All the three categories are at the discretion of a leader who seeks strategic renewal. Despite the known fact that leaders may choose to consider these approaches as separate and independent, most effective efforts of change are achieved when the three categories are combined (Spector, 2013).My first experience with change was in my first job as a publishing specialist at Thomson Reuters (TR). My responsibilities as a publishing specialist were to process a manuscript from attorneys in the United States to a final newsletter. I joined as a trainee (on probation for six months) and as it was my first experience in a professional environment, I was always afraid about messing things up to an extent that they are unfixable and this fear made me too dependent on a team senior. A month passed and team started facing attrition and the number of team members decreased from 13 to six in a span of 4 months. I was unable to deal with the work load arising due to this attrition and walked up to my manager to let him know that as a trainee I am not ready to take so much on my plate. In a meeting which lasted an hour because of an impasse point because from a manager’s viewpoint every resource has to be exhausted to an optimal point and I was not doing so. For the next few weeks, I resisted the effects of a change and as a resulted it had a negative impact in team performance. I did not realize that it would have a karma effect and 2 months later when my pay was to be revised to 14% but was only revived to a mere 8% as employee increments were directly proportional to team performance. I could relate to a study where the focus is on change recipients and not on the agents of change. In other words, how an employee interprets change. The study defines resistance as multifaceted and complex phenomenon that in the past has been discussed in management studies, and more often than not, scholars of change have figured resistance from employee end as an important factor that impacts the gains of change implementation (Kulkarni, 2016).New skill development: Perspectives of agents of change vs. recipients of change The main argument that the existing material on change at the time of skill development is essentially based on the perspective of a change agent. We try to elaborate this argument by emphasizing on the experiences of change recipients in post-training uncertainty. With a focus on three uncertainty variations that are necessary for skill development at the time of change, so that there is a development of change-recipient perspective (Olsen & Stensaker, 2014). Competency based models that describe competency and future skills can be advantageous to describe skill requirements (Vakola, Soderquist, and Prastacos, 2007). Strategic and top manager view has been used as a base for frameworks of competency in most researches. Despite the fact that this has greatly contributed to the current idea of frameworks of competency have contributed to processes of human resources, the doubt that defines the predictions for skill requirements at the time of an organizational change is under communicated. In the past, studies have shown the differences between the top management and employees in the expectations of training (Antonacopoulou, 2001) and the views of competencies by individuals is dependent upon their understanding of work (Sandberg, 2000). This statement suggests that description by top management on skills needed in context of a change may pivot on the basis of employees understanding of changes in work, which finally risks failure to give employees a sufficient explanation and description for what they have to learn so that they can contribute to the organization’s development. Change recipients, due to a natural tendency, feel uncertainty when there is information absence or inability to accurately forecast events (Milliken, 1987). For Instance, Bordia et al. (2004) differentiate between strategic uncertainty, job-related uncertainty and structural uncertainty. Strategic uncertainty is uncertainty about questions and issues like the reasons for change initiation, organizations future success and organization’s competitive environment characteristics. Job-related uncertainty talks about promotion opportunities, job role change, job security, and so forth. On the other hand, Structural uncertainty is concerned with the functioning of organization and it refers to uncertainty in relation with ‘separate work-unit functioning and reporting structures’ (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, and DiFonzo, 2004). When I think of myself as an agent of change, it reminds me of the time when I was working on my brainchild project ‘Cyclops’. Cyclops was code for browsers that can be saved as a book mark and take information from the work page called ‘Jupiter’ and paste this data on the sites that are used for account verification. The idea behind Cyclops was to automate the process from a manual data entry to make the search to automating it by pasting information using the code. The whole process would save 40% of the investigators time per case. The main concern/issue in implementing Cyclops was when I needed employees to volunteer for time tests, employees needed convincing that it will not take a lot of time for them to get used to it and once they get used to it they can start using the timer to note the time. Another concern raised by the volunteering employees was that they were not getting any Non Production Time (NPT) for volunteering and participation would affect their metrics.