing. This is the stage of preparation and capability-building. Before an organization can operate differently, its people must develop the knowledge, skills, and habits that the new reality demands. Training, coaching, collaboration, and experimentation are not distractions from the change process. They are part of the process itself.

Then comes the chrysalis, the stage in which transformation takes place. It is a useful metaphor for organizations navigating significant change, although the biological process is more complex than the familiar image of a caterpillar simply becoming a butterfly. What matters for our purposes is the idea of transformation: the old state cannot simply be preserved if a genuinely new one is to emerge.

Finally, the butterfly appears. The potential has become visible, and the organization begins to experience the results of its efforts. New opportunities open up, new relationships develop, and the organization becomes capable of doing things that were previously beyond its reach.

Yet even this final stage raises an important question: Is achieving the goal the same as sustaining it?

The butterfly gives us a framework for thinking about change. More importantly, it points to four lessons that leaders should not overlook.

1. Uncertainty Is Part of the Process

We live in a culture that prizes convenience. We want things to work smoothly, problems to be resolved quickly, and outcomes to be predictable. Unfortunately, organizational change rarely follows such a comfortable path.

When an organization builds a new facility, expands its operations, or introduces a new way of working, questions inevitably arise. Will customers respond positively? Will the new development attract enough tenants? Will employees adapt? Will the investment deliver the expected results?

These questions cannot always be answered in advance.

Uncertainty, or hindi kasiguraduhan, can be particularly unsettling because it leaves people without the assurance that their efforts will lead to the desired outcome. Some may question the decision to change. Others may worry about additional responsibilities, unfamiliar procedures, or the possibility of failure.

The temptation is to interpret resistance as a problem to eliminate. But resistance may also reveal legitimate concerns that leaders need to understand and address.

The task of leadership, therefore, is not to promise that everything will go smoothly. It is to help people navigate difficulties without losing sight of the objective.

Change inevitably involves inconvenience. The challenge is to distinguish between unnecessary difficulties that should be removed and necessary discomforts that accompany growth.

Sometimes, moving forward means accepting that not everything can be settled before the journey begins.

2. Preparation Is Not Separate from Progress

A caterpillar spends much of its life feeding and growing. It does not become a butterfly through determination alone. It must undergo the development necessary for its next stage.

Organizations are no different.

We sometimes expect people to embrace new responsibilities or implement new strategies simply because management has announced a new direction. But asking people to change without equipping them for change is an exercise in wishful thinking.

A new strategy may require different technical skills, better communication, stronger coordination, or a different understanding of customers. A new organizational structure may demand that managers learn to delegate rather than do everything themselves. A growing business may need people who can make decisions beyond the limits of their previous roles.

These capabilities do not emerge automatically when a new policy is introduced.

This is why continuous learning must be part of change management. Training and development prepare people for responsibilities they may not yet be fully equipped to handle. They also help build the confidence needed to work through unfamiliar situations.

For managers and supervisors, this is especially important. They are often the people responsible for translating top management’s strategies into everyday action. They must understand the direction of the organization while helping their teams develop the competence to move toward it.

Preparation is not a delay in the change process. It is progress that may not yet be visible in the final results.

3. People Need to Understand the Destination

Imagine a caterpillar that somehow understood what it was becoming. Would that knowledge change how it experienced its present stage?

The comparison is imperfect, of course, but it raises an important question for organizational life: How do people make sense of the difficulties they are being asked to endure?

A clear vision helps answer that question.

When employees understand why an organization is changing, they can begin to connect their present efforts with a larger purpose. The additional work, unfamiliar procedures, and temporary disruptions become easier to understand when people see how these contribute to a meaningful objective.

This is why communicating a vision involves more than presenting targets, timelines, and performance indicators. Leaders must explain the reason behind the change, the future they are working toward, and the contribution expected from each person.

An organization also needs a shared purpose—a battle cry, if you will—that gives its people a common point of reference.

Without this clarity, employees may comply with instructions without committing to the change. They may complete their assigned tasks while remaining uncertain about the direction of the organization. Worse, different departments may pursue competing interpretations of what success looks like.

A shared vision does not eliminate disagreement or uncertainty. Nor should it discourage people from raising legitimate concerns. Instead, it provides a common direction within which decisions can be made and problems resolved.

People do not need to know every detail of the future. They do need to understand why the journey matters.

4. Reaching the Goal Is Not the End

There is a tendency to celebrate the completion of a project as though it were the final destination.

A new building opens. A new system is launched. A restructuring is completed. The organization reaches its target, and everyone moves on to the next initiative.

But what happens afterward?

A newly opened mall still needs tenants, customers, maintenance, and effective management. A new system still requires people to use it properly. A newly formed team still needs to develop trust, clarify expectations, and learn how to work together.

The initial achievement is only the beginning of another responsibility: sustaining the change.

Organizations can invest considerable resources in introducing something new only to gradually return to familiar habits. People revert to old practices. Managers stop reinforcing new expectations. Improvements are not monitored, and lessons from implementation are forgotten.

The result is that a change may be completed on paper without becoming part of the organization’s everyday reality.

This is where discipline and perseverance matter. As St. Josemaría Escrivá expressed it, “To start is for everyone… but to sustain, to continue, is only for the saints.”

The quotation captures a truth about both personal and organizational development: beginning something requires initiative, but sustaining it requires consistency.

Leaders must continue to communicate expectations, monitor progress, recognize improvements, address setbacks, and invest in learning. They must ensure that the change does not remain a temporary project but becomes part of how the organization actually operates.

Success is not merely reaching a new state. It is learning how to live in it.

Change Happens Through People

Consider a practical example: the closure of a road that required coordination with the barangay and the owner of a parking lot.

What might initially appear to be a straightforward operational decision can become a significant challenge once it affects other people and their interests. Questions arise. Coordination becomes necessary. Responsibilities must be clarified, and solutions must be negotiated.

The situation can quickly become overwhelming, especially when several concerns have to be addressed at the same time.

Yet these are precisely the situations in which change management becomes real.

A plan that looks sensible in a meeting room must still work in the world outside it. That requires people who can communicate, coordinate, solve problems, and persevere when circumstances become inconvenient.

In this case, the team did not simply abandon the effort because it had become difficult. They worked through the problem, engaged the relevant stakeholders, and accepted the inconvenience involved in moving forward.

The experience illustrates an important point: organizational change is rarely accomplished by a single decision. It depends on many people making adjustments, responding to concerns, and coordinating their actions toward a common objective.

It also reminds us that stakeholders are not merely obstacles to be managed. They are people whose cooperation, concerns, and interests can affect the outcome. Effective leaders make the effort to understand these perspectives and work toward practical solutions.

The ability to manage change, therefore, is not just about managing projects. It is also about managing relationships.

Becoming What We Are Working Toward

The metamorphosis of a butterfly reminds us that transformation involves different stages, each with its own demands.

We need a vision before we can establish a direction. We need preparation before we can assume new responsibilities. We need communication to help people understand the purpose of their efforts. And we need perseverance to sustain what we have achieved.

None of these guarantees that the journey will be easy. There will be uncertainty, resistance, and moments when the outcome remains unclear. Leaders must learn to work through these realities rather than expect them to disappear.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that change is not simply about moving from one point to another. It is about developing the capacity to function in a different reality.

The organization that wants to grow must prepare its people to grow with it. The leader who wants others to embrace change must be willing to learn and adapt as well. And the team that wants lasting results must understand that reaching a milestone is not a reason to stop developing.

A butterfly cannot return to being a caterpillar and continue its life in quite the same way. Likewise, meaningful organizational change asks us to do more than adopt something new. It asks us to develop new capabilities, reconsider familiar practices, and become prepared for responsibilities we may not have been ready to assume before.

The question for leaders, then, is not merely whether their organizations are changing.

It is whether their people are becoming capable of sustaining the change—and whether the organization is prepared to keep growing long after the initial transformation is complete.

Brand

Posted on by
Reply

Slapping a logo on a product isn’t the same as branding. This is one of the first lessons I teach my marketing students.

A logo or label identifies a product and distinguishes it from others. But while it helps differentiate one product from another, it doesn’t necessarily give customers a reason to choose it.

A brand is more than an identifier. It has an identity.

And that identity isn’t formed by what a company tells people about its brand. It’s formed by what people tell other people about it.

That comes from their actual experiences with the product or service, the feelings it evokes, and the expectations it meets—or fails to meet.

Companies can spend millions on advertising, pushing their products on television and online to convince people to give them a try. Advertising may get customers through the door, but it takes more than advertising to keep them coming back.

Ultimately, a brand earns loyalty when the actual experience lives up to the promise.

Because you can tell people what your brand stands for, but it’s their experience that tells them what your brand truly is.

When Friendship Meets Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

In my years of handling corporate clients, there are a few training needs that consistently come up. One of them is helping managers learn how to lead, delegate, and get their subordinates to work toward their objectives. This is not exclusive to local companies. Even multinational companies have raised the same concern.

Whenever a client requests this kind of training, there is one question I would ask:

“Are these newly promoted managers now handling people who used to be their friends?”

The answer is almost always yes.

In other words, these are employees who have been promoted and are now expected to manage the same people they used to work alongside as peers.

I ask this question because pakikisama is a big part of Filipino culture. We value relationships, getting along with others, and maintaining harmony within a group. I cannot simply dismiss these cultural realities and call these managers unprofessional because they find it difficult to manage their friends. I want to understand what makes the transition difficult.

Sometime in 2013, I conducted training for newly promoted managers and supervisors. When I asked them about their difficulties in managing their friends, many shared a similar experience. Their friends would tease them and say, “Hindi ka na ma-reach” or “Nag-iba ka na.”

Think about what happens in this situation. A person gets promoted, and with the promotion comes the responsibility to give instructions, correct mistakes, and hold people accountable. But the people they now supervise are the same people they used to joke around with, eat lunch with, and share stories with.

How do you exercise authority without making your friends feel that you have changed?

On the other hand, I have also observed companies where friendship works in favor of newly promoted managers. Their friends cooperate, accept their direction, and support them in their new roles.

This tells me that friendship itself is not necessarily the problem. The same relationship that makes it difficult for one manager to exercise authority can help another manager lead a team effectively.

The difference may lie in how the manager and the team understand their relationship now that their roles have changed.

A manager does not have to stop being a friend. But friendship cannot be the reason for avoiding a difficult conversation, tolerating poor performance, or refusing to make a decision. At some point, the responsibility of the position must take precedence over the desire to keep everyone comfortable.

This is one of the challenges of moving from being a team member to becoming a manager. The promotion changes the position, but it does not automatically change how a person relates to others.

The Difficulty of Speaking Up

Another training request that frequently comes up is helping managers learn to speak up.

Clients would often tell me that their managers are talkative during breaks, lunch, or informal gatherings but become quiet during meetings. They have ideas, but they do not share them. They may see a problem or have a suggestion, but they hesitate to bring it up.

When I ask these managers about it, I often hear that they are shy or afraid they might not be able to defend their ideas when questioned.

Again, I notice something familiar in our culture: pagkamahiyain.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being shy or reserved. Not everyone has to be outspoken, and being quiet does not mean a person has nothing valuable to contribute. But when a manager cannot express an idea because of the fear of being questioned, the organization loses an opportunity to benefit from that person’s knowledge and experience.

Part of being a manager is communicating decisions, raising concerns, sharing ideas, and sometimes disagreeing with people who may be more senior. A manager does not have to win every argument, but should be willing to explain the reasoning behind a recommendation and consider a different point of view.

The question, then, is not whether a manager is naturally shy. It is whether that person can learn to speak when the responsibility of the role requires it.

The Real Challenge of Management Development

Looking at these experiences, I see a common thread. Some managers hesitate to exercise authority because they want to maintain good relationships. Others hesitate to speak because they are afraid of being questioned or embarrassed.

In both cases, the manager’s behavior is influenced by the desire to avoid an uncomfortable situation.

Of course, this does not mean that pakikisama and pagkamahiyain are the only reasons managers struggle. Some may lack experience, communication skills, or confidence. Others may be working in organizations where questioning a superior is discouraged. These factors also matter.

But my point is that we cannot develop managers simply by teaching them techniques for delegation, communication, or leadership. We also need to help them understand why they hesitate to use those techniques in the first place.

Knowing how to delegate is different from being willing to delegate. Knowing how to give feedback is different from having the courage to correct a friend. Knowing how to present an idea is different from being willing to defend it when someone disagrees.

The gap between knowing what to do and actually doing it is where much of management development happens.

A newly promoted manager may understand the principles of leadership during training but return to the workplace and fall back into familiar habits. The first time a friend complains about being corrected, the manager may hesitate. The first time a senior executive challenges an idea, the manager may choose to remain silent.

This is why I believe that developing managers requires more than a training session.

Training can introduce concepts, challenge assumptions, and provide opportunities to practice. But the real test comes when managers apply what they have learned in actual workplace situations. They need opportunities to practice, receive feedback, make mistakes, and try again.

Management must also do its part. Companies cannot expect managers to exercise authority if they do not give them the necessary support. Nor can they expect people to speak up if the workplace makes disagreement uncomfortable or risky.

Developing managers is a shared responsibility. Managers must be willing to change their habits, while organizations must provide the environment and support that allow them to grow.

After all, promotion gives a person a new position, but it does not automatically provide the judgment, confidence, and discipline required to lead.

The real work begins when managers learn to act on what they know, even when doing so is uncomfortable.

That may mean correcting a friend, defending an idea, or making a decision that not everyone will like. These are not necessarily signs that a manager has become arrogant or difficult to approach. They may simply be signs that the person is learning to take the responsibilities of the position seriously.

The goal is not to make managers abandon pakikisama or change their personalities. It is to help them understand when to preserve harmony, when to speak up, and when their responsibilities require them to make a difficult decision.

That kind of judgment does not develop overnight. It takes practice, experience, and commitment from both the manager and the organization.

Mood Swings

Posted on by
Reply

I heard in the barangay hall, “Magpakabait kayo, mainit ang ulo ni OIC.” This isn’t the first time I heard this. I’ve heard something similar in private organizations too.

This reveals something about leadership: people tend to respond to mood instead of the day’s tasks and bigger company objectives. Just imagine the impact if all our organizations were like this.

As leaders, this information should tell us how our mood impacts efficiency, but it should not be the driver of productivity. It also doesn’t mean that leaders should always be in a bad mood just to hit targets.

I ask one question: Do people understand the importance of what they’re doing, or are they simply managing the leader’s mood? For leaders, perhaps the question is even simpler: Are people responding to the work, or to my mood?

Leadership is not just about what is effective or productive. It is also about helping people understand why their work matters, so that they can do what needs to be done even when the leader isn’t around, isn’t happy, or isn’t having a good day.

A healthy organization should not depend on the emotional temperature of one person. It should be guided by shared purpose, clear expectations, and people who have learned to take responsibility for the work.

Temperance is Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Raise your hands if you scroll on your social media before going to sleep? I do. Often I would catch myself scrolling for an hour to over an hour then I would feel bad for wasting my time that could have gone to reading or doing other chores.

Raise your hands if you have been to a buffet then ate more than your limit so you get your money’s worth. I do as well.

How about gossiping? Raise your hands if you promised yourself not to tell your friend’s secret yet you could not help yourself but tell other people.

I would ask the same thing for anger. Raise your hands if at one point, you were so made that you could not control your emotions anymore.

Why, what is wrong with over eating, doom scrolling, or gossiping about friends to other friends?

It is not a question whether your actions are good or bad but rather am I being enslaved by my emotions, or am I still in control of my actions?

I would like to introduce you to temperance. Temperance is the virtue that moderates our attraction to human wants or desires and helps us maintain a balanced use of created goods. Temperance doesn’t say, ‘desire is bad.’ It says, ‘desire is human but it must have its proper place.

Temptation doesn’t always begin with evil. It begins with something good that becomes excessive or disordered. Here are some examples.

Food is good. But eating because you are bored is different.

Rest is good. But avoiding responsibility because you want comfort is different.

Friendship is good. But needing everyone’s approval is different.

Technology is useful. But being unable to put your phone down is different. 

The devil doesn’t always have to make us desire evil. Sometimes he only has to make us desire a good thing in the wrong way, at the wrong time, or in the wrong amount.

Can you say no to something you really want? If the answer is no, then despite having the freedom to choose, you aren’t really free in that area. 

“If I can eat chocolate, that’s freedom.

If I can eat chocolate but can also say, ‘No, I don’t need it,’ that’s greater freedom.

But if I cannot say no, then chocolate has begun to exercise control over me.” 

So, temperance makes desire obey reason rather than making reason obey desire. 

Christian temperance isn’t simply about becoming disciplined people. It is about making room for something greater. 

Christ doesn’t ask us to become people who don’t enjoy life.

He asks us to become people who are free to love, because a heart constantly distracted by appetite, pleasure, approval, or entertainment has difficulty seeing what truly matters. 

Temperance is not saying no to desire because desire is bad. Temperance is learning to say yes to what is truly good.

Because the person who cannot say no to himself is not truly free.

And Christianity is not ultimately about having fewer desires. It is about having desires ordered toward something greater: toward truth, toward love, and ultimately toward God.