“Change” is a commonly used term in organizations. We have “change agents,” “change process,” “change management” — all ostensibly in pursuit of making the organization work better. In business, in social groups and politics new efforts to effect positive change are begun every day. But many of these efforts ultimately fail. Organizations who have all the right people, bring in the right consultants, put a detailed process in place often wind up with the change they seek unrealized. Why? Because what makes meaningful change take root actually depends on the emotional investment of those affected — the psychology of it determines success or failure more than any other factor.

For most people, change triggers feelings of anxiety and fear. Human beings are largely creatures of habit, anchored by the familiar. In a group of 1,000 people the number who will enthusiastically embrace something new is a almost certainly a single-digit number. This is not to say that the other 991-plus people will actively fight change. Rather, their discomfort with it makes it more likely that they — and, by extension, the organization– will regress back into what they already know. “Change” is easy to start, but tough to complete. If people leave the safety of the known, they need to find an anchor on the other side.

The 2009 movie Invictus which recounts how Nelson Mandela used the Rugby World Cup and the South African team as a rallying point for a new, integrated South Africa is a reminder of how lasting change can hinge on unexpected things. The story begins after the first “one man, one vote” elections in 1994. The long disenfranchised African majority now held the reins of government. The Afrikaner minority, while still in control of the security and economy of the country, found their political power lost and many considered leaving. Fear, coupled with generations of prejudice and anger, risked the survival of this new, integrated country. “Change” was already happening. Whether that change would lead to a positive end was Mandela’s challenge as the newly elected President of South Africa. He needed something both sides could share; a symbol of the change that he hoped would result in a united, stable and prosperous “rainbow nation.”

The Springboks (the South African rugby team) were an existing powerful symbol. For the Afrikaners, the Springboks were a point of national pride and playing on the team one day the dream of every schoolboy. For the African majority the Springboks were a also a potent symbol: a symbol of oppression and segregation. Through his long imprisonment, Mandela would root against the Springboks, delighting in the despair of his jailers when they lost. The Springboks then were just another reminder of Apartheid.

But in 1995, South Africa hosted the Rugby World Cup, and the attention of almost a billion rugby fans via broadcast. Mandela wanted two things: to see the country united by common purpose, and to give the Afrikaner minority an anchor to this new nation. By embracing the Springboks (in one poignant image, stepping onto the pitch wearing a Springbok jersey; in another standing alongside the team that now included an African player) and getting the African majority to do the same, he accomplished both. There were many process steps in creating the new South Africa – new constitution, new employment law, new social integration – but what nurtured it in those early days was an emotional bond that they all shared.

That was a pivotal moment in South Africa. A time when the change had begun but not fixed. There is that essential moment for every kind change, a starting point where most are open to trying the “new way.” It is then that the anchor is vital. It sustains the group through the creeping pessimism that follows, allowing them to feel safe in the new state of things.

This is true of every organization that faces a fundamental transformation of some kind. In the end, successful change isn’t about process; successful change is about the story. It is the gestures small and grand that join people together. The how is far less important than the why.