An equally hot topic is change, now that the responsiveness of an organization is recognized as of key importance, partly because the organization sees itself more connected to markets and societies, while those markets and societies are increasingly dynamic.
You may have been in meetings with people who, like you perhaps, were concerned with change. Probably that meeting had a very serious undertone, as change was discussed as a problem; a threat, perhaps. Why is that? Is change a bad thing? Would we rather have things remain the way they are? Perhaps you had the opportunity, in the context of that meeting, to talk with some of the other attendees. You may have asked them about their holiday trips and they may have told you about the places they visited the last time and how that was different from the trip they made the year before. You may have noticed that they like to talk about not going to the same place twice, discovering new places, facing challenges, perhaps.
This may have something to do with control. In Western countries, people do not mind change; they just object to be changed (this may be different in Asian countries). Often, at least in the Western world, people talk about change as something that is done to them, almost as a kind of violence. This makes them resists the change, regardless of its contents.
Some companies deal with this by giving their employees courses and guidance in how to deal with what is done to them, such as change. Still, it is much more productive, although not realized over night, to make people rejoice in change, as full of opportunities. Part of how to bring this about is to involve them in the modalities of the changes, respecting them as the people that will have to make the change happen and seize the opportunities that are brought about by it.
At the same time, it is an illusion to think that control is the answer. Increasingly, change takes place within a much larger context of transitions. The difference between change and transition could, roughly speaking, be stated as follows: changes can be defined in scope, time and direction, while transitions are undefined, unintended and uncertain in their outcome and consequences. Transitions have it in them to be understood even more as threats than changes are, especially as they appear to offer no way out (with changes, at least one could go somewhere else, but transitions leave few alternatives). Still, transitions too are full of opportunities. Their opportunities are typically ones one can only choose together, given their scope.

As with other themes on this site, there are no easy answers (or at least, I do not see them).

Resistance to change

Change is an every day occarance. We all change and we may even like it. We typically like to have something for dinner that is different from what we had for dinner in the past days; it is a nice change. Still, in organizations, it is different. Much of that is because in organizations change is not natural and not our choice, typically. We have to endure it, like we endure the whims of the weathers, but that does not mean that we like it.

Not liking chance is a form of resistance. And like other forms of resistance, it is very understandable. What is there to like about something that is done to us?

Often, we do not like it because those initiating the change have not been successful in communicating the change, so we do not know what it entails that we could possibly like. Or it has been communicated in such a way that we feel disempowered, even when it entails things that we agree with.

Of course, the worse thing management can do is ignore resistance to change or force people to stop resistibng; the first stance leads to no longer seeing a rot that has gone beneath the surface and the second leads to inviting subversion. It is often far better to restore the connectedness that may have been damaged by the change.