As a five-year-old, I remember being told by my mum I’d one day sit in my suburb as an old man, talking with a school friend. It was reassuring. It spoke to continuity.
Looking back now, I realise—that future quietly disappeared. That memory always stayed with me. It spoke to continuity—of place, of people, of the quiet stability of political, economic and social life.
The old social contract, if you like.
It’s the kind of community we rarely see now in “international cities” like Sydney—
yet we recognise it instantly, and even long for it, when we see it elsewhere.
Then, perhaps twenty years later, things began to shift.
Very few people I grew up with settled in the suburb they were raised in. If they did, it came at a considerable financial cost. Prices kept rising, as did the population, and gradually we found ourselves waving goodbye to the idea of staying where we had grown up.
Our suburbs changed because they had to. More housing. More density. More movement.
But something else changed too.
This was not just economic or demographic. It was a profound social shift—one that altered our trajectory and that of our children. We were no longer handing on a future that resembled our own.
And what strikes me now is this:
There was no ending.
No acknowledgement of what was being left behind.
No shared moment of recognition.
No stewardship, no gentle guiding hand.
Just change—continuous, necessary, but largely unmarked.
And perhaps just as important—consent was only ever partial.
What unfolded was a negotiation between property owners, developers and government. But many were not part of that conversation. Renters. Young people. Those without a stake in land—but with a deep connection to place. They experienced the change, but did not meaningfully consent to it.
It strikes me that most organisational change does not manage transition well.
The goodbye is incomplete—or ignored altogether. Consent is partial. The past is not respected. And the future is often shaped by, and for, a privileged few. So where do we start?
With dialogue.
Not surface-level communication, but honest dialogue about the real reasons for change—what is driving it, what is at stake, and what trade-offs are being made.
Consent, in many ways, falls out of this.
The weakness of globalisation has often been the broken link between the macro and the micro—where large-scale shifts are not translated into honest conversations about what they mean for people’s lives.
If my suburb had to change, then a conversation needed to occur.
One that held the past, the present and the future together.
One that prepared people for the choices ahead—and for a long goodbye.
Because that is what was required.
A long goodbye.
One that acknowledges what is being lost, respects what has been built over time, and creates the possibility of carrying something forward.
In conditions of continuous change, nothing dislocates people more than the elimination of shared experience over time.
So the question becomes:
What do we carry forward?
And how do we carry it?
There are places that have done this well. Post-war Tokyo is one example—where modernisation occurred, but not without a conscious effort to retain continuity, identity and cultural memory.
Perhaps the work of leadership in continuous change is not just to move people forward—
but to help them let go, make sense, and carry something of themselves with them.
What endings are we asking people to move past without ever naming?
Leave a Reply