A great kick-off is not a participation system.
Here we share cases and patterns from our consulting practice. Typical, not isolated cases: so that other teams can achieve effective implementation more quickly.
The problem
Almost everyone we work with sees the value of participation, especially in large change projects: it increases acceptance, brings better solutions from practice – and distributes responsibility instead of stacking it at the core of the project. Often, the start is also strong: a clean project structure, then a really good large-scale event with project presentation, participatory formats, invitations to collaborate.
And yet, things often go wrong after that: In everyday life, pressure and changing priorities take over, and the energy for participation seeps away. Unfortunately, participation was understood as an event, not as an implementation process.
What remains is a hard core of committed individuals, a few project teams stuck in isolation, and for many, it becomes “a project up there” again. Orientation then tends to come from the grapevine rather than clear feedback. “Resistance” often becomes visible as a symptom of poor process quality: too little participation and feedback on an equal footing.
Our hypothesis
The system would make significant progress if... Participation were not just “added” after the kick-off, but were considered at the latest in the one-pager of the strategic project:
- Which target groups need to work on what and how,
- which decisions require which feedback, and
- what participation requirements arise from strategic goals, one-pagers, and change architecture?
If this coordination is clarified early on and then planned as a separate work package (rhythm, roles, formats, channels, simple key figures, and the whole thing as binding as the content projects), participation does not stop at the kick-off, but becomes continuous and scalable. Comparable to change communication: standards create reliability. And reliability creates motivation and identification.
Solution/intervention
Pilot “participation script” (4–6 weeks):
- Small & regular formats:
- 15-min weekly update (“What does this mean for us?”),
- 30-min participation slot every 2 weeks (matching needs/offers),
- monthly review (“What was accepted – what wasn't – why?”).
- Clarify roles: Participation owner in the program, multipliers in each area; leadership protects time slots and makes progress visible.
- Feedback is mandatory: Contribution in → response within X days.
The result
Measurable: broader participation (departments/shifts), higher proportion of employees with monthly contributions, faster feedback.
Noticeable: less office gossip, more shared “We know where we stand” – and less “resistance” as a recurring theme because irritations are addressed. Participation becomes the operating system for implementation from the kick-off moment.
First steps:
- How do you notice early on that participation is starting to wane?
- And what would be the strongest lever for you to keep participation high in your change project: timing, roles, or feedback?
Next Tuesday, the Change Files will enter the next round. Then we'll be looking at value projects.
