Experience is valuable, but when familiar ways of working become deeply embedded, what once helped an organisation succeed can sometimes prevent it from moving forward.

How often have we heard the comment, "But we have always done it this way"?

Sometimes, this statement is accompanied by a perfectly reasonable explanation. At other times, it becomes the reason why a new idea is dismissed before it has even been properly considered.

Experience is undoubtedly one of the greatest assets within any organisation. It brings knowledge, professional judgement, institutional memory and an understanding of what works and what does not. Experienced employees often provide stability, particularly during periods of uncertainty. Yet, there is another side to experience that deserves consideration. When established practices become deeply embedded, organisations may gradually lose the ability, or even the willingness, to question them. The challenge is not experience itself, but what happens when experience becomes the justification for maintaining the status quo.

When familiarity becomes the norm

Every organisation develops its own way of doing things.

Some practices are established through formal policies and procedures. Others develop gradually through workplace habits, leadership expectations and unwritten rules. Over time, these ways of working become familiar. Employees know what is expected, managers know how things are usually handled, and processes continue with relatively little questioning.

There is value in this consistency. Organisations need structure, predictability and established standards to function effectively. However, what worked five or ten years ago may not necessarily be the most appropriate approach today. A procedure that once ensured efficiency may have become unnecessarily complicated. A management approach that previously supported performance may no longer meet employees' expectations. A process that was once practical may now create additional work rather than reduce it. The difficulty emerges when organisations continue to defend established practices simply because they are familiar.

Why change is not always welcomed

From a psychological perspective, resistance to change is more complex than an unwillingness to adapt.

Change introduces uncertainty. It can challenge established beliefs, require new skills, alter workplace relationships and sometimes affect how individuals perceive their professional competence. Consider an employee who has performed a particular role successfully for twenty years. A new system is introduced, changing how that work must be completed. From management's perspective, the change may represent improved efficiency and modernisation. From the employee's perspective, it may raise questions about whether their existing knowledge is still valued, whether they can meet new expectations or whether the proposed system will genuinely improve their work.

Neither perspective is necessarily wrong.

What matters is whether the organisation recognises these different experiences and creates opportunities to address them. Recent organisational psychology research reinforces this point. Employees' responses to change are not necessarily fixed positions of acceptance or resistance. They can evolve depending on how change is introduced, experienced and managed. This suggests that organisations should be cautious about interpreting hesitation as a negative attitude without first understanding what lies behind it.

The workplace is changing, but are organisations changing with it?

This discussion is particularly relevant today.

In Malta, the proposed National Skills Strategy 2026–2035 reflects the importance of developing capabilities that respond to a changing labour market. Technological developments, artificial intelligence, changing skills requirements and evolving workforce expectations are challenging organisations to reconsider how work is organised and delivered.

However, developing new skills is only part of the challenge.

Organisations must also consider whether their existing culture, leadership practices and internal processes encourage employees to apply new knowledge. After all, what is the value of investing in new capabilities if employees return to workplaces where questioning established practices is discouraged?

The role of leadership

Leadership plays a significant role in determining whether an organisation remains open to change. Managers may genuinely encourage innovation while unintentionally reinforcing the very practices that prevent it.

For example, employees may be invited to contribute ideas, but those ideas are routinely dismissed because they differ from established procedures. Teams may be encouraged to take initiative, yet decisions continue to be centralised. Organisations may invest in professional development without giving employees the autonomy or opportunity to apply what they have learned.

These contradictions can gradually create a culture in which maintaining familiar routines feels safer than suggesting improvements. Leaders therefore need to examine not only what they communicate about change, but also what their everyday behaviour encourages.

Are employees comfortable questioning existing practices? Are alternative perspectives genuinely considered? Is there room to experiment, learn from mistakes and adjust established approaches?

Experience should be part of the solution

It would be a mistake to assume that experienced employees are necessarily the ones preventing change.

In fact, their contribution can be particularly valuable during organisational transformation. They often understand the practical realities of work, recognise potential difficulties and possess knowledge that may not be documented anywhere. Their concerns may reveal weaknesses in proposed changes that management has overlooked. The objective should therefore not be to replace experience with new ideas, but to bring them together. This requires genuine dialogue between leadership and employees, opportunities for knowledge-sharing and a willingness to distinguish between practices that remain valuable and those that need reconsideration. Importantly, it also requires organisations to recognise that not every proposed change represents an improvement. Sometimes, challenging a new initiative is both reasonable and necessary.

Creating organisations that can adapt

When organisations struggle with change, the immediate response is often to improve communication or provide additional training. Both can be important, but neither necessarily addresses the underlying problem. Organisations also need to examine their culture, processes, leadership behaviours and the extent to which employees can participate meaningfully in change.

A useful starting point is to consider:

• Which practices do we continue to follow primarily because they are familiar?

• Are employees encouraged to question established processes constructively?

• Do we involve people with practical experience when introducing change?

• Are our leadership behaviours consistent with the flexibility and innovation we expect?

• Are we providing the time, resources and support needed for people to adapt?

These questions encourage organisations to move beyond simply asking employees to embrace change and towards examining whether the environment actually enables them to do so.

Final thoughts ...

Experience and change should not be treated as competing forces.

Experience provides the knowledge and judgement needed to make informed decisions. Change creates opportunities to reassess whether those decisions remain appropriate in evolving circumstances.

Organisations need both.

The strength of an organisation is not simply reflected in how much experience it has accumulated, but also in its willingness to learn from that experience and evolve.

Dr Josette Barbara-Cardona is a Chartered and Registered Organisational Psychologist, working with organisations and individuals. To explore how organisational psychology can support leadership development, organisational change and workplace effectiveness, visit www.front-ability.com.