AUA: How to Change When People Are Loyal To The Past

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: At Work with The Ready

Episode: AUA: How to Change When People Are Loyal To The Past
Hosts: Rodney Evans & Sam Spurlin
Date: October 27, 2025

---

Overview

This episode explores the challenge of driving organizational change when teams agree on what needs to be accomplished, but are emotionally attached to the how (methods, rituals) and who (people, authority) of established ways of working. The discussion centers on practical strategies to introduce change in systems where legacy practices and powerful stakeholders protect the status quo.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Challenge: Emotional Loyalty to Old Ways

• Listeners asked how to foster change when the organization is willing to update goals (what), but remains attached to traditional processes (how) and people in power (who).
  • [00:08] Rodney: “How do you navigate change when most people agree on the what but are still emotionally loyal to the how and who? Especially when the old system is preserved by legacy and untouchable authority?”

2. Experimentation as a Doorway to Change

• Sam argues the best approach is to identify spaces where new processes can be safely tested.
  • [00:39] Sam: “That’s the practices, the rituals, the how we actually get after the work. And that lends itself to experimentation.”
  • Instead of arguing or mandating change, show tangible results from pilot efforts.
  • Let experimentation surface the comparative advantage of new ways of working.

3. Barriers: Expertise in ‘What’ vs. Skill in ‘How’

• Rodney observes that those with deep subject-matter expertise are often key obstacles—not out of malice, but because they lack systems-thinking and familiarity with different work methodologies.
  • [02:09] Rodney: “They’re very deep in the what and they have very little skill in the how. And so they appear attached to the way it’s been or unwilling to try something new because... they don’t understand ways of working as its own discipline.”
  • These experts typically undervalue the rigor of organizational design relative to other disciplines like finance or marketing.

4. The Power of Partnership: 'Pair Coding' for Change

• Rather than trying (and usually failing) to convert powerful subject matter experts on the ‘how,’ Rodney recommends pairing them with someone skilled in org design and experimentation.
  • [03:40] Rodney: “Can you get them a partner or a supporter or sort of crown someone their in-house pair coder, org designer to make the how work differently?”
• These partnerships allow domain experts to focus on outcomes, while work-practices experts experiment with new approaches.
  • [04:46] Sam: “It’s like a translation layer between all the various who's. And it works even better if each of the major who’s have their own version of that because ... now you’ve got much more fluidity and ability to change up the how.”

5. Building Networks Across the Organization

• Rodney illustrates with a personal client example where multiple chiefs of staff are forming a network, sharing successful initiatives, and scaling effective practices organization-wide:
  • [05:29] Rodney: “She’s starting to form a network to be like, let’s take the best of what all of us are doing and actually start to scale it across, rather than all of us reinventing this for ourselves.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [00:39] Sam: “The only way you get people to start to shift and see through the smoke and mirrors is with actual reality of hey, look, we tried this different thing and either it went really well or at least didn’t go poorly.”
• [02:09] Rodney: “They don’t understand systems thinking as a discipline that is as hard and rigorous as finance or marketing or anything else in the building.”
• [03:40] Rodney: “If you can’t change the who in the owner, can you get them a partner... their in-house pair coder, org designer to make the how work differently?”
• [04:46] Sam: “It’s like a translation layer between all the various who’s.”
• [06:10] Sam (wrap-up): “There you go. Be a mushroom.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:08 – Introduction of listener question on change and legacy systems
• 00:39 – Sam unpacks the importance of experimenting with new 'hows'
• 02:09 – Rodney on why subject experts resist change
• 03:40 – The concept of “pair coding” for organizational change
• 04:46 – Sam expands on the power of translation layers/partnerships
• 05:29 – Real-world example of building cross-functional networks
• 06:10 – Memorable metaphor: “Be a mushroom”

---

Episode Tone & Closing

The episode is concise, practical, and slightly irreverent, encouraging listeners to be brave, experimental, and to think of themselves as part of an organic, ever-growing network for change. The hosts stress realistic tactics and focus on collaboration rather than confrontation.

---

For more, contact the hosts or submit questions at: [e-mail]

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey y'.

[B]

All.

[A]

Welcome back to At Work with the Ready. I'm Rodney Evans and that guy over there is Sam Sperlin.

[B]

Hello, Rodney Evans.

[A]

Every other week we are tackling one tough, thought provoking question from you, our beloved listeners, and sharing a few ideas that might help. So let's dive in. This week's question is the following. How do you navigate change when most people agree on the what but are still emotionally loyal to the how and and who? Especially when the old system is preserved by legacy and untouchable authority? When the board of directors believes the smoke and mirrors act rather than reality. All right, Sam, what you got?

[B]

Yeah, this is a. All questions are good. Some are also very difficult. I feel like this is a more difficult one. When I look at this question, I kind of home in on the how part. So if people are we, we agree on the what, like, like the strategy of like what we're going to go accompl publish. But there's folks emotionally loyal to a pre existing how and who. But it sounds like baked into this question is a desire to change the how in the who, at least how side of things. That's Twilight Zone work. That's the practices, the, the rituals, the how we actually get after the work. And that lends itself to experimentation. So the first thing that I would be looking for in this case is where can we push against the pre existing with some alternative hows that will generate some information about whether or not it's a better how? Because I think the only way you get people to start to shift and see through the smoke and mirrors is with actual reality of hey, look, we tried this different thing and either it went really well or at least didn't go poorly. And that's a platform you can start to build from.

[A]

I love that we haven't talked about experimentation on this show in a while. We used to talk a lot about it. But I think you're exactly right. This question really begs to me of like, where is the tiny space that you could do something? The other thing is, and I've been really on one about this for a while, I think that as organizations evolve broadly, this has always been true, but now there's going to be a forcing function because of AI for this to actually finally change to the way it should have been for the last 40 years. I think there's real value in the idea of sort of like pair coding for organizational change. And what I mean by that is a lot of times the who is the person who has functional expertise or subject Matter expertise. They're very deep in the what and they have very little skill in the how. And so they appear attached to the way that it's been or unwilling to try something new because a they don't understand ways of working as its own discipline. They don't understand systems thinking as a discipline that is as hard and rigorous as finance or marketing or anything else in the building. And so it's very easy for a person like that to dismiss alternative house. Where I have come to on this is like we are probably not going to get most of those people interested in alternative house and we're definitely not going to get them upskilled to the degree that they would need to be in a lot of cases to own a significant change.

[B]

So.

[A]

So is there any way that you can influence basically partnership between someone who has more of an org design bent, more fluency in ways of working, more appetite for disciplined experimentation and inspiration around what that can be? Are there any places where the who that you have in place that's sort of intractable would be open to partnership with that person? This looks a lot like how we work with clients where they're like yeah, your stuff is cool. What I want is revenue growth. And I'm like, got it boss. I see your outcome and if you give me the freedom to help you guys pursue it in a different way, you'll get what you want and everybody will have better and different experience. There are ways that I've seen people replicate that in companies where like a CEO and a chief of staff or a CEO and her like second, her like helper or. I've often had this pairing of executive and person who held the how and it's worked really, really well. So if you can't change the who in the owner, in the ultimate owner who has authority way, can you get them a partner or a supporter or sort of crown someone their in house pair coder, org designer to make the how work differently?

[B]

Yeah, it's like a, a translation layer between all the various who's. And it works even better if each of the major who's have their own version of that because the layers that actually interact with each other are the two who are speaking the same language. And now you've got much more fluidity and ability to change up the how while the who's who are really held to the what are getting what they need as well.

[A]

Totally. And I have a really good present day example of what you're saying Sam. And then I promise to make this minisode end because it is mini in nature. But I'm working right now with a chief of staff who's, like, one of my favorite clients that I've ever had. She's so rad, and there are a lot of other chiefs of staff in this organization, and regularly in our conversations, she'll be like, oh, yeah, actually, what you're saying. I've seen that chief of staff do that over in that function. I'm gonna go talk to them and see if all of us should do that. So you're exactly right. It's like she's starting to form a network of the chiefs of staff. She's, like, in the C suite, but, like, there's a bunch of them floating around. She's starting to form a network to be like, let's take the best of what all of us are doing and actually start to scale it across, rather than all of us reinventing this for ourselves, which is just like, you know, a network of mushrooms that are all just, like, figuring out how to grow and evolve at once. It's very cool.

[B]

There you go. Be a mushroom. That's for this. Mini. If you've got a question of your own, hit us [e-mail].

[A]

We'Ll see you next week for a full episode of our with the Ready. Thank you so much for listening.