Fifth Step of the Cooplexity Model: Change Management

Fifth Step of the Cooplexity Model: Change Management

The fifth step of the Cooplexity model addresses how to manage and create spaces of order and disorder to optimise and develop in a continuous adaptive movement. All with a focus on diversity to complement perspectives and capacities. All with a focus on diversity to complement perspectives and capacities, and achieve effective team change management.

Article Content

Have you ever defended a way of doing things simply because “it has always been done this way”? Or have you ever felt that proposing something different was risky, that you might be exposed if the idea did not work? You're not alone. In organisations, change is often associated with painful restructurings, disguised layoffs or management fads that come and go. When someone says, “we are going to manage change”, we often translate it mentally as: “trouble is coming”.

However, there is another way to understand it.

Change is not an event to be managed; it is a movement to be sustained. It is not something that happens to the organisation from the outside; it is something the organisation generates from within to adapt and stay alive. The difference between a company that survives for decades and one that disappears does not lie in its ability to resist change, but in its ability to produce it before it becomes urgent.

Inditex, a paradigmatic example

Years ago, I developed a simulator for Inditex and was amazed by how the company interpreted the world. They showed me a warehouse the size of a football stadium where picking was done. Coming from the publishing sector, I imagined a highly robotised facility where baskets moved along the shelves. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Instead of having the product stored waiting to be picked, it was the product that travelled to the order preparation area. It was poured into a hopper while hundreds of baskets moved around the warehouse underneath. When a basket was destined for a customer who had ordered that item, the hopper opened, and the product dropped in. It was the inverse of the existing paradigm. At that time, it was so innovative that I could not even explain it to my students.

But that was not the only thing that surprised me. Garments were manufactured in stages, with work left half-finished, to maximise responsiveness when demand required it or, failing that, to minimise losses. They had a factory in Zaragoza dedicated exclusively to researching process improvements. And so on, countless examples.

None of this was due solely to a good strategy or impeccable management. They had a permanent research and improvement cycle fully integrated into the organisation’s DNA. They did not manage change in response to crises; they generated it as part of their normal operating model.

Change management

Change management is the process of ongoing adaptation over time. It is not a reactive process responding to environmental changes; rather, it is an active process that generates change internally, learns from it, consolidates it, and maximises its potential.

However, an organisation must structure spaces where innovative ideas can emerge and others where these ideas are grounded and capitalised on. Changing all the time is as dangerous as never changing at all. In the first case, the investment would never pay off; in the second, there would be a fatal disconnect from the environment, which undoubtedly changes.

Designing these spaces so that disorder generates innovation without chaos, and order consolidates change without creating inefficiencies or obsolescence, is critical to maintaining a continuous process of adaptation.

This is where assertiveness—as a relational skill that complements the empathy explored in Step Two—becomes a tool for conscious integration.

“Change management is not about managing resistance to change; it is about turning it into the driving force of adaptation.”

Continuous adaptive movement

Spaces

Perhaps the most frequently cited example in the business literature is Google as a creative space. Years ago, Google had a policy that allowed employees to devote 20% of their time to projects of their choice, using the company’s resources. This policy, known as “20% time,” led to products such as AdSense and News and positively influenced the development of other important products, including Maps and Gmail.

Although this practice was never formally institutionalised, many employees at the time considered it a source of innovation, satisfaction, motivation, and pride.

The transition points

We must bear in mind that movement is continuous in a living organisation, and this dynamic occurs in alternating cycles and varies across departments. Sometimes order is needed and, at other times, space must be given. When moving from an optimisation objective to a development objective, or vice versa, there will inevitably be moments of maximum adaptive tension. This is where trust and organisational maturity will either facilitate or hinder the transition.

In Step Five of the model, the limits imposed by uncertainty, personal relationships, and differences of interest have been overcome, and a shared purpose that unifies and aligns efforts has been established.

The structures

But this is not enough. Up to this point, trust ensures intention and willingness; now we must put the means in place. Any change to work habits must be integrated into day-to-day practice as a modification (it is usually perceived as an added task and therefore rejected) and must constitute a structural, not a circumstantial, change.

Assertiveness: building from difference

How many times have we stayed silent when a customer raised a concern—not wanting to risk the relationship—only to watch it turn into a problem later?

Assertiveness is a personal skill that allows us to express our feelings, opinions, and thoughts at the right time, in an appropriate way, without denying or ignoring others' opinions or emotions. It allows us to express disagreement clearly and respectfully, without attacking the other person or submitting to them.

It is critical for integrating and maintaining cohesion and complements the empathy discussed in Step Two of the model, understood as the ability to understand the other's emotions and perspectives without judging them.

Any change usually involves discussion and requires proposing, questioning and disagreeing. When this happens, many people confuse preserving the relationship with avoiding conflict. They stay silent to avoid rocking the boat. By keeping quiet, they stop contributing. The system loses diversity of perspectives precisely when it needs them most.

Four ways of responding to disagreement

Let us imagine a common situation: in a team meeting, the leader proposes a direction you consider wrong. How do you respond?

• Passive: You keep quiet. You think it is not worth it, and that they will realise sooner or later that it is not your problem. The relationship seems intact, but your contribution is lost, and your frustration grows in silence.
• Aggressive: You attack the idea and likely the person proposing it. “That makes no sense”, or “We always do the same thing.” The relationship is damaged. The other person becomes defensive. The debate turns into a fight.
• Passive-aggressive: You nod in the meeting, but later you subtly sabotage: delays, comments in the corridors, and minimal compliance. This is the most corrosive form because it erodes trust without leaving visible traces.
•  Assertive: You express your disagreement clearly without attacking. “I understand the logic of that proposal, but I see a risk that concerns me. May I explain it?” The relationship is maintained. Your perspective is integrated. The system learns.

Assertiveness does not guarantee that others will agree with you. It guarantees that your perspective is part of the conversation without the relationship paying the price.

Assertiveness and psychological safety

Individual assertiveness requires a context that allows it. There is little point in someone mastering these techniques if the environment penalises disagreement. This is why, in Step Five of the model, three conditions become critical:

1.   Psychological safety: I can disagree without this having negative consequences for me.

2.   Leaders who are not afraid of being challenged: power is not defended; it is exercised with openness.

3.   Teams that disagree without attacking or withdrawing: assertiveness as the norm, not the exception.

When these conditions are in place, diversity of perspectives ceases to be a threat and becomes the fuel of change. Trusting difference means exactly this: believing that dissenting voices, expressed with respect, improve the system’s decisions.

“Assertiveness lets differences have a voice without breaking the relationship.”

Cognitive diversity

Diversity enriches both personal and professional life. Understanding other personalities and approaches complements us and enhances our capacity for action.

Cognitive diversity refers to the variety of human mindsets and the ways people think, feel, and perceive the world.

Promoting cognitive diversity means highlighting the importance of multifaceted teams and recognising that each person has a unique way of experiencing the world and that these differences are valuable.

The ability to analyse situations, generate creative ideas, propose solutions or identify opportunities grows exponentially as cognitive diversity increases and, with it, the different perspectives complement one another.

Trusting difference

Let us look at some of the advantages of cognitive diversity:

1.    Difference in perspective (seeing differently)

Each person sees reality from a different angle. What one person considers a problem, another may see as an opportunity. What one considers urgent, another may consider secondary.

Trusting differences in perspective means accepting that one’s own vision is partial and that other viewpoints are needed to complete the map. Not out of generosity, but because it works.

2.    Difference in judgment (thinking differently)

Faced with the same information, equally competent people can reach different conclusions. Not because one is wrong, but because they apply different criteria, experiences or frames of reference.

Trusting differences in judgment means not interpreting disagreement as an attack or as a sign of incompetence. It means holding the tension of “we do not agree” without breaking the relationship or paralysing action.

3.    Difference in perception (feeling differently)

What worked yesterday may not work tomorrow and may end up being an obstacle. Changing these solutions may be perceived as urgent by some and not urgent by others.

Trusting differences in perception means accepting that the emotions associated with change, particularly the anxiety it generates, are not necessarily true. They affect us, but they remain subjective.

Once we accept the need for cognitive difference and the advantages it brings, we must now go deeper into how to achieve it. Ideally, project teams should be composed not only from a multidisciplinary perspective but also of members with diverse profiles.

Without attempting to provide an exhaustive definition of the different personality types—there is extensive literature and many tools available for this—I would like to highlight some characteristics or abilities that are particularly suitable for each context. Since the different characteristics are not necessarily exclusive to any particular type, I have preferred to use my own categorisation, which I relate below to the most likely types based on three widely known reference instruments.

Technicians

The technician is an introspective, reserved and highly independent person. They deeply value their personal space and enjoy solitude, preferring quiet environments where they can explore their interest in knowledge and in a deep understanding of things. They are analytical and rational, always prioritising reflection and objective thinking over emotions. Their lifestyle is sober and simple, avoiding excess or waste, and they express themselves concisely and directly, without embellishment or detours.

Their strength lies in being reflective, analytical, and observant, valuing precision and objectivity, and usually thinking things through carefully before taking any action or making any decision.

Their probable equivalence with the best-known personality tests would be:

• Big Five: low extraversion, high conscientiousness
• DISC: Conscientiousness (C)
• MBTI: INTJ or INTP

Adaptives

An adaptive person is organised, responsible, and highly focused on meeting the expectations of each situation with precision and fluency. They naturally adapt to different contexts, adjusting their behaviour to integrate professionally and maximise efficiency. They prioritise clarity and meticulous planning and manage processes with expert control. Although emotional, they modulate their feelings to project warmth and a positive, trustworthy image. They value discreet recognition for their sustained dedication, preferring genuine respect to the limelight.

Their strength lies in aligning contextual demands with optimal results, managing complex responsibilities with pragmatic ambition and optimising resources. They stand out for achieving valued goals without excess.

Their probable equivalence with the best-known personality tests would be:

• Big Five: high agreeableness, high conscientiousness
• DISC: Steadiness (S)
• MBTI: ISFJ or ESFJ

Socials

The social profile is dynamic, creative and optimistic, valuing freedom and autonomy in flexible environments that avoid rigid constraints. Their passion for innovation drives them to explore new experiences and exciting projects, communicating with charisma and persuasion while sharing ideas with infectious energy and insatiable curiosity.

Their strength lies in being creative and innovative in generating options, optimistic and positive, conveying enthusiasm and motivation, and talkative and persuasive, influencing and leading.

Their probable equivalence with the best-known personality tests would be:

• Big Five: high extraversion, high openness to experience
• DISC: Influence (I)
• MBTI: ENFP or ENTP

Visionaries

A visionary is an adventurous, passionate person with an extroverted, dynamic personality. They like risk and constantly seek new experiences to challenge themselves. They tolerate high levels of uncertainty and enjoy situations that allow them to leave their comfort zone and “live on the edge”, where strong emotions and actions fuel their dynamism. They are not afraid of intense emotions and prefer a life full of action and challenges.

Their main strength lies in facing obstacles with courage and determination, without shrinking back, breaking boundaries to innovate and lead.

Their probable equivalence with the best-known personality tests would be:

• Big Five: high extraversion, low agreeableness
• DISC: Dominance (D)
• MBTI: ENTJ or ESTP

Categorising personality profiles

While it is true that all personality types can, depending on the context, display different abilities, we can also speak of more likely contributions in each case. Depending on the predominant objective at each moment of the adaptive cycle, some profiles will tend to contribute more than others:

However, cognitive diversity creates value only when different profiles interact. It is not enough to have a technician, a social and a visionary on the same team; they must get to know each other, share information and have their perspectives intersect. These interconnections are the catalyst that transforms latent diversity into active complementarity.

Practical Tools

Assertiveness self-test

1.- Express disagreement before it turns into resistance. Staying silent about an objection doesn't make it go away—it turns it into passive resistance. If you see a problem, raise it while it is still manageable. A disagreement expressed in time is a contribution; expressed too late, it is a reproach.

2.- Separate the idea from the person. Questioning a proposal is not the same as attacking the person who makes it. Use phrases that distinguish between the two: “The proposal carries a risk that concerns me” instead of “You are wrong.” This distinction allows the other person to listen without becoming defensive.

3.- Offer alternatives, not just objections. Pointing out problems without proposing ways forward generates frustration. If you question a direction, accompany the criticism with at least one alternative, even if only provisional. This turns “no” into “What if…?”.

4.- Accept rejection without withdrawing. Not all your proposals will be accepted. When this happens, avoid two traps: silent resentment and emotional withdrawal. The rejection of an idea does not mean the rejection of your future contributions. Stay engaged.

5.- Ask others to question you. Assertiveness is not only about expressing yourself; it is also about inviting others in. Ask actively: “What do you see that I do not?” or “Where could this go wrong?” When you ask for criticism, you lower the barrier for others to offer it.

6.- Distinguish urgency from importance. In times of change, the pressure to decide quickly can silence dissenting voices. Before closing a decision, ask yourself: Are we silencing objections because we lack time or because we feel uncomfortable? Poorly managed haste is the enemy of assertiveness.

Psychological safety

Amy Edmondson (Harvard Business School) is the leading researcher on psychological safety. Her definition states that psychological safety is the shared belief that the team is a safe place for interpersonal risk-taking. In other words, I can ask questions, raise concerns, make suggestions, or make mistakes without negative consequences for my image, status, or career.

The key lies in the “shared belief”. It is not an individual trait or a corporate policy; it is a collective perception that is built up (or destroyed) interaction by interaction. Of course, leaders set the tone, but team members and their mutual relationships also shape that perception.

Based on Edmondson’s scale, we can adapt seven questions that can be used in a structured conversation:

1. If I make a mistake in this team, is it held against me?
2. Can I raise difficult issues without being labelled “negative”?
3. Are differences of opinion accepted or subtly penalised?
4. Can I ask for help without appearing incompetent?
5. Are there people on the team who would deliberately discredit others?
6. Are my unique skills and contributions valued?
7. Can I take risks without feeling that I am putting my position on the line?

By answering these questions honestly, we will have a clear thermometer of safety.

Group dynamics

•  Who speaks and who remains silent?
• Which topics generate participation and which generate silence?
• How do people react when someone disagrees?
• Are there nervous laughs, knowing glances, or abrupt topic changes?

Conclusion

We must understand change management as a long-term dynamic that alternates between moments of innovation and consolidation. To do this, we need to create structures that allow both creativity (divergent thinking) and rationalisation (convergent thinking) to surface.

Cognitive diversity, understood as different ways of looking at reality, provides the complementarity needed to understand and address challenges from the broadest possible perspective.

In complex contexts, cognitive diversity becomes a competitive advantage when combined with assertiveness and psychological safety. Together, they allow teams to move from defensive rigidity to adaptive learning.

“Adaptation requires movement in order to be gradual and assimilable; otherwise, it is a leap into the void.”

Next step in the model

The dynamic perspective on change management represents a step forward from Step Four, which focused on values. From now on, we must understand trust as something in constant motion. The next step delves deeper into this perspective and into understanding human organisations as systems, with all that this implies. Achieving committed teams that can self-coordinate in real time, naturally and spontaneously, and align with the strategy is the essence of distributed leadership.

References

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Harvard Business School

Zamora, R. (2020). Cooperation in complexity: Cooplexity, a model for collaboration in complexity in times of uncertainty and change. Ricardo Zamora.
ResearchGate

Note: The development–optimisation cycle I propose is related to the concept of organisational ambidexterity developed by O’Reilly and Tushman, although with a focus on trust as the facilitator of transitions:

O'Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025