New strategy. New key performance indicators. New roles. And all of this quickly and smoothly!
The following “Change Files” are taken from our consulting practice. We are sharing them to provide guidance and highlight specific starting points for other teams and change managers.
The problem
It was one of those setups that are surprisingly similar in many organizations: A new CEO from international headquarters sets a new strategy. Shortly thereafter, a new division management team is appointed with a clear mandate: “Implement. Quickly. Without detours.”
The new strategy has noticeable consequences, e.g.:
- New performance indicators and control logic
- Changed responsibilities (e.g., for topics related to brand/portfolio/offering)
- New roles, new areas of responsibility, new dependencies on other areas
Elimination of previous informal career paths and “this is how you make a career here” logic
Despite the clarity of the new strategy's content, what is often missing in such constellations is not the clarity of strategic needs and expectations. What is missing is support for the implementation of the strategy: no internal or external change management, no structured support for management, teams, and interfaces. The pressure to change is high, expectations are clearly communicated, and at the same time, the system is left to its own devices.
This quickly becomes apparent in day-to-day collaboration: for example, meetings become more difficult, decisions become more fragmented, and responsibilities become blurred. People who have previously delivered reliably suddenly seem irritable or withdrawn. The situation becomes particularly delicate when some of the previous top performers in the old system were on the verge of the next step in their careers. For them, the new organizational structure did not feel like progress or a new challenge, but rather like devaluation and regression.
And that is exactly how the mood shifts: not because the strategy is fundamentally wrong, but because implementation begins without a minimum of structure, clarification, and social security.
Our hypothesis
The system would make significant progress if... the new team responsibilities and tasks were clarified as quickly as possible, if role clarity were established at the individual level, and if cross-departmental coordination needs were immediately identified, prioritized, and regulated together. In short: first create orientation, then speed. Otherwise, “speed” only results in pressure and not implementation.
Our solution/intervention
We set up strategy implementation as an integrated process, not as a “side change program,” but as a working mode that addresses leadership, teams, and interfaces simultaneously.
Core components:
- Structured implementation process with integrated change management
- Clear implementation logic (What will be decided when? Who is involved? What criteria apply?)
- Regular synchronization between division management, key roles, and interfaces
- Visible tracking of decisions, open issues, and dependencies
- Accompanied team development at the factual and relationship levels
- Role and responsibility workshops (including concrete “What does that mean starting tomorrow?” translations)
- Addressing points of friction where they arise: in handovers, coordination, dual responsibilities
- Agreements on cooperation, escalation, and decision-making speed
- Immediate workshops on particularly charged topics
If, for example, a topic overshadows everything like background noise, then we address it with special focus: One example: The question “What does this mean for me personally?” (especially in terms of prospects, development, and recognition) is one such possible topic. In such a case, one of the priorities is therefore to hold targeted sessions on key issues such as “Career and development in the new organization” – together with internal specialists (e.g., HR) – so that statements are reliable and compatible. The important thing here was not so much the perfect design as the attitude: clarification before appeasement. And the willingness not to sit out unpleasant questions, but to make them workable.
Result
After only a short time, a difference became noticeable: not in the form of “enthusiasm,” but in the form of reassurance, prudence, and the ability to act:
- The speed of adaptation increased: fewer loops (!), fewer parallel truths, more clear decisions.
- Teams experienced the process as social support: “We are not alone with the chaos.”
- Top performers who were particularly irritated were able to reconnect because their questions were treated not as resistance but as legitimate clarification work.
- And: The previous organization was not “wiped away” but visibly appreciated—through a clean transformation process that recognizes continuity even when structures change.
In the end, the central learning curve was simple but crucial: strategy implementation is not a sprint command. Without role clarity, interface rules, and a framework for social consequences, speed primarily produces friction. With an integrated approach, speed becomes what it should be again: implementation power.
Quick Question:
- Which question is currently being skipped when implementing strategy in your organization?
- And what happens instead?
