I started asking myself this question more seriously a few weeks ago, when I began an eight-week self-study on the philosophy and practice of change. Each week pairs a philosopher with a change management framework. Week one pushed me straight into an old argument: Heraclitus against Parmenides, with Kurt Lewin caught in the middle without ever knowing it.
When I accompany transformation projects, this question is not abstract. Change seems to be everywhere at once in organisations: a reorg, a new tool, a new procedure or standard to apply. So which is it. Is stability the thing we should be explaining, or is change the thing that needs an explanation?
Heraclitus: everything is already moving
Heraclitus left us fragments, not a treatise, and the most famous one is about a river. You cannot step twice into the same river, he said, for other waters are flowing on. It sounds simple until you notice what it actually claims: it is not only the river that changed between your two steps. You did too. Your body has already replaced parts of itself. The “you” who stepped in the first time is not quite the “you” who steps in the second.
For Heraclitus, motion is the normal state of things. What we call stability is not an absence of change, it is a brief pause inside a much larger current, something closer to a single frame pulled out of a moving picture. “It is in changing that things find repose,” he wrote. Repose is not the opposite of change. It is a byproduct of it.
One line of his has stayed with me longer than the river: “I have searched myself.” Two words. Self-examination was already, for Heraclitus, the hardest work available to a person, centuries before anyone had a name for it.
Parmenides: the disagreement
Parmenides answered, more or less, by refusing the premise. Change, for him, is illusion. Underneath the appearance of movement, something stays fixed and real. Whether that argument was ever resolved between them is genuinely unclear, and it still is. But the disagreement itself is the useful part. It forces you to notice which side you actually stand on, instinctively, before you have any framework to justify it.
Lewin: where change management picked a side, without saying so
Kurt Lewin never engaged with either philosopher directly, as far as I know. But his Field Theory in Social Science built the foundation of modern change management on Parmenides’ side of the argument. His model treats organisations as living in what he called “quasi-stationary equilibrium”: stable, static, until someone deliberately unfreezes them, moves them, then refreezes them into a new stable state.
Two things in his writing struck me on a second and third read. First, his description of resistance: you can push change through a group by adding force, more pressure, more urgency. Or by reducing the forces that oppose it instead. Add force and you get more tension, more fatigue, more aggressiveness, less constructiveness. Reduce the opposing forces, and the pressure withdraws on its own, with far less damage on the way. Most change management I have seen leans hard on the first method and calls it decisiveness.
Second, his point about communication: for change to actually land, it has to travel through the channel the group already trusts. If someone is genuinely being listened to inside a team, that is the person who has to carry the message of change forward, not whoever holds the title.
What I actually think, after this week
I used to think Heraclitus had the more sophisticated answer. Motion felt honest. Freezing felt like denial.
But sitting with both of them against what actually happens inside a mission, I don’t think the interesting question is whether change is real. Of course it is. Life without change would mean no seasons, no growth, nothing. The interesting question, the one Lewin’s model just assumes away, is why change still needs to be explained at all if it is the natural order of things.
Here is my answer, for now. We are creatures built out of habit. Habits keep us safe, and they are cheap: the brain does not have to spend energy deciding something it has already automated. Change asks it to spend that energy again. That is not comfortable, and it was never going to be neutral. It shows up emotional. It creates reactions. It creates resistance, every time, no exceptions I have found yet.
The mistake is treating that resistance as the obstacle. Most of the time it is not. It is information about what a person or a group is actually protecting, and the only way to get at it is to listen to it instead of pushing past it.
So does stability need to be explained, or does change. My answer, after a week with Heraclitus, Parmenides and Lewin: both. And the explaining is the real job. Everything else, in change management, is downstream of that.
If you wish to be supported during your transformation projects, we invite you to schedule a meeting with The Change Society Office.
