A quick note before we begin: The following “Change Files” are condensed, repeatedly observable constellations from our consulting practice. In other words, they are “typical” cases, not isolated incidents. We are sharing them to inspire and support you. No hero stories, no consultant jargon.
1. The problem
The process got off to a good start. With external support, the first workshops were structured, the participants were involved, decisions were recorded, and the next steps were clear. Then came the usual moment: “We'll take over now – the rest is already planned.”
And that's often where the first major obstacle arises. Not because people don't want to do it, but because organizations underestimate workshop work as a professional skill.
Suddenly, internal employees have to do things that were previously done “on the side” in the project: clearly defining goals, designing a workshop that works, working intensively with a group, securing results, and establishing connectivity. The phrase “Let's just do a workshop on it” sounds easy – but in reality, it is a social intervention that either stabilizes the change process or throws it off track.
Typical symptoms in this phase:
- Workshops are “well-intentioned” but lack clear structure – in the end, a vague feeling remains instead of decisions.
- Results disappear into photos, chat histories, or people's heads.
- Individual appointments stand side by side instead of building on each other in a planned manner.
- Energy is high, but effectiveness is declining. It can be observed almost regularly: the greater the passion, the more visible the technical bottleneck.
This is not a criticism. It is a gap in professionalization: How do we design collaboration in such a way that change progresses reliably?
2. The hypothesis
The system would make significant progress if... Workshop implementation were actually understood as a core competence of management and systematically developed: with a common standard for preparation, implementation, securing results, and embedding in the overall process. No longer “a workshop as an event” (event-driven), but workshops as a chain of interventions that contribute to a goal.
3. Our solution idea/intervention
In such situations, we did not put on a “methodology show,” but rather provided compact, very practical basic training: specifically, only what was missing from the five skills that internal process managers need to master in order for the organization to become self-sustaining after external support.
1) Workshop architecture: Clarify goals on two levels
A workshop needs a content-related goal (WHAT should be decided/created at the end?) and an emotional goal (HOW should the participants feel at the end of the workshop – e.g., oriented, confident, heard, committed?).
Only then does the structure emerge: introduction, work phases, decision, conclusion. Without this double clarification, a “good atmosphere” rarely leads to implementation.
2) From goal to question: Each sequence is a targeted intervention
In a workshop, it is not the method that is decisive, but the question that underpins it.
We work with a simple principle: Every step and every key question must
- contribute directly to the goal,
- be clearly introduced (context, expectations, output), and
- be made visible (What is being created? Where will it end up?).
This drastically reduces “discussion fog” and makes workshops connectable.
3) Facilitation skills: Leading without pushing
This is less about “fancy techniques” and more about clean basics, e.g.:
- Active listening (and accurately reflecting what you hear)
- Consistent timeboxing
- Controlling speaking time
- Supporting clean and strong decisions
- Treating disruptions as data (“What is happening here?”) instead of moderating them away
This is the ability to translate group energy into results.
4) Visualization & securing results: What is not visible does not exist
We have introduced a minimum standard:
- Live visualization of interim results (not just afterwards)
- Clear output formats (decision / open points / next steps / responsible persons / deadline)
- A shared storage location for workshop minutes that can be found by everyone
That sounds trivial, doesn't it? But it is often the difference between a “good workshop” and effective process control.
5) Embedding in the change process: The workshop is not an event
The strongest lever was usually this: Every workshop is given a place in the overall process:
- What does it address?
- What does it prepare?
- What follow-up communication is needed?
- What next loops are planned?
This creates a chain: Workshop → Decision/result → Follow-up → Next step. And not a series of well-intentioned appointments.
Result
After this professionalization, something very concrete changes: workshops do not become “nicer,” but more useful.
- Groups come to a decision more quickly.
- Results are reliably available – and are actually processed further.
- The change process feels less like a series of unconnected events and more like a controlled flow of learning and implementation.
Quick action:
Many teams only realize at this stage how much “invisible work” has been done beforehand: maintaining structure, creating clarity, securing results. The good news is that this is not a matter of talent. It can be learned and it provides immediate relief!
If you want, pick a workshop from the next two weeks and use the five basics above as a checklist. You will quickly see where you are already strong – and where two small standards can make all the difference.
We'll continue in the next Change File with a question that almost always comes up afterwards: How do we keep participation high once the first wave is over?
