An extensive One pager, lots of projects, and the change gets left behind.
The following “Change Files” come from our consulting practice. We are sharing them to provide inspiration and concrete starting points for teams and change managers in similar situations.
The problem
A new direction was developed in an extensive strategy process: vision, strategic goals, a suitable project portfolio. The plans were clearly described in a one-pager, progress could be tracked, and projects were (barely) staffed.
The blind spot arose afterwards: because all capacity was devoted to the content of the project work, no resources were to be made available for the actual change process. Implementation support was intended to take the form of an annual review by the management team and a project steering board: both primarily as status and control logic at the factual level.
This meant that what makes major changes stable in implementation was missing: systematic work on roles, interfaces, leadership alignment, acceptance, and routines. Projects then somehow “stumble” forward, but the organization, the new collaboration, and the people do not automatically follow suit.
Our hypothesis
The system would make significant progress if... the change management component received the same attention and commitment as the project portfolio: as a separate implementation process that not only pursues content but also actively organizes its adoption into everyday life.
Without this support, experience shows that there is an increased risk that
- results will be produced but not used consistently,
- interface issues will remain chronic and slow down progress,
- necessary organizational adjustments (roles, governance, decision-making processes) will be left undone,
- resistance will not necessarily be “loud,” but will act as a persistent source of friction.
Solution/intervention
After around two years of “attempted implementation without support,” a separate change management project was set up as a second track accompanying the project track.
We proceeded in three steps:
- Identify hotspots – along the strategy, not along sensitivities. Based on the one-pager and the prioritized initiatives, we identified the points at which implementation typically fails – on three levels: Overall business (e.g., governance, processes and structures, narratives, values), at the level of the teams affected (cooperation, interfaces, roles), and at the level of individual key persons (responsibility, scope for decision-making, clarification of expectations, qualification, self-efficacy).
- Explicitly address factual and relational levels For each hotspot, both were considered where necessary: Factual level, Relational/emotional level: Where is there a need for trust, conflict resolution, common rules, leadership alignment?
- Plan development goals and interventions: with timing. We formulated clear development goals for each hotspot (e.g., “Interface decisions across departments will be made within X days,” “Role clarification for employees xy will be completed by ...”) and derived interventions from these, including:
- Targeted leadership alignments (not just information, but decisions + common storyline)
- Interface workshops with real handovers/decisions at the table
- Communication formats that do not send messages but organize feedback
- Lightweight change tracking alongside project tracking (signs of acceptance, points of friction, open clarifications)
Important: The steering board remained in place, but was supplemented by a change perspective that systematically asked: What is blocking the implementation of the strategy? What is unclear? What does leadership need now?
Result
The project work remained challenging, but unlike before, it became much smoother. After about a year, the major review showed noticeable differences:
- greater approval and cooperation within the organization,
- better functionality at interfaces (fewer renegotiations, clearer decisions),
- organizational changes were implemented more consistently,
- feared resistance and protracted disputes were largely absent because clarification needs became visible and actionable at an early stage.
A good one-pager provides direction. Implementation is successful when change management is not “tagging along” but is managed as an equal implementation track.
Quick reflection question for your change:
- Which three hotspots are currently decisive for the success of our strategy implementation (across the organization, in the teams, among key individuals)?
- Is the greatest leverage at the factual or relationship level?
