Are you familiar with this reaction to an upcoming strategy implementation? That's exactly what this week's blog is about!
A case from our consulting practice: We are sharing it to support HR, change, and organizational development teams in similar situations, not with heroic stories, but with what actually works in organizations.
The problem: “Not another project.”
The strategic process is actually going well. Content is being developed cleanly, interim results are being communicated, sometimes via managers, sometimes directly to the departments, sometimes via large participation formats with a genuine invitation to collaborate.
And yet, this phrase comes up reliably. Sometimes quietly in the coffee kitchen, sometimes openly in the workshop, sometimes as eye rolls during a call: “Leave me alone. Not another project.”
Behind this lie two very different energies, both dangerous for implementation:
Overload: People are full. Every additional loop feels like an attack on their free time or on their own diligence in the line.
Frustration and mistrust: “Project” sounds like PowerPoint, like task force, like “announcement-and-then-it-fizzles-out” as soon as resources become scarce or operational pressure increases.
This is where it gets critical. Strategy implementation is not an expert program. It needs employees who get involved, try things out, correct mistakes, and stick with it. Without this breadth, change is “made” but not supported.
Our hypothesis
The system would make significant progress if... two things were solved simultaneously and visibly: order security (is this really wanted and will it be carried through?) and clarity of purpose (why do we have to leave here, now?).
Our experience: If only one of the two is missing, the phrase “not again” almost automatically wins out.
Our solution/intervention: Two levers that reinforce each other
1. Only say “project” or “strategy implementation” when it really is one, and only from the very top
At the beginning, we made it CLEAR whether the strategy process and change were more than just a well-intentioned process. It sounds trivial, but it is often the weak link!
Key questions for top management:
- Is the project absolutely necessary, even if it hurts operationally?
- What levers are available (decision-making authority, resources, prioritization, intervention in target systems)?
- What happens when line management and change come into conflict – who protects the implementation?
The point is not to generate “commitment.” The point is to make commitment demonstrable. Employees quickly observe whether a project is being pursued through the first real collision (budget, capacity, conflict between departments) or whether it is being “politely” phased out. If the latter has already happened once, another project announcement is enough to trigger a small-scale internal resignation.
We therefore made it clear early on: this is not going to fall by the wayside. Not as a slogan, but through concrete signals: clear prioritization over other things, quick decisions, real resource allocations, consistent leadership communication.
2. A case for change that answers the question that is really being asked
The second level of work was a very careful answer to the question:
“Why do we have to leave here?”
And not as a management statement, but as a broadly developed, organization-wide justification. With participation across the organization, because acceptance does not come from volume, but from recognition.
We structured the case for change so that it typically contains 4–6 clear, verifiable reasons. Not ten, not twenty. Reasons that can be explained without needing slides.
Two examples of how these reasons “feel” in concrete terms:
Economic difficulties + internal friction losses: When duplication of work occurs in many areas because there is a lack of coordination between departments and processes are unclear, the statement becomes concrete: “We have to get out of here because we are systematically generating friction costs and can no longer bear the economic burden.” This is not a moral issue, but an existential one. And suddenly, process clarity is no longer a “project,” but a lever for survival.
Market shift + shrinking core product: If it is foreseeable that a core product will largely disappear in two years, then the answer is: “We have to get out of here because our livelihood is shifting and we need product innovations before it's too late.” This creates a different kind of urgency: less focus on costs, more focus on future viability.
Crucially, these reasons were not “announced” but refined together so that even skeptical voices could find a grain of truth in them. The case for change did not have to be emotional for everyone. It had to be plausible for many.
The result: not everyone is convinced, but clearly “ready”
We didn't win over every person. It would be dishonest to promise that. Some remain resistant, some are simply too exhausted, others are waiting to see what happens.
But something crucial has happened to a large group. The phrase “not another project” lost its automatic sharpness because two experiences became possible:
- It is meant seriously (and will not be abandoned at the first sign of headwinds).
- It is understandable why this particular change is necessary now.
In the best case scenario, this will result in more than just agreement: a consistent understanding across the organization that one's own contribution is not “collaboration on the project,” but shared responsibility for the ability to act, for survival in a crisis, and for prosperity in times of growth.
And that's exactly where the attitude shifts: from “Leave me alone” to “Okay, if we have to leave, then let's at least decide wisely how that should happen.”
