Most large organisations are now somewhere in the process of deploying AI across their operations. Many are discovering, often painfully, that the change management challenge of AI adoption is categorically different from the change management challenges they have navigated before.
The difference is not scale, though AI initiatives are often large. It is speed, depth, and ambiguity. AI changes how work is done, not just which tools people use. It shifts decision-making processes, redistributes responsibilities, and in some cases eliminates roles entirely. And it keeps changing: the capabilities that are state of the art today are different from those of 12 months ago. Managing AI transformation through standard change management frameworks, built for discrete, definable changes, often produces poor results.
McKinsey’s research on change management in the age of gen AI is direct on this point: for CEOs, the charge is clear to plan for a company-wide reconfiguration today so that humans and AI together can achieve extraordinary outcomes tomorrow. And critically, McKinsey notes that upskilling as part of AI transformation is not a training rollout. It is a change management effort.
That reframing from AI deployment as technology change to AI adoption as organisational transformation is where effective AI change management begins.
The adoption gap in AI transformation
The gap between AI investment and AI value is widening in most organisations. Gartner research from 2025 found that business units which redesign how work gets done, rather than simply deploying AI tools and encouraging employees to use them, are twice as likely to exceed revenue goals. Yet most organisations are doing the latter.
This distinction between deploying AI and redesigning work is the core of effective AI change management. When AI is implemented as a tool overlay on existing processes, adoption is partial, benefits are modest, and resistance is higher. When AI implementation is accompanied by genuine redesign of workflows, decision rights, and performance expectations, adoption is deeper and the value is substantially larger.
The research confirms the cost of the gap. MIT Sloan Management Review’s analysis of gen AI scaling found that organisations face a predictable midcycle enthusiasm dip that kills adoption momentum, function-specific resistance that generic communications cannot address, and cultural resistance to working differently. Novo Nordisk’s experience, scaling from a few hundred AI users in January 2024 to more than 20,000 by February 2025, succeeded specifically because they combined champion networks, targeted function-level enablement, and adaptive governance rather than a one-size change communication approach.
Why AI change management is different from standard change management
Standard change management frameworks, whether ADKAR, Kotter, or Prosci, were designed for changes with defined endpoints: a new system goes live, a restructure is announced, a policy changes. The change effort has a start, a middle, and a completion point. Communication and training are planned around a timeline. Success is measured at a defined moment.
AI transformation does not work this way. Several characteristics make it distinct.
The change has no fixed endpoint
AI capabilities are evolving continuously. The change management challenge is not “help people adopt this AI tool.” It is “build the organisational capacity to continuously adopt AI as capabilities evolve.” This is a fundamentally different proposition. It requires building adaptive learning capacity into the organisation, not managing a one-time transition.
Employee relationship with AI is ambivalent, not uniformly resistant
Standard change management wisdom treats resistance as the primary barrier. With AI, the picture is more complex. MIT Sloan research found that employee hope about AI handling certain tasks remains high at 78 to 85% across adoption stages, while fear stays relatively low at 21 to 32%. The challenge is not primarily resistance, it is the gap between positive sentiment and sustained behaviour change in how work is actually done.
The impact is role-specific to an unusual degree
AI affects different roles in fundamentally different ways. A finance analyst and a customer service representative may both be in the same organisation’s AI transformation programme, but the change each needs to make is almost entirely different. Communication and training approaches that work for one will not work for the other. AI change management requires function-level and role-level customisation at a depth that generic programme change management rarely reaches.
Middle management is the critical adoption layer
Gartner’s CHRO research identifies a July 2025 survey finding that 78% of CHROs agree workflows and roles will need to change to get the most out of AI investments. But the barrier to this redesign is not typically executive resistance. It is middle management. Managers whose teams are being asked to work differently face the most immediate and personal disruption from AI adoption. They are simultaneously the key enablers of change at the team level and the group most likely to passively resist if the change management approach does not specifically address their experience.
What effective AI change management looks like
The organisations navigating AI transformation most effectively share several characteristics in their change approach.
They start with work redesign, not tool deployment. Before employees are asked to use AI tools, the question is asked: how should this work actually be done differently with AI available? This question is answered at the process and role level, not the general level. The answer shapes both the change management plan and the training design.
They build internal AI champion networks. The Novo Nordisk model, and many similar examples across industries, shows that peer-led adoption in function-specific contexts substantially outperforms top-down communications. Champions are typically senior individual contributors who understand the function’s work in detail and can translate AI capability into specific, credible use cases for their colleagues.
They manage the midcycle dip actively. AI adoption typically follows a predictable curve: initial enthusiasm, early experimentation, midcycle frustration as the limitations of current tools become apparent, and then either deeper adoption (for organisations that support people through the dip) or abandonment (for those that do not). Effective AI change management plans for the midcycle dip explicitly. It is not a sign of programme failure; it is a predictable stage that requires specific interventions.
They track adoption at role and function level, not just platform usage metrics. Platform usage (how many people opened the tool, how many queries were submitted) is a leading indicator at best and can be deeply misleading. A person can use an AI tool regularly without changing how they work in any meaningful way. Effective AI change management tracks whether the work is actually changing: are decisions being made differently, are time savings being realised, are outputs improving?
They redesign performance frameworks to reflect AI-enabled work. If employees are being asked to do their jobs differently using AI, but their performance frameworks still measure the old way of working, the rational behaviour is to use AI superficially while continuing to work in ways that the performance system recognises and rewards. Aligning performance expectations with AI-enabled ways of working is one of the most powerful and most neglected levers in AI change management.
The change management challenge specific to AI in large enterprises
For enterprise change leaders, AI transformation introduces portfolio complexity that adds to the standard adoption challenge. Most large organisations are running multiple AI initiatives simultaneously: different functions, different vendors, different use cases. The change management challenge is not just managing each initiative, it is managing the cumulative AI-related change burden on employees who are being asked to adopt AI across several areas of their work simultaneously.
Gartner research found that organisations continuously adapting their change plans based on employee responses are four times more likely to achieve change success. For AI transformation, this adaptive approach is even more important than usual, because the feedback loops are faster. AI tools change rapidly. Employee experience of those tools shifts as capabilities evolve. A change management plan set at programme initiation and not revisited will be misaligned with reality within months.
Using digital platforms in AI change management
The irony of AI change management is that it is one of the highest-complexity change management challenges organisations face, at a moment when most change functions are still operating with manually-compiled data and periodic reporting cycles. Digital change management platforms, such as The Change Compass, enable the continuous adoption tracking and portfolio-level visibility that AI transformation requires: seeing where adoption is progressing by function, identifying which employee groups are experiencing midcycle dips, and generating the data needed to adapt the change approach in real time rather than at fixed review points.
For AI transformation specifically, the combination of role-level adoption tracking and portfolio-level load management is particularly valuable. The change function can see not just whether AI adoption is progressing, but how AI change load interacts with other concurrent changes affecting the same employee groups.
What the research says about AI adoption failure
It is worth being clear about the evidence. A May 2025 Gartner survey of 506 CIOs and technology leaders found that 72% of CIOs report their organisations are breaking even or losing money on AI investments. The primary reasons cited are not technical: they are change-related. People are not working differently. Workflows have not been redesigned. The cultural conditions for AI adoption have not been established.
This is not a technology problem. It is a change management problem of a kind that only becomes soluble when AI transformation is explicitly treated as an organisational change challenge requiring deliberate, sustained change management investment.
Building AI change management capability in your organisation
For change leaders building the case internally for dedicated AI change management investment, the most useful starting point is a portfolio scan: how many AI initiatives are currently active across the organisation, which employee groups are they targeting, what is the cumulative AI-related change load, and what change management support is currently in place for each?
In most large organisations, this scan reveals a significant gap: a large number of AI initiatives, often with substantial investment in technology and training, and limited or no dedicated change management beyond communications. This gap is where the value is. Closing it, by bringing the same rigour to AI adoption management that mature change functions bring to major technology implementations, is the highest-return investment most enterprise change functions can make in 2026.
Frequently asked questions
What is AI change management?
AI change management is the application of organisational change management principles and practices to the challenge of adopting artificial intelligence tools, platforms, and AI-driven ways of working. It goes beyond technology deployment to address the behavioural, cultural, and structural changes required for AI to deliver its intended value.
Why do so many AI transformation initiatives fail to deliver expected value?
The primary causes are change-related, not technical. Workflows are not redesigned to use AI effectively, middle managers are not equipped to lead AI adoption at team level, performance frameworks still incentivise old ways of working, and adoption tracking focuses on platform usage rather than actual behaviour change. Gartner data shows 72% of CIOs report breaking even or losing money on AI investments, largely for these reasons.
How is AI change management different from managing other technology changes?
AI transformation differs in three important ways: there is no fixed endpoint because AI capabilities evolve continuously; the impact is highly role-specific, requiring function-level customisation that generic programmes cannot achieve; and the adoption challenge involves sustained behaviour change in how work is done, not just familiarity with a new tool.
What is the role of middle managers in AI adoption?
Middle managers are the most critical adoption layer. They translate the organisation’s AI strategy into day-to-day working practice for their teams. They are also the group most likely to face personal disruption from AI-driven work redesign. AI change management approaches that specifically address the manager experience, building their capability to lead AI adoption rather than treating them as a communication channel, substantially improve adoption outcomes.
How do you measure AI adoption effectively?
Effective measurement goes beyond platform usage metrics to track whether work is actually changing. This includes time savings realised in specific processes, quality of AI-assisted outputs compared to previous outputs, changes in decision-making patterns, and whether employees in target roles report working differently. Portfolio-level dashboards that aggregate this data by function and role group enable the adaptive approach that drives four times higher change success.
What is an AI champion network?
An AI champion network is a group of senior individual contributors in specific functions who serve as peer advocates and enablers for AI adoption within their teams. Champions are effective because they can translate general AI capability into specific, credible use cases relevant to their colleagues’ actual work, and because peer advocacy is significantly more influential than top-down communications for this type of behaviour change.
References
McKinsey. Reconfiguring Work: Change Management in the Age of Gen AI. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/reconfiguring-work-change-management-in-the-age-of-gen-ai
Gartner. Gartner Identifies the Top Change Management Trends for CHROs in the Age of AI (March 2026). https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-3-16-gartner-identifies-top-change-management-trends-for-chros-in-age-of-ai
Gartner. Gartner Says CHROs’ Top Priorities for 2026 Center Around Realizing AI Value (October 2025). https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-10-02-gartner-says-chros-top-priorities-for-2026-center-around-realizing-ai-value-and-driving-performance-amid-uncertainty
MIT Sloan Management Review. How to Scale GenAI in the Workplace. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-scale-genai-in-the-workplace/
MIT Sloan Management Review. Three Things to Know About Implementing Workplace AI Tools. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/three-things-to-know-about-implementing-workplace-ai-tools/
Air traffic control is one of the most sophisticated and high-stakes management systems in the world. Ensuring the safety of thousands of flights daily requires rigorous coordination, precise timing, and a structured yet adaptable approach. When failures occur, they often result in catastrophic consequences, as seen in the tragic January 2025 midair collision between an army helicopter and a passenger jet in Washington, D.C. airspace.
Think about the last time you took a flight. You probably didn’t worry about how the pilot knew where to go, how to land safely, or how to avoid other planes in the sky. That’s because air traffic control is a well-oiled machine, built on a foundation of real-time data, clear protocols, and experienced professionals making split-second decisions. Now, imagine if air traffic controllers had to work with outdated information, or if pilots had to rely on intuition rather than hard facts. Chaos, right?
The same principles that apply to managing air traffic also hold valuable lessons for change and transformation management within organisations. Large-scale transformations involve multiple initiatives running in parallel, conflicting priorities, and significant risks. Without a structured, centralised approach, organisations risk failure, reduced value realisation, and employee fatigue.
The same logic applies to organisational change and transformation. Leaders are often trying to land multiple initiatives at once, each with its own trajectory, speed, and impact. Without real-time, accurate data, it’s all too easy for change initiatives to collide, stall, or overwhelm employees. Just as the aviation industry depends on continuous data updates to prevent disasters, businesses must embrace data-driven decision-making to ensure their transformation efforts succeed.
Here we’ll explore what air traffic control can teach us about using data effectively in change management. If you’ve ever felt like your organisation’s transformation efforts are flying blind, chaotic and uncoordinated, this one’s for you.
Lesson 1: The Danger of Overloading Critical Roles
The D.C. Midair Collision: A Case of Role Overload
In January 2025, a tragic midair collision occurred in Washington, D.C. airspace between an army helicopter and a passenger jet, claiming 67 lives. Investigations revealed multiple contributing factors, including inadequate pilot training, fatigue, insufficient maintenance, and ignored safety protocols. This incident underscored the dangers of overstretched resources, outdated processes, and poor data visibility—lessons that extend beyond aviation and into how organisations manage complex, high-stakes operations like change and transformation.
Additionally, the air traffic controller on duty was handling both helicopter and airplane traffic simultaneously, leading to a critical lapse in coordination. This split focus contributed to poor coordination and a lack of real-time situational awareness, ultimately leading to disaster. This is aligned with findings from various research that providing adequate resources is important in driving change and transformation.
Parallels in Change and Transformation Management
Organisations often suffer from similar overload issues when managing change. Many initiatives—ranging from business-as-usual (BAU) efforts to large-scale transformations—compete for attention, resources, and stakeholder engagement. Without a structured approach, teams end up working in silos, unaware of competing priorities or overlapping impacts.
There are some who argue that change is the new norm, so employees just need to get on the program and learn to adapt. It may be easy to say this, but successful organisations have learnt how to do this, versus ignoring the issue. After all, managing capacity and resources is a normal part of any effective operations management and strategy execution. Within a change context, the effects are just more pronounced given the timelines and the need to balance both business-as-usual and changes.
Key Takeaways:
Centralised Oversight: Organisations need a structured governance model—whether through a Transformation Office, PMO, or Change Centre of Excellence—to track all initiatives and prevent “collisions.”
Clear Role Definition: Initiative owners and sponsors should have a clear understanding of their responsibilities, engagement processes, and decision-making frameworks.
Avoiding Initiative Overload: Employees experience “change fatigue” when multiple transformations run concurrently without proper coordination. Leaders must balance initiative rollout to ensure sustainable adoption.
Lesson 2: Providing Initiative Owners with Data-Driven Decision Autonomy
The UPS ‘Continuous Descent Arrivals’ System
UPS has been testing a data-driven approach to landings called ‘Continuous Descent Arrivals’ (source: Wall Street Journal article: Managing Air Traffic Control). Instead of relying solely on air traffic controllers to direct landing schedules, pilots have access to a full dashboard of real-time data, allowing them to determine their optimal landing times while still following a structured governance protocol. While CDA is effective during light traffic conditions, implementing it during heavy traffic poses technical challenges. Air traffic controllers must ensure safe separation between aircraft while optimising descent paths.
Applying This to Agile Change Management
In agile organisations, multiple initiatives are constantly iterating, requiring a balance between flexibility and coordination. Rather than centralised bottleneck approvals, initiative owners should be empowered to make informed, autonomous decisions—provided they follow structured governance (and when there is less risk of multiple releases and impacts on the business).
Key Takeaways:
Real-Time Data Sharing: Just as pilots rely on up-to-date flight data, organisations must have a transparent system where initiative owners can see enterprise-wide transformation impacts and adjust accordingly.
Governance Without Bureaucracy: Pre-set governance protocols should allow for self-service decision-making without stifling agility.
Last-Minute Adjustments with Predictability: Agile initiatives should have the flexibility to adjust their release schedules as long as they adhere to predefined impact management processes.
Lesson 3: Resourcing Air Traffic Control for Organisational Change
Lack of Air Traffic Controllers: A Root Cause of the D.C. Accident
The D.C. accident highlighted that understaffing was a critical factor. Insufficient air traffic controllers led to delayed decision-making and unsafe airspace conditions.
The Importance of Resource Allocation in Change and Transformation
Many organisations lack a dedicated team overseeing enterprise-wide change. Instead, initiatives operate independently, often leading to inefficiencies, redundancies, and conflicts. According to McKinsey, companies that effectively prioritise and allocate resources to transformation initiatives can generate 40% more value compared to their peers.
Key Takeaways:
Dedicated Transformation Governance Teams: Whether in the form of a PMO, Transformation Office, or Change Centre of Excellence, a central function should be responsible for initiative alignment.
Prioritisation Frameworks: Not all initiatives should receive equal attention. Organisations must establish structured prioritisation mechanisms based on value, risk, and strategic alignment.
Investment in Change Capacity: Just as air traffic controllers are indispensable to aviation safety, organisations must invest in skilled change professionals to ensure seamless initiative execution.
Lesson 4: Proactive Risk Management to Prevent Initiative Collisions
The Risk of Unchecked Initiative Timelines
Just as midair collisions can occur due to inadequate tracking of aircraft positions, organisational change initiatives can “crash” when timelines and impacts are not actively managed. Without a real-time view of concurrent changes, organisations risk:
Conflicting Business Priorities: Competing transformations may pull resources in different directions, leading to delays and reduced impact.
Change Saturation: Employees struggle to absorb too many changes at once, leading to disengagement and lower adoption.
Operational Disruptions: Poorly sequenced initiatives can create unintended consequences, disrupting critical business functions.
Establishing a Proactive “Air Traffic Control” for Change
Enterprise Change Heatmaps: Organisations should maintain a real-time dashboard of ongoing and upcoming changes to anticipate and mitigate risks.
Stakeholder Impact Assessments: Before launching initiatives, leaders must assess cumulative impacts on employees and customers.
Strategic Sequencing: Similar to how air traffic controllers ensure safe landing schedules, organisations must deliberately pace their change initiatives.
The Role of Data in Change and Transformation: Lessons from Air Traffic Control
You Need a Single Source of Truth—No More Guesswork
Aviation Example: The Power of Integrated Data Systems
In aviation, pilots and controllers don’t work off scattered spreadsheets or conflicting reports. They use a unified system that integrates radar, satellite tracking, and aircraft GPS, providing a single, comprehensive view of air traffic. With this system, pilots and controllers can see exactly where each aircraft is and make informed decisions to keep everyone safe.
Application in Change Management: Why Fragmented Data is a Recipe for Disaster
Now, compare this to how many organisations manage change. Different business units track initiatives in separate spreadsheets, using inconsistent reporting standards. Transformation offices, HR, finance, and IT often operate in silos, each with their own version of the truth. When leaders don’t have a clear, real-time picture of what’s happening across the organisation, it’s like trying to land a plane in thick fog—without instruments.
Key Takeaways:
Create a Centralised Change Management Platform: Just like air traffic control relies on a single system, organisations need a centralised platform where all change initiatives are tracked in real time.
Standardise Data Collection and Reporting: Everyone involved in change initiatives should follow the same data standards to ensure consistency and accuracy.
Increase Visibility Across Business Units: Leaders need an enterprise-wide view of all change efforts to avoid conflicts and align priorities.
Real-Time Data Enables Agile, Confident Decision-Making
UPS has a fascinating system for managing landings, known as ‘Continuous Descent Arrivals.’ Instead of waiting for air traffic controllers to dictate their landing time, pilots receive real-time data about their approach, runway conditions, and surrounding traffic. This allows them to determine the best landing time themselves—within a structured framework. The result? More efficient landings, less fuel waste, and greater overall safety.
Application in Change Management: The Danger of Outdated Reports
Too often, business leaders make transformation decisions based on data that’s weeks—or even months—old. By the time they realise a problem, the initiative has already veered off course. When leaders lack real-time data, they either act too late or overcorrect, causing further disruptions.
Key Takeaways:
Use Live Dashboards for Initiative Management: Just as pilots rely on real-time flight data, change leaders should have constantly updated dashboards showing initiative progress, risks, and dependencies.
Empower Initiative Owners with Data-Driven Autonomy: When given up-to-date information, initiative owners can make faster, smarter adjustments—without waiting for top-down approvals.
Leverage Predictive Analytics to Anticipate Challenges: AI-driven insights can flag potential risks, such as change saturation or conflicting priorities, before they become full-blown issues.
Modern aircraft are equipped with automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) systems, which allow them to communicate real-time flight data with each other. If two planes are on a collision course, these systems warn pilots, giving them time to adjust. It’s a proactive approach to risk management—problems are detected and resolved before they escalate.
Application in Change Management: Avoiding Crashes Between Initiatives
In organisations, multiple change initiatives often roll out simultaneously, each demanding employee attention, resources, and operational bandwidth. Without real-time risk monitoring, it’s easy to overwhelm employees or create operational bottlenecks. Many organisations don’t realise there’s an issue until productivity starts dropping or employees push back against the sheer volume of change.
Key Takeaways:
Invest in Impact Assessment Tools: Before launching an initiative, leaders should evaluate its potential impact on employees and the business.
Run Scenario Planning Exercises: Like pilots in flight simulators, organisations should model different change scenarios to prepare for potential challenges.
Set Up Early Warning Systems: AI-driven analytics can detect overlapping initiatives, allowing leaders to intervene before issues arise.
The High Cost of Inaccurate or Delayed Data
Aviation Example: The D.C. Midair Collision
The tragic January 2025 midair collision in Washington, D.C. was, in part, the result of outdated and incomplete data. A single air traffic controller was responsible for both helicopter and airplane traffic, leading to a dangerous lapse in coordination. Miscommunication about airspace restrictions only made matters worse, resulting in an avoidable catastrophe.
Poor Data Leads to Costly Mistakes
The corporate equivalent of this is when transformation teams work with old or incomplete data. Decisions based on last quarter’s reports can lead to wasted resources, poorly sequenced initiatives, and employee burnout. The consequences might not be as immediately tragic as an aviation disaster, but the financial, momentum and cultural costs can be devastating.
Key Takeaways:
Prioritise Frequent Data Updates: Change leaders must ensure initiative data is refreshed regularly to reflect real-time realities.
Collaborate Across Functions to Maintain Accuracy: Transformation leaders, HR, finance, and IT should work together to ensure all change impact data is reliable.
Automate Reporting Where Possible: AI and automation can reduce human error and provide real-time insights without manual effort.
Balancing Automation with Human Judgment
Aviation Example: Autopilot vs. Pilot Oversight
While modern planes rely heavily on autopilot, pilots are still in control. They use automation as a support system, but ultimately, human judgment is the final safeguard. It’s the perfect balance—automation enhances efficiency, while human oversight ensures safety.
Some leaders may find the process of collecting and analyzing data cumbersome, time-consuming, and even unnecessary—especially when they’re focused on quick execution. Gathering accurate, real-time data requires investment in tools, training, and disciplined processes, which can feel like an administrative burden rather than a value driver.
However, the benefits far outweigh the effort. A well-structured data system provides clarity on initiative progress, prevents conflicting priorities, enhances decision-making, and ensures resources are allocated effectively. Without it, organisations risk initiative overload, employee burnout, wasted budgets, and ultimately, failed transformations. Just like in aviation, where poor data can lead to fatal accidents, a lack of real-time insights in change management can result in costly missteps that derail business success.
Moreover, having an integrated process whereby data regularly feeds into decision making, as a normal business-as-usual process, builds the overall capability of the organisation to be a lot more agile and be able to change with confidence.
Navigating Change with Data-Driven Precision
Aviation has shown us what happens when decision-makers lack real-time, accurate data—mistakes happen, and consequences can be severe. In organisational change, the same principles apply. By embracing real-time data, predictive analytics, and structured governance, companies can navigate change more effectively, preventing initiative overload, reducing resistance, and maximising impact.
Ultimately, the goal is simple: Ensure your change initiatives don’t crash and burn. And just like in aviation, data is the key to a smooth landing.
If you would like to chat more about how to utilise a digital/AI solution that will equip you will insightful data to make critical business decisions in your air traffic control of your changes, reach out to us here.
Successful transformation is not just about having a clear strategy, the right technology, or a strong leadership team—it is about managing organisational energy effectively. Like a marathon, transformation requires a well-paced approach, allowing for the right breathing space at key milestones. Without careful attention to energy levels, organisations risk burnout, disengagement, and failure to sustain long-term change.
Understanding Organisational Energy
Organisational energy is the collective capacity of employees to take action, drive change, and sustain momentum. It encompasses physical, emotional, and cognitive dimensions, each playing a critical role in how teams navigate transformation. Unlike resources such as time and budget, energy is dynamic—it can be depleted through excessive demands or replenished through strategic interventions.
The Marathon Mindset: Pacing and Breathing Spaces
Transformation is a long journey, not a sprint. Like seasoned marathon runners, organisations must be intentional about pacing and ensuring adequate recovery points along the way. Leaders often push for rapid results, but sustained transformation requires:
Phased Implementation: Breaking down transformation into manageable phases with defined milestones.
Strategic Pauses: Allowing teams to absorb changes, reflect on progress, and recalibrate before moving to the next stage.
Energy Checks: Regularly assessing engagement levels, stress indicators, and feedback to adjust the pace accordingly.
Neglecting these aspects leads to fatigue, resistance, and disengagement—ultimately derailing transformation efforts.
Awareness of Existing Capabilities and Change History
Before embarking on a transformation journey, organisations must understand their baseline. Awareness of existing capabilities, ways of working, and historical transformation experiences provides predictive indicators of how change should be approached.
Key Considerations:
Past Change Successes and Failures: What has worked and what hasn’t? Understanding past patterns helps anticipate potential resistance or enablers.
Current Workload and Fatigue Levels: Are employees already stretched with existing initiatives? Overloading teams will compromise focus and execution quality.
Organisational Culture: Some cultures thrive on rapid change, while others require gradual adoption. Aligning transformation efforts with cultural realities is critical.
By assessing these factors, leaders can tailor transformation strategies to fit the organisation’s energy levels and capacity.
Building Organisational Stamina: Start Small, Scale Up
Just as athletes build endurance through progressive training, organisations must strengthen their transformation muscle over time. This means introducing smaller changes first to test resilience and capability before scaling up to more complex shifts.
How to Build Organisational Stamina:
Start with Pilot Initiatives: Test new ways of working in controlled environments before expanding.
Gradually Increase Complexity: Move from small process improvements to larger-scale changes, ensuring teams adapt successfully at each stage.
Celebrate Early Wins: Recognising progress builds confidence and motivation to tackle bigger challenges.
Provide Learning Opportunities: Equip teams with skills and tools that enhance adaptability and readiness for change.
Leaders who adopt this progressive approach foster a resilient workforce that can sustain transformation efforts over time.
Teams with good change leaders or those teams with significant experience with change tend to be more able to work with greater volumes of change as well as greater complexity of change. With each change initiative, with the right structure, routines (including retro), the team’s capability can be built to be ready for larger, more complex transformations.
Balancing Focus and Intensity
Attention is a finite resource. When teams are bombarded with multiple initiatives, priorities become diluted, and execution suffers. Managing focus effectively is essential to maintaining high performance during transformation.
Strategies for Maintaining Focus:
Limit Concurrent Initiatives: Prioritise the most critical changes and sequence others to avoid overload.
Establish Clear Priorities: Ensure alignment across leadership to prevent conflicting demands on teams.
Monitor Workload and Stress Levels: Pay close attention to employee well-being and adjust intensity as needed.
Encourage Deep Work: Create space for teams to focus without constant distractions or shifting priorities.
When focus is scattered, transformation efforts lose momentum. By managing cognitive load, leaders enable employees to fully engage with and execute changes effectively.
The Importance of a Clear Plan
While agile methodologies emphasise adaptability, having a structured plan provides essential clarity for employees navigating complex change. Transformation without a roadmap leads to uncertainty, anxiety, and resistance. This does not necessarily mean that plans are locked in stone and cannot be changed. In contrast to this, having a plan provides a frame of reference, and expectations can be set that details including timeline may shift but that the high level approach remains the same.
Why a Clear Plan Matters:
Provides Direction: Employees need to know where the organisation is headed and how they fit into the journey.
Reduces Uncertainty: Even if adjustments are made, a baseline plan offers reassurance and stability.
Enhances Engagement: When people understand the “why” and “how” of transformation, they are more likely to commit.
Prepares for Change: Last-minute changes create confusion and stress—early planning allows for smoother transitions.
Balancing Planning with Agility
While plans must be flexible, abandoning structure altogether creates chaos. Leaders should:
Communicate a High-Level Roadmap: Outline key phases and milestones without overloading with unnecessary detail.
Adapt Plans Responsively: Incorporate feedback and lessons learned, adjusting course without losing sight of long-term goals.
Engage Employees in Planning: Co-creation fosters ownership and reduces resistance.
A well-structured transformation plan provides clarity and confidence, making it easier for teams to adapt and sustain change.
To ensure the optimal management of organisational energy, measurement is essential. Organisations need clear yardsticks to assess energy levels, performance, and transformation progress, allowing leaders to make informed adjustments when needed. Without measurement, it is impossible to determine whether teams are operating at an optimal pace or experiencing fatigue and disengagement.
Key Metrics to Track:
Change Impact Data: Understanding the magnitude of transformation on various teams helps adjust implementation approaches.
Balance Energy Demand and Supply: Leaders should prioritize work strategically, focusing on high-impact initiatives while minimizing unnecessary demands. Simultaneously, they should inspire teams by articulating a compelling vision that connects the various dots across changes
Change Readiness Assessments: Gauging employees’ preparedness for change ensures the right support mechanisms are in place.
Sentiment Analysis: Regular pulse surveys and feedback loops help identify resistance, concerns, and engagement levels.
Performance Metrics: Tracking productivity, efficiency, and key deliverables helps align transformation with business outcomes.
Adoption Rates: Measuring how well new processes, tools, or ways of working are being integrated ensures long-term sustainability.
By continuously monitoring these indicators, leaders can fine-tune transformation efforts, ensuring that momentum is sustained while preventing burnout and resistance.
Leading with Energy Management
The success of any transformation effort hinges on how well organisational energy is managed. Leaders must act as stewards of energy—pacing initiatives appropriately, building stamina, maintaining focus, and providing clear direction.
By treating transformation like a marathon—strategically balancing intensity with recovery, testing capabilities before scaling, and ensuring clarity—organisations can sustain momentum and achieve lasting success. Managing organisational energy is not just a leadership responsibility; it is the foundation for thriving in an ever-evolving business landscape.
For many organisations, transformation has become a strategic necessity. However, the success rate of large-scale transformation efforts remains low. There are various arguments about the actual percentage of success for transformation. Consulting firms often quote 30% as the standard, whilst others argue it may be up to 50%. There is also the issue of the definition of ‘transformation’ versus other change initiatives. Regardless, the actual level of success, most agree that this level needs to be much higher given the significant capital and resource focus on transformations across organisations. A critical but often overlooked factor? The way change is managed.
Despite the importance of change management, transformation offices and teams may not be taking the right approach. According to Sensei Labs’ 2024 State of Transformation survey, senior leaders in large organisations identified culture and change management as the second most pressing concern. When it comes to budget allocation, change management ranks third out of 10 of budget category expenditure ranking, following technology and consulting/advisory expenditures. Previous survey findings, such as Deloitte’s 2022 report show this expenditure to be even lower.
Note that this State of Transformation survey included over 150 respondents from various industries and largely from large organisations. Respondents were mostly Director and above level of seniority.
So, transformation offices acknowledge change management to be a key issue to be tackled, and a sizable budget is spent on various change support activities. So, what is the issues?
A Narrow Approach to Change
A concerning trend in transformation offices is that most only focus on communications, training, and stakeholder engagement as their primary change management activities. These are necessary components, but they are far from sufficient. Effective transformation requires more than just keeping employees informed and trained—it demands a structured, data-driven approach to managing change impact at scale.
Interestingly, the same Sensei Labs survey found that formal change management roles are largely absent within transformation functions. While many teams include Communications and Human Resources roles, only 14% reported having dedicated change management professionals. This absence may explain why change efforts fail to gain traction—without formalized expertise, the true complexity of change is not adequately addressed.
Another striking gap: only 12% of organisations reported measuring change impact. If change impact isn’t assessed, captured and measured, how can organisations get ready for something they are not exactly clear about at a detailed level? And subsequently how can organisations ensure adoption, sustainability, and business outcomes?
Without the clear understanding of impacts, how people will undergo change is not clear. As a result, organisations may take a ‘pan-all’ generic approach of engaging with groups of impacted functions teams, send lots of communications and put in place training sessions.
Without a precise and tailored approach to impacted stakeholder groups, change interventions may be hit or miss. It is the same as air traffic control in a busy airport. Will you use the same approach to chaperone and assist all planes to land in the same way, regardless if it’s a small chartered jet, a helicopter, a 747, a jumbo jet or a fighter jet? A helicopter doesn’t even need a runway like planes, and a fighter jet cannot land in the same area as a commercial landing zone. So, why would we not take a targeted approach at impacted stakeholder groups, each with its own unique change journey?
Addressing the Gaps in Driving Transformations
To close the gap in transformation success, organisations must rethink their approach to change management. This requires shifting from tactical, activity-based change management to a more strategic, structured, and measurable approach.
A change strategy is critical because it provides a structured, outcome-driven approach that aligns change activities with business objectives, rather than just executing a checklist of tasks. It ensures that change efforts are integrated, sustainable, and adaptive to organisational dynamics, rather than reactive and fragmented. A well-defined strategy considers stakeholder impact, capacity constraints, and potential risks, enabling leaders to make informed decisions that drive adoption and long-term success. Without it, change initiatives risk becoming disjointed efforts that fail to deliver meaningful business value.
Key areas of focus should include:
1. Identifying, Measuring, and Managing Portfolio-Level Change Impacts
Many transformation offices manage multiple concurrent initiatives, but few assess how these changes collectively impact employees, customers, and operations. A robust change portfolio management approach is needed to:
Identify cumulative change impacts across projects
Avoid change fatigue/capacity overload
Prioritize initiatives based on organisational capacity and readiness
To properly assess portfolio-level impacts, organisations must develop frameworks that aggregate data across initiatives. By tracking concurrent and overlapping changes, leaders can identify where resistance may emerge and proactively address it. Portfolio-level visibility also enables executives to make better-informed decisions regarding project prioritization and resource allocation.
Identifying and mapping out impacts is one of the most critical pieces of work to ensure change outcome success. Why? It is because effectively identifying and structuring the change impacts on stakeholders determines the resulting change interventions. If your impact assessment is ineffective, your change interventions will not hit the mark.
This is exactly the same process as a doctor diagnosing the illness. The diagnosis process requires a structured assessment process. With the wrong diagnosis it leads to a wrong treatment plan. The wrong treatment plan will not result in curing the illness.
2. Structured Analysis and Planning
Organisations must integrate structured change planning into transformation execution, including:
Complexity assessments to evaluate the scale and interdependencies of change initiatives
Current-to-future state gap analysis to understand the magnitude of change
Benefit realization planning to link change activities to business outcomes
Transition plans to ensure a smooth shift from current to new ways of working
A structured approach allows organisations to proactively mitigate risks associated with transformation. Complexity assessments, for example, help organisations anticipate challenges in large-scale transformations, enabling leaders to develop targeted interventions. Additionally, linking change initiatives to tangible business outcomes ensures accountability and prevents change initiatives from being seen as purely theoretical exercises.
A doctor does not diagnose the illness based on a generic approach or gutfeel, or worse what others tell him/her to do. The treatment plan is also based on what has found to work through research. The same should also be applied with change analysis and planning.
3. Measuring Change Progress
Change success cannot be managed if it is not measured. Organisations should implement:
Readiness assessments to gauge preparedness before rolling out initiatives
Adoption metrics to track engagement and behavioural shifts post-implementation
Feedback loops to identify resistance points and adjust strategies accordingly
Without clear metrics, organisations struggle to determine whether change initiatives are truly effective. Readiness assessments help gauge the level of preparedness within an organisation before implementation begins, while adoption metrics provide insight into how well employees are embracing new ways of working. Continuous feedback loops allow for real-time course corrections, ensuring that change efforts remain on track.
Using the same doctor-patient analogy, the doctor looks for observable data in order to assess the treatment progress. Modifications may be needed based on verbal patient feedback, observations, examinations, and reactions to medication, etc. Your change metrics should be designed to do the same, to tell you if you are progressing well towards the end state, or not.
4. System-Level Interventions to Drive Adoption
To make change stick, organisations need mechanisms that embed change into everyday operations. Key interventions include:
Establishing Change Champions networks to support peer-led adoption
Creating robust communication and capability support channels, ensuring ongoing guidance and reinforcement
Embedding change metrics into enterprise dashboards to sustain leadership attention and accountability
Change Champions play a crucial role in accelerating adoption. These individuals serve as advocates within their teams, reinforcing key messages and addressing concerns on the ground. Robust communication and support channels, such as digital knowledge repositories and dedicated coaching sessions, help employees navigate the complexities of transformation. Moreover, integrating change metrics into enterprise dashboards ensures sustained leadership focus, preventing transformation initiatives from losing momentum over time.
The Risks of Inadequate Change Management
Organisations that neglect structured change management risk experiencing several common pitfalls:
Missed Business Outcomes: If change is not strategically planned and measured, organisations may fail to realize the intended benefits of transformation efforts. And in fact this may be the most critical outcome.
Employee Resistance: Without proper engagement and support mechanisms, employees are more likely to resist changes, leading to lower adoption rates.
Change Fatigue: When multiple transformations occur simultaneously without proper coordination, employees can become overwhelmed, leading to disengagement.
Increased Costs: Poorly managed change initiatives can lead to costly rework, delays, and productivity losses.
A more intentional approach to change management mitigates these risks, ensuring that transformation efforts drive sustainable, long-term value.
Building a High-Impact Change Management Capability
Transformation offices must evolve their approach to change management by developing a high-impact capability that aligns with enterprise priorities. This involves:
Investing in Change Management Expertise: Hiring or upskilling professionals with deep expertise in change methodologies, behavioural science, and organisational psychology.
Integrating Change Management with Strategy: Embedding change management into the transformation office’s strategic planning and execution processes.
Leveraging AI and Automation: Utilizing AI-driven tools to assess change impact, track adoption trends, and provide data-driven insights.
Cultivating Leadership Engagement: Ensuring senior leaders actively sponsor and advocate for change management efforts.
By institutionalizing these capabilities, transformation offices can enhance their ability to drive large-scale change successfully.
The Way Forward
Transformation leaders must move beyond outdated, activity-driven change management approaches that have resulted in transformation targets being missed and adopt a more structured, and data-informed model around people. By embedding change impact measurement, structured planning, and system-level interventions, transformation offices can significantly improve adoption, minimize resistance, and drive sustained business value.
The challenge is clear: without a fundamental shift in how change is managed, even the most well-funded transformations with full senior leadership support risk failure. It’s time for transformation offices to bridge this critical gap and take a more disciplined, structured approach to change management.
By doing so, organisations will not only improve transformation success rates but also foster a more adaptable and resilient workforce, ensuring long-term competitive advantage in an era of continuous change.
Transformation and change professionals often find themselves in the position of defending the value of change management. Despite the critical role that change management plays in ensuring successful project outcomes, many stakeholders remain sceptical. Some view it as a discretionary cost rather than an essential function. Many change management centres of excellences have faced the axe or at least been downsized.
This scepticism can be exacerbated by comments that dismisses roles such as change managers as unnecessary. In Australia, there are even comments by a politician that positions such as change manager “do nothing to improve the lives of everyday Australians”. The context of this comment was targeting positions related cultural, diversity and inclusions advisors, along the same lines as that driven by Trump in the United States. This has upset a lot of change professionals as you can imagine.
To counter this, Change Management Centres of Excellence (CoEs) must move beyond advocacy and education to proactively demonstrate their tangible value. Let’s explore practical approaches to proving the value of change management, ensuring its sustained recognition and investment.
1. Leverage Empirical Research to Support Your Case
There is substantial research demonstrating that change management interventions lead to improved project outcomes. Change practitioners can use these studies as evidence to substantiate their value. For example:
Prosci Research has consistently shown that projects with excellent change management are significantly more likely to achieve their objectives compared to those with poor change management. According to the Best Practices in Change Management study, 88% of participants with excellent change management met or exceeded objectives, while only 13% of those with poor change management met or exceeded objectives. This means that projects with excellent change management were approximately seven times more likely to meet objectives than those with poor change management (Source).
Even implementing fair change management practices can lead to a threefold improvement in project outcomes (Source).
McKinsey found that transformation initiatives are 5.8 times more successful if CEOs communicate a compelling change story, and 6.3 times more successful when leaders share messages about change efforts with the rest of the organisation (Source).
By framing change management as an evidence-based discipline, Change CoEs can strengthen their credibility and influence senior stakeholders. Furthermore, sharing industry benchmarks and case studies showcasing successful change management implementations can add weight to the argument.
2. Calculate the Financial Value of Managing a Change Portfolio
Executives prioritize financial metrics, making it essential to quantify the financial impact of change management. This article How to calculate the financial value of managing a change portfolio provides a structured approach to calculating the financial value of managing a change portfolio. Some key financial considerations include:
Productivity Gains: Effective change management reduces employee resistance and increases adoption rates, leading to quicker realization of benefits. For instance, if a new system is introduced, strong change management ensures employees use it efficiently, eliminating productivity dips.
Cost Avoidance: Poorly managed change efforts can lead to rework, delays, and even project failures, incurring significant costs. For example, a failed system implementation due to lack of change management could require millions in additional investments to correct issues and retrain employees.
Revenue Acceleration: When changes are adopted swiftly and efficiently, organisations can capitalize on new opportunities faster. In industries such as retail, banking, and technology, time-to-market is critical. The faster employees and customers adapt to new changes, the sooner the organisation can generate revenue from those changes.
Risk Mitigation: Resistance and poor change adoption can lead to compliance risks, reputational damage, and disengagement, all of which have financial implications. A compliance failure due to lack of engagement in a new regulatory process could lead to fines and reputational loss.
To make this more tangible, Change CoEs should create financial models that quantify the cost of failed change initiatives versus successful ones. They can also track and report savings from avoided risks and improved efficiency, linking these directly to the organisation’s bottom line.
3. Demonstrate Value Through Behaviour Change
One of the most effective ways to prove the impact of change management is by tracking behaviour change. Change is not successful unless employees adopt new ways of working, and this can be measured using:
Adoption Metrics: Track usage rates of new systems, tools, or processes. For instance, if a company implements a new CRM system, measuring login frequency, data entry consistency, and feature utilization can indicate successful adoption.
Performance Data: Compare key performance indicators (KPIs) before and after change implementation. If a new customer service protocol is introduced, tracking customer satisfaction scores and response times will provide tangible insights into its effectiveness.
Employee Surveys: Gauge sentiment and readiness for change. Pulse surveys can reveal how confident employees feel about a transformation and whether they understand its purpose and benefits.
Stakeholder Feedback: Capture qualitative insights from leaders and frontline employees. Executives often rely on direct feedback from managers to gauge whether changes are being embraced or resisted.
By presenting a clear narrative that links change management efforts to observable behaviour shifts, Change CoEs can make their value more tangible. It is also beneficial to conduct longitudinal studies, tracking behaviour change over time to ensure sustained impact.
Imagine being able to present a set of behaviour metrics that are forward looking measures for benefit realisation. This can position favourably the tangible value of change management activities and approaches.
Customer Experience Improvements: Measure customer satisfaction before and after change initiatives. If a change initiative improves customer interactions, metrics such as Net Promoter Score (NPS) and retention rates will reflect its impact.
Employee Engagement and Retention: Effective change management reduces uncertainty and anxiety, leading to better engagement and lower attrition. Organisations that manage change well see lower absenteeism and stronger workforce commitment.
Organisational Agility: Organisations with strong change management capabilities adapt faster to market disruptions. Companies that successfully embed change management in their DNA are more resilient during economic downturns or competitive shifts.
Cultural Transformation: Change management plays a key role in shaping corporate culture, which influences long-term business success. For example, embedding a culture of continuous learning can make future change initiatives easier to implement.
By framing change management as a driver of strategic outcomes, rather than just an operational function, Change CoEs can enhance their perceived value.
5. Position change as a key part of risk management
Demonstrating the value of change management through risk management is a powerful approach for the Change CoE. By highlighting how effective change management mitigates various risks associated with organisational change, you can justify its importance and secure necessary support and resources.
This is particularly useful and important for the financial services sector where risk is now the front and centre of attention for most senior leaders, with the increasingly intense regulatory environment and scrutiny by regulators.
Risk in Change
Change initiatives inherently carry risks that can impact an organisation’s operations, culture, and bottom line. Effective change management helps identify and address these risks proactively. By implementing a robust change risk management framework, organisations can adapt their overall risk management strategies to cover change-related risks throughout the project lifecycle. This approach allows for early identification of potential obstacles, enabling timely interventions and increasing the likelihood of successful change implementation.
Delivery Risk
Change management plays a crucial role in mitigating delivery risks associated with project implementation. While project managers typically focus on schedule, cost, and quality risks, change managers can identify and manage risks that are delivered into the business as a result of the change. By working closely with project managers, change professionals can introduce processes to minimize the potential business impact of these delivered risks during project delivery. This collaboration ensures that the project not only delivers the required change but does so with minimal disruption to the organisation.
Quantifying Risk Mitigation
To further demonstrate the value of change management, it’s essential to quantify its contribution to risk mitigation. By adapting the organisation’s risk assessment matrix or tools, change managers can determine the probability and potential impact of each identified risk. This analysis allows for prioritization of risks and implementation of appropriate mitigation strategies.
By tracking how change management interventions reduce the likelihood or impact of these risks, you can provide tangible evidence of its value to senior leadership. By framing change management as a critical component of risk management, you can shift the conversation from justifying its existence to showcasing its indispensable role in ensuring successful organisational transformations. This not only demonstrates the value of change management but also aligns it with broader organisational goals of risk reduction and strategic success.
6. Proactively Measure and Track Value Delivery
Tracking and reporting the tangible value created by change management is essential. Organisations frequently undergo leadership transitions, and new decision-makers may question the need for a Change CoE. A well-documented history of impact ensures continuity and ongoing investment.
McKinsey research indicated that Transformations that provide both initiative-level and program-level views of progress through relevant metrics are 7.3 times more likely to succeed (Source).
To achieve this:
Develop a Change Management Dashboard: Use KPIs to track adoption rates, employee readiness, and impact on business metrics.
Create Case Studies: Document success stories with before-and-after comparisons. Case studies should include challenges, change management interventions, and final outcomes.
Conduct Quarterly Impact Reviews: Regularly present insights to senior leaders. Demonstrating trends and ongoing improvements ensures continued executive buy-in.
Link Change Efforts to Strategic Priorities: Show how change management enables key business goals, such as revenue growth, market expansion, or operational efficiency.
7. Shift from Education to Results-Driven Influence
While stakeholder education is important, it has limitations. Many executives have preconceived notions about change management. Rather than relying solely on relationship-building, focus on delivering results that speak for themselves. Key strategies include:
Pilot Programs: Run small-scale change initiatives with measurable impact. If an executive is sceptical, a successful pilot can turn them into an advocate. It is highly unlikely that executives will not want to see metrics that indicate how effective a change initiative is progressing.
Strategic Partnerships: Align with key business units to co-own change success. Partnering with Finance, HR, Risk, Operations and IT leaders can reinforce the business value of change management.
Agile Change Management: Deliver incremental wins to showcase immediate value. Iterative, feedback-driven approaches ensure continuous improvement and visibility.
Change management professionals must move beyond justification and actively prove their worth. By leveraging empirical research, financial calculations, behaviour tracking, alternative value measures, and proactive reporting, Change CoEs can secure their place as indispensable business functions. In a world where scepticism towards roles like change management persists, the best defence is a compelling, evidence-based demonstration of impact.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you calculate change management ROI?
Change management ROI is typically calculated by comparing the cost of the change management investment against the value protected or created through better adoption. The most rigorous approach uses the business case baseline – the expected outcomes if the change is adopted on plan – and measures variance between that baseline and actual outcomes. For example, if a system implementation expected to deliver a 15% productivity gain achieves only 9% due to poor adoption, the difference represents quantifiable value at risk.
What metrics best prove the value of change management to executives?
Executives respond most to financial framing and risk language. The strongest evidence combines adoption rate data showing what percentage of the impacted population is using the change, a comparison to benchmark outcomes from similar changes – Prosci research shows changes with excellent change management are six times more likely to meet objectives – and a risk quantification showing the cost of a delayed or failed implementation relative to the change management investment.
What if leadership does not believe change management makes a difference?
Start with data rather than advocacy. Prosci’s Best Practices in Change Management research – spanning over 50,000 practitioners and projects – consistently shows that initiatives rated excellent for change management are six times more likely to meet objectives than those rated poor. Presenting this external benchmark depersonalises the argument and shifts the conversation from opinion to evidence. Following this with a specific calculation of value at risk for the current initiative is typically more persuasive than general arguments for the discipline.
