I recently read an autobiographical book by the late Keith Waterhouse in which he details his early experiences as a journalist for the Daily Mirror. Among the photos in the book is a shot of reporters at work in the busy features office and, needless to say, the office of Mr Waterhouse's youth bears little resemblance to the 'work station' of today.

One of the first things to stand out is that people are actually smoking at their desks, something that is unheard of in these Health & Safety conscious days. But as far as the work being done goes, the most striking feature is the array of huge mechanical typewriters that would have created a cacophony of clacking as keys were forcibly pressed home, punctuated by an oft-repeated 'ping'. Vast sheaves of papers on desks are another feature that we see little of in the modern office, thanks to electronic storage and mail delivery systems. Things have changed a lot since those days to the point that, as far as this photograph goes, the clock on the wall is probably the only object that would still find a place in the modern office.

And yet, despite all of the advancements in office technology, back in those days office life was probably less stressful than today because when changes did occur, they came along slowly and so could be absorbed without too much disruption. It is easy to imagine a buzz of excitement going around the office described above when it was announced that a photocopier was being delivered on Monday. In those days there was no real need to update skills as the typewriter was the practically the same from cub reporter to retirement.

Not so these days with new applications being introduced on a regular basis, upgrades of older applications to be learned and refresher courses to keep one's skills up to date, the modern office is in a state of constant change, and this can throw up problems in several areas.

One of the most common problems that change within the workplace can throw up is resistance. If we take as an example those self-service checkouts that have appeared in some supermarkets, this must have caused some unease among checkout staff who would have seen their introduction as a potential threat to their jobs. After all, didn't self-service pumps put paid to the petrol pump attendant.

So when managing change within the workplace you must be ready for some sort of backlash if employees see the change as a threat to their livelihood, a perceived increase in their workload or just a general 'if it isn't broke don't fix it' resistance to modernisation. In these situations what is called for is strong leadership.

Changes in the workplace often call for straight talking and tough decisions being taken, neither of which can be achieved through weak leadership. Employees who trust a leader will be far more receptive to bad news than those who operate under a leader they have little respect for.

A good example of the tough stance that is required when implementing an unpopular change comes from 1995, when Kevin Keegan, then manager of title-chasing Newcastle United, sold their star player and top goal scorer, Andy Cole, to arch rivals Manchester United. This change angered many Newcastle supporters and hordes congregated around St James' Park demanding answers. Rather than shy away from the issue, Keegan came out and faced the angry crowd on the steps, answering their questions and explaining his reasons for doing what he did. As Keegan was very well respected among the vast majority of Newcastle supporters, most gave him the benefit of the doubt and trusted his judgement, even if they were not entirely happy about the situation. It is this strength, to be able to face a group of people who are disgruntled at some form of change, that is the key to successful management of change in the workplace.

Managing change is a skill that requires strong leadership. If you think that you possess this quality then it is certainly worth developing as the willingness to implement unpopular measures shows great management potential.