The Loyalty Trap – When Commitment Becomes a Cage
The Loyalty Trap – When Commitment Becomes a Cage
Navigating the Psychology of Organizational Allegiance During Change and Transformation
Issue 251, February 12, 2026
A senior vice president at a client I worked with recently described a moment that caused me some pause. After 22 years at the organization, he sat in a board meeting watching leadership present a transformation roadmap that would eliminate his entire division’s operating model. He told me, “I knew they were right. I knew we had to change; some things simply weren’t working as expected. But every cell in my body was screaming that I was betraying the people who built everything that I oversee, many of whom I considered friends or at least highly respected colleagues.” The SVP wasn’t planning to stand up and resist the strategy being presented, but he did feel he was caught in a trap of his own deep loyalty to the organization and those he worked with, and he wasn’t sure how to rectify the conflict of his organizational judgment and his feelings of loyalty.
This is a conversation almost nobody in an organizational setting wants to have. We spend enormous energy addressing resistance, skill gaps, and technology adoption, but we rarely confront the quieter, more personal barriers that stand in the way of change: the loyalty that makes an individual, particularly leaders, successful in the first place.
When Your Greatest Strength Becomes Your Biggest Liability
Organizational behavior research from the Academy of Management has consistently shown that loyalty operates as a cognitive anchor. The longer someone has invested in a system, an organization, a division, a department, and so forth, the more their personal identity becomes entangled with that system’s survival. This isn’t a weakness. This is how human psychology works. Dr. Barry Staw’s foundational research on escalation of commitment demonstrated that individuals will continue to invest in failing courses of action precisely because abandoning them feels like invalidating everything they’ve already given. The sunk cost fallacy is well documented in financial decision-making, but its most powerful manifestation is at the identity level, where walking away from an organizational model feels indistinguishable from walking away from yourself.
Consider what loyalty actually requires in an organizational context. It demands that you internalize the mission and align with an organization’s shared purpose. It asks you to tie your professional reputation to the defined outcomes. It expects you to defend the organizational institution when others are questioning it. These are professional qualities every organization celebrates and rewards. But they are also the exact qualities that make change and transformation psychologically devastating for the people who have been most committed.
The Cognitive Dissonance Nobody Talks About
Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance explains what happens when loyal leaders encounter change and transformation mandates. They hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously: “This organization needs to fundamentally change” and “I am deeply committed to what this organization has been and what its people have accomplished.” The psychological discomfort this creates is real and measurable.
This reaction aligns with what Hinojosa, Gardner, Walker, Cogliser, and Gullifor (2017) described in their comprehensive review of cognitive dissonance theory in management research, published in the Journal of Management. Their analysis found that employees experiencing dissonance between their professional self-concept and organizational change mandates are significantly more likely to engage in rationalization or avoidance behaviors than to update their beliefs, particularly when the change implies their prior methods were ineffective or not reaching goals and expected outcomes.
This is why so many change and transformation efforts produce what I call “loyalty theater.” Leaders publicly endorse the new direction while privately preserving the old structures, relationships, and processes they feel obligated to protect. They aren’t being dishonest. They are managing an internal conflict between who they are, the loyalty they feel, and who they need to become. And most organizations have no framework for helping them navigate that transition. Human Resources may provide options for counseling or training, leadership may seek to motivate individuals through performance or completion awards, and peers may apply some pressure to jump on the bandwagon, but none of those factors help rectify the loyalty conflicts.
Three Ways the Loyalty Trap Manifests
The first manifestation of the loyalty trap is what organizational psychologists call “protective gatekeeping.” Loyal leaders unconsciously shield their teams, processes, or legacy systems from change and transformation by controlling information flow, delaying implementation timelines, or framing necessary changes as optional improvements. They aren’t sabotaging; they are assuming a parenting role of sorts. They feel responsible for the people and systems they built and from which their deep-seated loyalty originates.
The second manifestation is “identity anchoring.” Leaders who have spent years building expertise within a specific operational model begin to equate the model’s validity with their own professional self-worth. When the model changes, they don’t just lose a way of working. They lose a source of meaning, including how they define their contributions. When employees perceive proposed changes as threats to their professional identity, they engage in what Harvard researcher Chris Argyris termed “defensive reasoning,” a pattern in which individuals construct self-reinforcing logic to protect existing beliefs and routines rather than critically evaluating new information. Argyris’s research, published across decades of work including his foundational text Organizational Traps (Oxford University Press, 2010), demonstrated that this behavior intensifies in environments where competence and status are closely tied to institutional knowledge.
The third manifestation is “selective loyalty signaling.” Leaders begin performing allegiance to the change or transformation publicly while maintaining private loyalty to legacy approaches. This dual allegiance creates a gap between stated and actual organizational behavior that leaders often misread as progress.
What connects all three manifestations is that they are invisible to the people experiencing them. Unlike overt resistance, which is conscious and deliberate, the loyalty trap operates below the surface of awareness. Leaders engaged in protective gatekeeping genuinely believe they are being responsible. Those anchored to legacy models sincerely feel they are preserving quality. And those signaling selective loyalty are convinced they are navigating the situation skillfully. This invisibility is precisely what makes the loyalty trap so difficult to address and so important to understand.
What Makes This Different from Resistance
Resistance in most forms is opposition. The loyalty trap is devotion misdirected. Treating loyal leaders as resistors is both inaccurate and counterproductive because it invalidates the very commitment that made them valuable. The research is clear on this point: when organizations frame loyalty-driven hesitation as resistance, they accelerate disengagement among their most experienced people—the exact population they need most during periods of change.
The distinction matters because the interventions are completely different. Resistance requires persuasion, incentives, and sometimes structural consequences. All of the items and more that I discussed in Episode 008 of the Human Factor Podcast.
The loyalty trap requires something far more nuanced: permission. Permission to grieve what’s being lost. Permission to redefine loyalty as commitment to the organization’s future rather than preservation of its past. Permission to be both grateful for what was and honest about what must be.
Consider the practical difference. When a director delays implementing a new workflow, a resistance-focused response might involve escalation, deadlines, or performance conversations. But if that director is delaying because she trained an entire team on the current system and feels personally responsible for their disruption, the appropriate response is entirely different. She needs a conversation that acknowledges her contribution, validates her concern for her team, and reframes the transition as an extension of the care she has always shown, not an abandonment of it. Organizations that can tell the difference between these two dynamics will consistently outperform those that treat every delay as defiance.
The Role of Psychological Safety
There is a prerequisite that most organizations overlook when attempting to help loyal leaders and others through the loyalty trap: psychological safety. Amy Edmondson’s research at Harvard Business School has demonstrated that teams and individuals perform best during periods of uncertainty when they feel safe to express doubt, ask questions, and acknowledge emotional difficulty without professional consequence. For leaders caught in the loyalty trap, psychological safety is not a luxury. It is the foundation upon which every other intervention depends.
Without psychological safety, which I talk often about in this newsletter and on the Human Factor Podcast, the permission described above remains theoretical. A leader who fears that expressing grief over what is ending will be interpreted as a lack of commitment to what is beginning will simply suppress those emotions and default to loyalty theater. Organizations that create genuine psychological safety during change and transformation, through confidential peer forums, executive coaching, or even simple acknowledgment from senior leadership that the transition is emotionally difficult, give their most loyal people a pathway through the trap rather than around it.
Recognizing the Early Warning Signs
Because the loyalty trap operates below conscious awareness, early identification is critical. Leaders and change practitioners should watch for several observable patterns. When a historically engaged leader begins qualifying their support with phrases like “I’m on board, but…” or “This makes sense in theory, however…” they may be signaling the onset of loyalty-driven hesitation rather than substantive objection. When meeting participation shifts from active contribution to passive attendance, or when a leader begins routing decisions through legacy approval chains that the new structure has formally replaced, these are behavioral indicators that the loyalty trap may be taking hold.
The most telling sign is what might be called “selective memory elevation.” Leaders caught in the loyalty trap begin referencing past organizational successes with increasing frequency and specificity, not to resist the future but to reassure themselves that what they helped build mattered. Recognizing this pattern early allows organizations to intervene with acknowledgment and support rather than waiting until the loyalty trap has hardened into genuine disengagement.
Moving Through the Trap
Organizations that navigate this effectively share several characteristics. They create explicit space for leaders to acknowledge what’s ending before demanding excitement about what’s beginning. William Bridges’ transition model identified this as the critical “neutral zone” that most change management frameworks skip entirely in their rush toward the new state.
McKinsey’s research on organizational transformations reinforces this: organizations that invest in structured change management achieve adoption rates of 95%, compared to just 35% in organizations that do not, and transformation initiatives are 2.3 times more likely to succeed when leaders express genuine confidence in their workforce’s ability to adapt. These aren’t marginal differences. They represent the gap between organizations that treat resistance as a signal worth understanding and those that treat it as an obstacle to overcome. They also redefine what loyalty means in the change and transformation context.
Loyalty to an organization doesn’t mean loyalty to its current form. It means loyalty to its continued relevance, its people’s growth, and its capacity to serve its mission in a dynamically changing world. This reframe is simple conceptually but profoundly difficult emotionally, and it requires ongoing reinforcement, not a single town hall speech from the CEO.
Finally, they recognize that the most loyal leaders need the most support, not the least. The assumption that senior, committed leaders will “figure it out” because they have navigated change before ignores the unique psychological burden of being asked to dismantle something you personally built and upon which you base your professional self-conception.
A Practical Framework for the Conversation
For leaders and change practitioners looking to apply these principles, the following conversational framework can help navigate the loyalty trap with specific individuals. First, begin with explicit acknowledgment: “What you built here matters, and this organization’s strength today exists in large part because of your commitment.” This is not flattery. It is factual recognition that creates the psychological safety required for what follows. Second, name the tension directly: “I imagine that being asked to change the model you built creates a real internal conflict, and that conflict is completely understandable.” Naming the loyalty trap removes its power by making it visible and validating the emotion rather than dismissing it. Third, reframe the ask: “We’re not asking you to abandon what you built. We’re asking you to apply the same commitment and skill to what comes next. The organization needs your loyalty directed forward, not preserved backward.” This reframe transforms the loyalty from a constraint into a resource.
This three-step approach—acknowledge, name, reframe—is intentionally simple because the loyalty trap is emotionally complex. It is not a one-time conversation but a framework that should be revisited as the change or transformation progresses, and new layers of loyalty-driven tension emerge.
Context Shapes the Trap
It is worth noting that the loyalty trap does not manifest identically across all organizational contexts. In remote and hybrid environments, loyalty often attaches more strongly to immediate teams and direct relationships than to the abstract institution. A remote leader who has never physically inhabited the organization’s headquarters may feel intense loyalty to the six people on their team while feeling relatively little toward the organizational model itself. This means that change and transformation efforts in distributed organizations may encounter the loyalty trap at the team level rather than the institutional level, requiring different intervention strategies focused on team identity rather than organizational identity.
Similarly, organizational culture plays a causal role in creating the conditions for the loyalty trap. Organizations that celebrate tenure, reward consistency, and promote from within are actively building the deep identification that becomes problematic during change and transformation. This is not an argument against those practices—they create real organizational strength. But it does mean that organizations with strong loyalty cultures should plan for the loyalty trap as an expected feature of change and transformation rather than treating it as a surprise when it appears.
The Uncomfortable Truth
Here’s what most analysis misses: the people most likely to be trapped by loyalty are the people you can least afford to lose. They carry institutional knowledge, relationship capital, and cultural memory that no new hire can replicate. The question isn’t whether loyalty creates barriers to change and transformation. It always does. The question is whether your organization has the courage to honor that loyalty while honestly confronting its limitations.
Every professional reading this has surely felt the pull along with the deeply felt emotion. That moment when you know the direction is right, but the journey requires letting go of something you built, something you believed in, something that defined you. The loyalty trap isn’t a character flaw. It’s evidence that you cared. The work of change and transformation is learning that caring about the future requires a different kind of loyalty than caring about the past.
This Week’s Reflection
Ask yourself: Where in your organization are the most loyal people inadvertently slowing the most necessary changes? And more importantly, what have you done to help them see that their loyalty isn’t being rejected—it’s being redirected?
Connect with Us
What leadership challenges are shaping your decisions right now? We’d love to hear your insights. Share your experiences with us on our Substack or join the conversation on our LinkedIn. For more insights on navigating organizational complexity, explore our archive of “Ideas and Innovations” newsletters or pick up a copy of The Truth About Transformation: Leading in the Age of AI, Uncertainty and Human Complexity.
Go Deeper: Subscribe to the Human Factor Podcast where we explore the psychology of organizational change, from resistance and identity to the frameworks and strategies that help leaders navigate transformation.
If you haven’t yet subscribed to the Human Factor Podcast, find it on your favorite podcast platform. Season 1 covered frameworks and strategies to understand and lead through change and transformation. Season 2 arrives in mid-February 2026.
Listen and view on:
