One of the most striking differences between consulting approaches is whether they view stagnation or change as the given state. In the first case, the focus is on helping clients achieve change. In the second, the initial step is understanding how the client actively maintains their own undesired state.

 

At its core, consulting is about change (no matter whether it is on an individual level such as coaching or psychotherapy or an organisational level). Clients seek guidance because they are dissatisfied or struggling and want to reach a place where they feel more successful or fulfilled – or at least believe they can be. Consulting is supposed to help them get there. Many theories in change management, leadership, group dynamics, and psychotherapy offer strategies for this: “Follow this approach, and you will achieve the desired outcome.”

Yet, surprisingly, many consulting approaches rarely reflect on the nature of change itself. Instead, change is treated as an obvious good – something to be promoted without considering its deeper dynamics.

By focusing solely on driving change, these approaches often amplify the very problems they claim to be able to solve – resistance, conflict, fear, and change fatigue. Since change is treated as inherently positive, any difficulties that arise are seen as obstacles rather than natural responses to the process itself. And because many theories offer no real explanation for why these challenges occur (beyond techniques to “overcome” e.g. resistance), the blame is often placed on the client: The coaching client lacks motivation for change, team members are resistant, the board is unreceptive to advice, and so on.

 

---

Stability Is the Norm, Change Is the Challenge?

Traditional change approaches assume that change is always desirable, losing sight of change itself in the process.

---

 

However, as consultants, management trainers, team developers, coaches, or psychotherapists, we must understand the dynamics and ambivalence of change processes. This requires us to ask fundamental questions:

• What is the opposite of change? Stagnation? Stability? Resistance? Bad change? Rest?
• What happens if nothing is done? Does nothing change? Why not?
• What happens if the wrong action is taken? Does something still change?
• Why does stagnation occur if everything is constantly in flux?
• How is it even possible to believe that we can create change in the psyche, teams, or organisations?

 

Exploring these questions reveals a fundamental truth: change is the only constant. This idea has played a central role in many philosophies, worldviews, and religions throughout history. Often mentioned samples are:

• In Buddhism, Anicca (impermanence) is one of the three marks of existence, emphasizing that everything is subject to change.
• The Yin-Yang symbol, regardless of its specific interpretations in Chinese philosophy, visually represents continuous transformation.
• The ancient Greek saying Panta Rhei (everything flows), attributed to Heraclitus, captures the essence of perpetual change.

 

If change is the constant, then inevitably another quality comes into focus: for anything to endure in a constantly changing world, there must be stability. And because the world is in continuous flux, maintaining that stability requires ongoing effort.

Put simply:
for something to remain as it is, someone or something must continually put energy into preserving the existing order – otherwise, it will change.

 

---

Change Is the Norm, Stability Requires Explanation

Change is the default state of life. Stability, on the other hand, is something that must be continuously sustained through deliberate actions.

---

 

Contrary to traditional change approaches, which assume a static world that must be changed, a more dynamic perspective requires us to understand how stability is created and maintained.

Guiseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s novel The Leopard captures this paradox perfectly:
“If we want things to stay as they are, everything must change.” The novel portrays the futile struggle of its protagonist against relentless change, highlighting the inevitability of transformation.

This perspective acknowledges that our world is dynamic. Stability offers a sense of order within this ever-changing reality. However, any form of order is not fixed – it could always be different. If an existing order fails to sustain itself, it will inevitably change. Maintaining stability often involves resisting new influences, yet complete stagnation is equally problematic, as it prevents adaptation to a shifting world.

This leads to an inherent paradox: stability consists of both stability and instability.

 

Everything cannot change at once, nor can everything remain the same. We must limit change while ensuring that stability does not become rigid stagnation.

Put into a metaphor it may be like learning to ride a bike after the training wheels come off: only movement creates balance. You stay upright by staying in motion.

 

---

Stability Is a Dynamic Process

Stability is not the absence of change – it is the continuous balancing act between transformation and preservation. Both are necessary to thrive in a dynamic world.

---

 

This has some very concrete implications when we think about change:

• Any system – whether a psyche, a team, a group, or an organisation – actively maintains the very state it seeks to change.
• Because the system produces this state, it also has the potential to change it.
• Change cannot be forced, but we can stop doing the things that prevent it.
• This requires clarity about both: what should change and what must remain stable.

 

Does This Make Change Easier?

Not necessarily. But it shifts the focus to what is within our control – what we can actually influence.

 

And What Needs to Be Done?

Nothing.

Or rather, something must be left undone – namely, all the actions that stand in the way of what we truly want.

Change then happens naturally, all on its own.

 

---