Progress Needs Change, and Change Makes Enemies
Created at: October 11, 2025
Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies. — Robert F. Kennedy
Separating Progress from Change
At the outset, Kennedy distinguishes between destination and motion: progress is the desired outcome, while change is the driving force that propels us toward it. Without change, progress is merely aspiration; with it, potential becomes kinetic. The relationship resembles activation energy in chemistry—nothing reacts until a catalyst disrupts stability. Yet this very disruption invites friction, because it unsettles routines and reallocates power. Thus, even beneficial change can feel threatening to those invested in the current arrangement. This insight frames the terrain ahead: if we want progress, we must understand—and plan for—the resistance change reliably provokes.
The Psychology of Resistance
Yet beneath this clarity lies a stubborn human tendency to prefer the familiar. Prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) shows that people weigh losses more heavily than equivalent gains, making reforms that create winners and losers inherently contentious. Status quo bias reinforces this inertia (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988), nudging organizations and communities to keep existing arrangements even when better options exist. Moreover, identity and meaning attach to old practices; change can feel like an assault on self-understanding, not just on processes. Recognizing these cognitive and emotional anchors is essential, because strategy that ignores them simply amplifies opposition. With motives clarified, we can turn to history for patterns of both obstruction and eventual advance.
History’s Pattern of Pushback
Looking back, resistance to transformative shifts is a recurring motif. The Luddites (1811–1816) attacked textile machinery not out of ignorance, but from fears of wage collapse and deskilling—rational concerns within their context. Galileo’s 1633 trial illustrates how new knowledge threatens entrenched authorities that define truth and legitimacy. Closer to the present, the U.S. civil rights movement faced legislative filibusters and violent backlash before landmark progress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In each case, opposition was not merely stubbornness; it was structured by interests, identities, and institutions. Still, once the benefits of change were demonstrated and coalitions grew, progress followed—suggesting that resistance can be engaged, not merely endured.
Organizations: Inertia and Adaptation
In modern organizations, these dynamics become concrete. Kodak’s own engineer Steven Sasson built the first digital camera in 1975, yet the company hesitated to pivot, fearing cannibalization of its profitable film business; the hesitation proved fatal. By contrast, Microsoft’s shift after 2014 toward cloud services and openness, including embracing Linux and acquiring GitHub (2018), shows how reframing incentives and culture can convert existential threats into growth. Management research echoes this: John Kotter’s Leading Change (1996) emphasizes urgency, coalition-building, and short-term wins as antidotes to inertia. Thus, organizational progress depends not just on a compelling vision, but on aligning structures and rewards so the agents of change are empowered rather than punished.
Turning Enemies into Allies
Consequently, effective change agents treat opposition as data. Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513) observes that reformers face enemies among those who profit from the old order and only lukewarm support from those who might benefit from the new. To counter this, leaders share gains, cushion losses, and involve skeptics early so they can shape outcomes. Practical tools help: pilot programs and opt-in phases reduce perceived risk; compensation and retraining mitigate concentrated losses; and Karl Weick’s small wins (1984) build momentum without provoking maximal backlash. Storytelling that connects change to shared values reframes the narrative from threat to opportunity. In this way, hostility can be channeled into constructive critique—fuel for better design.
Guardrails, Evidence, and the Meaning of Progress
Finally, not all change is progress, so governance matters. Clear goals, measurable metrics, and feedback loops prevent motion for its own sake. Evidence-based evaluation—such as policy experiments highlighted by Banerjee and Duflo in Poor Economics (2011)—helps distinguish effective reforms from attractive but empty gestures. Ethical guardrails also count: in energy transitions, a just transition framework aims to protect workers and communities so environmental gains do not create social harm. By embedding learning and equity into the process, we make change both credible and humane. In the end, progress is realized when disruption is guided by purpose, tested by evidence, and shaped to include those it might otherwise leave behind.