Change Management — a Mix of Strategy, Operations, Humans, and Avoidable Failures
Change management has become a sort of absurd corporate incantation, whispered in boardrooms and bellowed in all-hands meetings.
It is as if emitting such a phrase will magically transform organizations into smart, elegant, and agile entities. The same inflated importance is often attributed to the “must-have” skills listed on resumes as if these competencies are magically destined to resolve all corporate ills.
The terminology of change management has been projected for decades with grandiose plans, a flurry of activity, and then — more often than not, a quiet return to the status quo.
Let’s define change management as the coordinated process that leads an organization from its present affairs to a planned future position. The strategy focuses on the “why” and “what“, aligning the change with the organization’s long-term goals and vision. Operations concentrate on the “how“, detailing the specific steps, resources, and timelines needed to implement the change.
Table of Contents
The “Strategy-Operations” Comedy Show
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: the merging of strategy and operations. Senior decision-makers often mistake a change management plan — which is a strategic endeavour — for its operational logistics. This approach is akin to confusing the architectural blueprint of a building with the actual construction process.
The result ?
Useless strategic roadmaps, failed projects, and a disjointed corporate vision that lacks cohesion and long-term vision.
Unfortunately, companies are increasingly gravitating toward the concept of “strategic projects” — where Project Managers (PMs) are expected not only to deal with daily operations but also with the request to present “complete strategies”.
This approach is a fundamental misunderstanding of roles and terminology because “projects” are only the execution arm of pre-existing strategies.
Indeed, the formulation of strategy is the duty of the board and executive leadership, not that of the operational middle management.
The Human Element
The “work” is not just a series of tasks or an exchange of time for money — it’s an emotional investment. The quest for relevance, the desire for competence, the need for approval from superiors, the need for a fixed income — these are the psychological underpinnings of what makes work, well … work.
Change management plans cannot completely eliminate the human element aspect. Let’s be honest: how often do C-level executives actually implement changes that perplex operational staff ? And how often do these changes involve unnecessary “cheap” cost-cutting and layoffs of “older” employees, all in the name of temporarily boosting of next quarter’s stock price ?
In practice, this approach is reflected in telling a grizzled veteran who’s given blood, sweat, and tears to the company that their work is “terminated” for cost reduction alone. Good luck when transferring decades of expertise and dealing with medium to long-term strategic impact.
If you think such announcements and decisions are just a line item of action on a strategic plan, you are missing the whole story.
Think again: when a change is going to disrupt the status quo of daily operations within a transformation program, you better have a good reason, backed by data, analytics, and a sprinkle of existential anxiety for the company — not just a PowerPoint.
In the context of crisis management and turnaround consulting, the emotional stakes are even higher. A complex turnaround mandate is not just changing business processes — for instance, when a company is downsizing or cust-cutting, it is about altering the livelihoods of people and highly disrupting operational routines (aka as run the business – RTB).
Even in the absence of layoffs, the process of implementing change in an organization can take a severe emotional toll on all employees. Therefore, as a manager, director, C-level executive, or board member, it is important to factor in the human element.
Failure to do so leads to a disorganized change of the business (CTB) and an insecure economic landscape that frequently escalates into repetitive crises with far-reaching macroeconomic repercussions. As a bonus, here you have severe damage to the brand’s reputation. Good luck with this part, too, because rebranding has become less effective.
The “Why” of Change Management
The “why” behind any change management initiative should be the revelation that brings the whole story together. Nowadays, the why is often reduced to the limited scope of “more profits than the already more profits” from the past.
As a result, change became the new mess that no one asked for, and discovering that transformation created new problems.
Consultants know that businesses are often prisoners of the present and so enamoured by the quarterly earnings cycle that they would not recognize a long-term trend even if it hit them with a freight train and a plain at the same time. There is a saying that consultants will tell you what you want to hear.
Besides, no executive or director is going to discuss with operational guys and discover elements that can grow the company’s revenue streams. There is no discussion about business optimization or incremental changes either.
And yet, the bottom-up approach is sometimes useful — especially when combined with the correct top-bottom input from a broader helicopter view.
The reality is that change management is often a purely top-down process driven more by gut instinct than empirical data.
The Anatomy of a Change Management Plan
Change management is not just a plan or a strategy but a complex tapestry twisted from multiple threads — macroeconomics, historical, psychological, strategic, and operational.
To navigate this maze, one needs a deep understanding of the whole picture.
So, the next time you find yourself at the crossroads of change, remember: it is not just about turning the wheel in a car, but also about understanding the basics such as the road, the meteo conditions, the geography of the landscape, the destination, the capability of the vehicle itself, and the people inside it.
How should one construct a change management plan that is both psychologically respectful for people involved, operationally reasonable, and strategically useful ?
Here are a couple of initial pointers.
- Know the emotional and operational pulse of your organization — which is the baseline of your plan — rather than merely being relegated to numbers alone within a presentation for the top management.
- Articulate the ‘why’ of your strategic anchor and make it compelling, data-driven, and engaged with a good sense.
- Look beyond quarterly reports and the stock’s price by incorporating into your documents and spreadsheets the correct numbers and analysis, historically contextualized insights, and pragmatic risk assessments.
- Use consultative inputs from people who can offer a fresh perspective — but make sure they are adding value and can act as strategic catalysts.
- Develop an operational blueprint and a logistical plan that aligns with your strategy. This approach includes aspects such as potential shifts in reporting structures, hierarchy, resource allocation, and priorities.
- The communication plan needs to be pitch-perfect and address the inherent anxiety of change. Transparency and sincerity of the tone are not just an ethical obligation but a success necessity.
Elena Debbaut is a strategic execution expert to boards and executive teams. She leads and advises on complex transformations when governance barriers, internal politics, or structural fragmentation prevent organizations from executing critical decisions.
Specialities:
• governance-constrained transformation
• operational restructuring
• strategic recovery & execution