When organisations roll out a new system or digital tool, the default playbook tends to look something like this: schedule a training session, send a few announcement emails, hold a town hall or go-live event, and then declare the project complete. It is a familiar pattern, and it is one that consistently fails to produce the outcomes that organisations need. Completion rates for training modules say little about whether people are actually using the new system in their day-to-day work. Attendance at a launch event does not translate into changed behaviour at the desk. The gap between “we trained everyone” and “everyone is using the system effectively” can be enormous, and it is precisely this gap that derails the return on investment for so many technology and transformation programmes.
The root cause of this gap is a fundamental misunderstanding of what user onboarding actually requires. Onboarding is not a moment in time. It is not a box to tick. It is a multi-stage process that unfolds over weeks and months, requiring deliberate effort across a range of levers that together determine whether adoption becomes embedded in the organisation or quietly fades after the initial excitement. Research from Prosci consistently shows that projects with excellent change management are six times more likely to meet their objectives than those with poor change management – yet most organisations still treat onboarding as a communications and training exercise rather than a full change management process.
Full adoption – the kind where people are confident, willing, and consistently using a new system in ways that deliver business value – requires addressing at least eight distinct levers: user capability, user motivation, user capacity, senior manager buy-in, line manager buy-in, communication and awareness, measurement and reinforcement, and strategic alignment. Miss any one of these, and adoption will remain partial at best. This article explores each lever in depth and offers a practical framework for designing an onboarding journey that achieves sustainable, organisation-wide change.
The event-based model of onboarding has its roots in a reasonable intuition: people need information before they can use something new, so give them that information in a structured setting and they will be ready to go. The problem is that adult learning and behaviour change are far more complex than this model assumes. A single training session, however well designed, provides exposure – but exposure is not the same as competence, and competence is not the same as adoption. People need repeated practice, contextualised support, and the confidence that comes from doing something real, not just simulated, before new behaviours become habitual.
Gartner research on digital workplace adoption has highlighted that most technology investments underperform because organisations focus almost entirely on the technical deployment and the go-live moment, while underinvesting in the sustained behaviour change work that happens afterwards. The post-go-live period – typically the first 90 days – is where adoption is either won or lost, yet it is precisely this period that receives the least structured attention in most programme plans. Change management activity drops off just as employees are encountering real-world friction, forming habits, and deciding whether the new way of working is genuinely worth the effort.
Thinking of onboarding as a journey rather than an event reframes the entire challenge. It shifts the question from “did we deliver training?” to “are people using the system confidently and consistently?” It moves the success metric from outputs (training completion, attendance) to outcomes (usage rates, error rates, productivity metrics, user satisfaction). And it creates the organisational mandate to sustain change management activity well beyond go-live, which is where real adoption is ultimately built.
The eight levers of full user adoption
Achieving full adoption requires organisations to work across eight interconnected levers simultaneously. These are not sequential steps but parallel dimensions of the onboarding journey, each of which must receive deliberate design and ongoing attention throughout the adoption lifecycle.
User capability is the most obvious lever – people need to know how to use the system. But capability goes beyond knowing where to click. It encompasses conceptual understanding of why the system works the way it does, procedural fluency in completing tasks efficiently, and the confidence to troubleshoot when things do not go as expected. User motivation is equally foundational. Even highly capable users will revert to old ways of working if they do not see a compelling reason to change. Motivation is shaped by how clearly the benefits of adoption are communicated in terms that are personally relevant to each user group, not just in terms of organisational efficiency.
User capacity is a lever that is frequently overlooked. Employees may be capable and motivated to use a new system, yet lack the time and mental bandwidth to develop proficiency during a busy period. If adoption is competing with peak workloads or concurrent change initiatives, it will consistently lose. Senior manager buy-in and line manager buy-in are the two sponsorship levers, and they operate quite differently. Senior leaders shape the strategic narrative and signal organisational priority; line managers shape the day-to-day environment in which people actually change their behaviour. Communication and awareness, measurement and reinforcement, and strategic alignment round out the framework, ensuring that adoption is visible, tracked, and connected to the organisation’s broader direction of travel.
Building user capability and confidence
Effective capability building starts well before go-live and continues long after it. The pre-launch phase should focus on building awareness and foundational understanding – what is changing, why it matters, and what it will mean for each role. This is distinct from system training, which is most effective when delivered as close to the point of first real use as possible. Training delivered weeks before go-live is largely forgotten by the time it is needed, a finding that is well-established in learning science and confirmed repeatedly in enterprise technology deployments.
Learning design for onboarding should be role-specific, scenario-based, and layered. Generic system overviews are far less effective than task-focused modules that walk users through the exact workflows they will use in their specific jobs. Scenario-based learning – where participants practise in realistic simulations before working with live data – builds procedural fluency in a low-stakes environment. Layered learning, where foundational skills are covered at go-live and more advanced capabilities are introduced over the following weeks, respects the cognitive reality that people can only absorb so much at once.
Confidence is the bridge between capability and consistent use. Many users who have completed training still hesitate to use a new system in real situations because they are not confident they will get it right. Support mechanisms in the post-go-live period – floor walkers, super-users embedded in teams, easily accessible help resources, and a psychologically safe environment where asking questions is normalised – are as important as the training itself. A McKinsey study on large-scale transformation programmes found that organisations that invested heavily in on-the-job support during the first 90 days post-launch achieved adoption rates that were significantly higher than those that relied on classroom training alone.
The critical role of manager buy-in
Of all the levers in the onboarding framework, manager buy-in at both the senior and line manager levels may be the most powerful and the most underdeveloped in practice. Prosci’s research on change management best practices consistently identifies active and visible sponsorship as the single most important contributor to successful change outcomes – yet sponsorship is often confused with endorsement. A senior leader who approves a project and appears at the launch event has provided endorsement. What they need to provide is active, ongoing, visible engagement: talking about the change in team meetings, asking questions about adoption progress, removing barriers when they arise, and role-modelling the new behaviours themselves.
Line managers are the proximate influence on employee behaviour. Employees take their cues from their direct manager about what is genuinely important, what will be rewarded, and what can safely be deprioritised. When line managers actively support adoption – checking in on how team members are finding the new system, making time for practice and questions, celebrating progress – adoption accelerates. When line managers are neutral or disengaged – perhaps because they were not adequately prepared for their role in the change – adoption stalls even when users have received excellent training.
Preparing managers for their adoption role requires specific attention. Many managers have deep expertise in their functional domain but have not been equipped with change leadership skills. An effective onboarding programme includes a specific workstream for managers: helping them understand the adoption journey their teams will experience, giving them language and tools to have productive conversations about the change, and keeping them informed of adoption data so they can act on it. When line managers become active agents of adoption rather than passive recipients of communications, the impact on outcomes is substantial and sustained.
Measurement and reinforcement as adoption drivers
What gets measured gets managed – and in the context of user adoption, this principle is not merely a cliche but a practical necessity. Organisations that track adoption metrics systematically are able to identify where the journey is breaking down, intervene before disengagement becomes entrenched, and demonstrate the value of their change management investment to senior stakeholders. Organisations that rely on training completion rates as their primary adoption metric are flying blind, because completion tells you nothing about whether the learning transferred into changed behaviour.
A robust adoption measurement framework tracks leading and lagging indicators across the adoption journey. Leading indicators – the precursors to adoption – include training completion, awareness levels (measured through pulse surveys), manager engagement scores, and the volume and nature of support requests. Lagging indicators – the actual adoption outcomes – include system usage rates by role and team, error rates, productivity metrics, and user satisfaction scores. Together, these data points paint a picture of where adoption is strong and where it needs additional support.
Reinforcement is the sustained activity that converts early adoption into embedded habit. According to research published in the Harvard Business Review, behaviours that are reinforced through recognition, feedback, and accountability are far more likely to stick than those that are simply trained and left to self-sustain. Reinforcement mechanisms in an onboarding journey include celebrating adoption milestones publicly, incorporating system use into performance conversations, updating processes and job aids so that the new way of working is embedded in documented procedures, and periodically refreshing skills as the system evolves. Reinforcement is not a one-time activity but an ongoing practice that spans the full adoption lifecycle.
Designing an onboarding journey for your organisation
Designing an effective onboarding journey begins with understanding the adoption landscape for the specific change. Not all systems affect all users in the same way, and not all user groups will face the same adoption challenges. A thorough impact assessment – identifying which roles are affected, how significantly their work will change, what capability gaps exist, and what motivational barriers may arise – is the foundation of a well-targeted onboarding plan. Without this analysis, organisations tend to apply a generic approach that works reasonably well for the easiest-to-adopt groups and fails the groups that most need support.
The onboarding journey should be mapped as a timeline with clear phases: awareness and readiness (pre-go-live), active adoption (the first 30-60 days post-go-live), and embedding and reinforcement (60-180 days and beyond). Each phase has different objectives and requires different interventions. The awareness phase focuses on building a compelling case for change and preparing the organisation to receive and use it. The active adoption phase delivers training, floor support, and manager engagement at the moment of real use. The embedding phase shifts focus to reinforcement, measurement, and continuous improvement.
Strategic alignment – the eighth lever – means ensuring that the onboarding journey is designed in the context of the organisation’s broader change portfolio and strategic priorities. If the new system is one of five significant changes landing on the same population in the same quarter, user capacity will be stretched and motivation will be harder to sustain. Understanding the change landscape and sequencing or pacing adoption activity accordingly is a strategic decision that sits above the programme level and requires executive attention. Organisations that manage their change portfolios deliberately are consistently more successful at achieving individual adoption outcomes because they protect the cognitive and emotional capacity their people need to change.
How The Change Compass supports the full onboarding journey
The Change Compass is a purpose-built platform designed to help organisations manage the complexity of change at scale, and this directly supports the full user onboarding journey described in this article. At its core, The Change Compass gives change leaders and senior managers a clear, data-driven view of the change landscape across the organisation – who is being affected by what, when, and at what intensity. This portfolio-level visibility is the foundation for making strategic decisions about sequencing, pacing, and resourcing adoption activity for individual systems and tools.
For onboarding programmes specifically, The Change Compass helps organisations track adoption levers systematically, identify at-risk populations before disengagement becomes entrenched, and provide managers with the information they need to fulfil their sponsorship role effectively. The platform’s change impact data makes it possible to have evidence-based conversations with senior leaders about where adoption support is most needed, making the case for sustained investment in the embedding phase rather than allowing change management activity to drop off after go-live.
By connecting the onboarding journey to the broader change portfolio, The Change Compass also helps organisations protect user capacity – ensuring that adoption of a new system is not sabotaged by competing demands from other concurrent changes. This is a dimension of adoption planning that is almost impossible to manage without the kind of cross-programme visibility that a dedicated platform provides. The result is an onboarding experience that is not only better planned but better sustained, delivering the full adoption outcomes that justify the investment in new systems and tools.
Frequently asked questions
How long should a user onboarding journey last?
The duration of an onboarding journey depends on the complexity of the system, the extent of the behaviour change required, and the size and diversity of the user population. As a general guide, the active adoption phase spans the first 60 days post-go-live, and the embedding phase extends to at least 180 days. For highly complex systems or large-scale deployments, structured adoption support may continue for 12 months or more. The key signal that the embedding phase can be scaled back is sustained, consistent usage rates across user groups – not the passage of a fixed amount of time.
What is the difference between user adoption and user engagement?
User adoption refers to the extent to which people are using a new system or tool in place of previous ways of working – it is fundamentally about behaviour change. User engagement refers to the quality and depth of that use – whether people are using the system confidently, efficiently, and in ways that realise its full capability. Both matter. High adoption with low engagement (everyone logs in but few use advanced features) leaves value on the table. A well-designed onboarding journey addresses both, building adoption first and deepening engagement over time through progressive capability development and reinforcement.
How do you measure whether onboarding has been successful?
Success in onboarding is measured against the adoption outcomes defined at the outset of the programme, not against activity metrics like training completion or event attendance. Meaningful measures of onboarding success include system usage rates by role and team (compared against targets), error rates and support ticket volumes (trending down over time), user confidence and satisfaction scores (measured through pulse surveys), and ultimately the business outcomes that the system was intended to deliver – whether that is processing efficiency, data quality, customer experience, or another value driver. Establishing baseline measures before go-live and tracking them through the adoption journey is essential to demonstrating value and identifying where intervention is needed.
What is the most common reason user adoption fails?
The single most common reason user adoption fails is the premature withdrawal of change management support after go-live. Organisations invest heavily in the lead-up to launch and then assume that adoption will sustain itself once the system is live and users have been trained. In reality, the post-go-live period is where the hardest adoption work happens – where users encounter real-world friction, form habits, and decide whether the new way of working is worth sustaining. Without structured support, reinforcement, and active manager engagement during this period, many users revert to workarounds or old systems. Sustained investment in the embedding phase is the most reliable way to protect the gains made in the active adoption phase.
As a first step in understand the change, change management practitioners usually classify different change impacts into people, process, technology, and customer. There is a great effort and focus placed on describing exactly what the impact of change is from a project or program perspective as a part of the change management plan. The impact analysis can include the processes changes, critical behaviours, as well as how different the new technology and new process is going to be compared to the current process.
However, adopting a user-centric view of change impact (versus a project team’s view) is critical in driving successful change.
Often what is seen as impact as felt by various job roles can be very very different from what is experienced by the end-user as a part of the current state. In order to drive towards the benefits of the change, we need to take into consideration any negative thoughts, support system, employee morale, mindset, and performance review processes for those stakeholders impacted by the change. Let’s take a few examples.
When a project is ‘rolled out’. There are can be a lot of different impacted audience factors to consider. These can include:
Location
Role
Gender
Digital fluency
Age
Length of service
Team size
Availability of support staff
Availability of effective 2-way communication platforms
Effective learning and development processes in place
Functional skill sets
So depending on how these organizational change factors determine the impact of the change initiative on groups of individuals, identified specific impacts can be different. In the change impact assessment process, these should be carefully teased out and identified explicitly. Even how we express the names of the impacts should consider how the changes are perceived.
For example, is an impact ‘Team Leader briefing team members about the new process’ or ‘Weekly team meeting to discuss new process changes’? The initial wording is more focused on the new process, whereas the latter one illustrates that there can be various changes discussed in the meeting. So as a result, practitioners need to be open to the environment in which their messages will be delivered and through this better position and clarify the meaning of the change from the team’s perspective. E.g. can this change be delivered as a bundle with other process changes?
In a recent example, a person is understood by the organisation to be undergoing 6 separate initiatives each with their various impacts. Each initiative has fleshed out the various project impacts and these are listed and planned explicitly. However, this is from the organisation’s perspective. In fact, what the individual is undergoing is quite different.
There are changes that the team or division is undergoing that are not always taken into consideration such as people or team changes. On top of this there are also seasonal workload impacts from the likes of end of financial year, audits or pre-holiday season workload. On top of this, there are also various Covid considerations to take into account – the mother of all changes at the moment. Lockdown and social distancing have profound impacts on individuals leading to physical and psychological health impacts.
How a Major Global Financial Services Firm Boosted Business Performance Through The Change Compass
When organisations embark on a change program, the conversation typically starts with data — data to help understand change, inform decisions, and track progress. But as illustrated by the journey of a major global financial services firm, real business value is achieved when that data becomes the catalyst for a fundamental shift in how change is managed, governed, and embedded into daily business.
Within just one year of using The Change Compass, this firm elevated its change management practice to become a critical driver of strategic decision-making, operational excellence, and business performance improvement.
Let’s explore the four areas where the greatest value was realised — and how your organisation can benefit from a similarly holistic approach.
1. Optimising performance through change portfolio management
Many organisations struggle with visibility: too often, change initiatives happen in silos, leading to undetected risks, duplicative efforts, and suboptimal resource usage. The Change Compass changed that paradigm by allowing leaders to visualise the full spectrum and complexity of ongoing and upcoming changes across the business.
Key outcomes included:
Clear visibility of change complexity: Leaders understood not just the number of initiatives but also their interactions, overlaps, capacity required, and cumulative impacts.
Real-time risk identification: Delivery risks became evident early, enabling proactive mitigation and adjustments.
Strategic prioritisation and sequencing: With improved transparency, change teams could optimise the order of initiatives, manage dependencies, and ensure critical projects were staffed and resourced.
Informed resource planning: Accurate data replaced gut feel, driving more precise allocations of people and budget.
Insight: For many organisations, these benefits translate into fewer unexpected disruptions, smoother implementations, less “change fatigue” for staff, and higher project success rates.
2. Powering change governance with actionable insights
Historically, change teams often struggled to earn a “seat at the table” when major business decisions were made. With The Change Compass, this financial services firm embedded change management as a strategic partner, not an afterthought.
Tangible improvements included:
Change team at decision-making forums: The change team now contributed concrete, data-driven insights alongside the PMO and executive/business leadership.
Integrated insights across functions: Data from The Change Compass connected the dots between initiatives, allowing different teams to align efforts and avoid costly missteps.
Value delivered: This meant better-aligned priorities, more robust business cases for investment, and consistent progress reporting to executives, instilling greater confidence at all levels of the business.
3. Pivoting the Change Practice
True change maturity is not just about delivering projects; it’s about growing the organisation’s ability to manage change as an ongoing capability. Using The Change Compass, the firm shifted from a reactive, project-by-project approach to building a strong, influential change culture.
Results included:
Strategic partnering skills: Change leaders became trusted advisors to the business, not just project facilitators.
Community building: A sense of shared mission and ownership emerged among those involved in change, breaking down silos and fostering peer support.
Influence and credibility: The change function established itself as a go-to resource for insight, guidance, and innovation.
Broader benefit: Over time, this led to more consistent adoption of new ways of working, higher engagement, and accelerated pace of transformation.
4. Developing strategic change capability
Finally, the journey was not just about fixing today’s pain points – it was about future-proofing the organisation. By centring decisions on solid data, The Change Compass helped this firm systematically level up its change maturity.
Major advances included:
Data-driven prioritisation: Clarity on what matters most, reducing wasteful activity and focusing on business-critical shifts.
Partnership between business and PMO: Rather than working in isolation, both functions now collaborated with a common understanding of priorities, impacts, and trade-offs.
Foundation for continuous improvement: Ongoing education, supported by real-world analytics, equipped leaders at every level to steer change strategically.
Enduring value: Through this approach, change management became an integral part of the business’s DNA, enabling smarter, faster responses to both market opportunities and challenges.
Why The Change Compass Delivers Real Results
The experience of this global financial services firm illustrates why The Change Compass is not just a tool – it’s a transformational enabler. Organisations using The Change Compass typically report:
Reduced business performance disruptions
Greater alignment between change, operations, and strategy
Improved staff engagement and reduced change fatigue
Faster realisation of business value from new initiatives
By illuminating the complex web of change, reducing uncertainty, and embedding data-driven insights into everyday business, The Change Compass doesn’t just help organisations “manage change” – it helps them excel through change.
Are you ready to turn change from a headache into a competitive advantage? Discover how The Change Compass can help your business unlock its full potential.
If you’d like to explore these outcomes in detail or get a tailored consultation, contact us today. Let’s accelerate your change journey together.
On Google,, the 2nd most searched term in change management is ‘change management process’. Users are keen to understand a standard formula that they can apply to manage any change. Most users are looking for something simple, and clear, and lay out a step-by-step process that describes what they need to do to manage change.
Managing change is no longer the arena for change practitioners. The field of change management has grown in such leaps and bounds in the past 20 years that most leadership concepts now have a section on change management. Nearly all large 1st and 2nd tier consulting firms have a change management practice, even the likes of McKinsey, BCG,, and Bain.
Around us, we frequently see change management being mentioned. Change is even a visible tagline for the marketing campaign for lots of organizations. Accenture’s marketing tagline in 2021 is “Let there be change”. The Motto for The University of Technology Sydney is “Think. Change. Do”.
What are the common change management processes?
Prosci is one of the most known change processes, especially for those located in the United States. Change First has a ‘PCI’ (People-Centered Implementation) model. Then there is John Kotter’s 8 steps for leading change. What all the models have in common is the initial engagement and planning, followed by change implementation, ending with a transition and sustaining phase.
Companies like having one change process to follow.
Most organizations with a change management practice will have, as part of their offering, one change management process for all practitioners/managers to follow.
Why is that?
A common language to talk about managing change so that different stakeholders can refer to the same language, especially those who are not changing practitioners. Creating terms that are easily understood by stakeholders within the company makes sense.
Ensure new change contractors adhere to “the way of doing things” in managing change within the organization. This is often a big complaint, that a new contractor will bring with him/her new ways of doing things, many of which may not gel well within the particular organization.
Create a minimum level of expected quality in managing change so that at least the ‘minimum’ is carried out and that there isn’t anything obvious that is left out. This is especially important for project teams who may not know what change managers do and what outputs they should be working on.
Prosci’s ADKAR model, a framework focusing on five key elements—Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement—that individuals need to successfully navigate change.
John Kotter’s 8 steps model for leading change, providing a roadmap for organizations to effectively manage change, from creating a sense of urgency to anchoring changes in the company culture.
So what is wrong with using a change management process?
Not one change process may be relevant for all cases Change management processes and concepts are good as general references to guide the change practitioner in baselining and learning the key steps that are critical in establishing a good change outcome. No change management process can suit every company and every type of change. This is why it is a good idea to leverage a diverse range of change processes for change managers who are starting out in the industry. Different change processes may cover different areas, therefore provide a synergistic range of references.
For example, John Kotter’s 8 steps of leading change are great for all levels of leaders and team managers as the model is focused on managers leading groups of people through change. On the other hand, Prosci’s ADKAR model is more suitable for a project context where there are a series of activities over several project phases to lead impacted stakeholders through the change.
Also, some change processes may not be applicable for all change scenarios. For example, the famous ‘change curve’ or the Kubler-Ross model of grief and loss. For some reason, this model has been applied so much within a change context that a lot of business people expect that the ‘change curve’ will always occur.
This is absolutely false. In the change curve, there is a prescribed process of shock, denial, frustration, and depression. There are not many change scenarios in which large groups of people go through these emotions. Examples include large-scale restructuring involving retrenchments. However, for standard process changes, technology upgrades, or new product launches, it is very rare that you will see this process being applicable at all.
Blindly following the process One of the biggest dangers and risks of following a change process is not to know when to deviate from the process. This may especially be the case for less experienced change practitioners. The outcome of blindly following the process can mean that the change actually does not happen and the change dial is not moved at the end.
What I often see from change managers who blindly follow the process is a change plan that contains a series of generic activities such as stakeholder engagement, communication, and then launch. Often in these cases, there isn’t a deep understanding of what the change involves from the perspectives of impacted employees. What it means to them may be more than just meeting informational needs. There could be subconscious attachments or preferences/habits that are hard to break.
An analysis of the perceptions and history of changes experienced by those impacted by change is critical. What you may uncover is potential anxieties, expectations, habits, and misunderstanding of what the change involves. This may be ignored by popular change processes.
Change processes may not be linear Experienced change practitioners have seen this. Often what is planned on paper does not actually pan out to be the case. Most change processes follow a scenario where everything goes well. But for complex changes, there are often mishaps or obstacles.
For example:
Key stakeholder groups were not identified upfront and the delay in engaging with them causes overall project delays and stakeholder complications.
Feedback from stakeholders is that the initial messaging was not clear enough and did not reach all groups. Another round of communications and engagement campaign is required to reset expectations.
Learning content was too long and did not sufficiently match employee expectations, thereby resulting in lower completion rates.
After the project rollout, as soon as resources were pulled out of the project team after go-live, adoption rates dived, resulting in little benefits achieved.
In many of these cases described above, the change practitioner needs to repeat certain processes, go back to previous steps, or even split stakeholders with some progressing further in the change process than others.
Following a process may inhibit experimentation One of the core aspects of agile ways of working in implementing change is experimentation. We see teams from development and marketing constantly experiment and learn to evolve into a solution that meets business objectives. In change management, there is little practice in experimentation, even though this is such a core part of agile.
Blindly following the process
One of the reasons could be that change practitioners are used to following a prescribed change process and not used to experimenting with their change approach. Instead, most rely on previous experience or what others have done in other change initiatives. Despite this, there are many good reasons for experimenting change approaches, especially for large/complex change initiatives.
Potential experiments can include:
Communication positioning
Leader storyline for the rationale of the change
Training content
Change measurement
Impact assessment design
Townhall design
Behavior reinforcement and incentives
Not sufficiently emphasizing the importance of measurement Measurement is one of the most important aspects of managing change. Without knowing exactly the outcome of each of the activities we are executing how do we know that we are in the right trajectory? Also, measuring our change intervention ensures that we have the exact gauge on how effective the interventions are, and also where the stakeholders are along the journey. If we’ve not had any complaints or ‘noise’ does not mean that all is well and that the change will take place.
How are you measuring your changes so that you understand where your stakeholders are transitioning to?
Future Trends: Discuss emerging trends and innovations in the field of change management, such as the integration of artificial intelligence, agile methodologies, or digital transformation initiatives. Providing insights into future directions can help readers stay ahead of the curve and adapt their change management strategies accordingly.
In addition to established methodologies, the future of change management is being shaped by cutting-edge technologies and innovative approaches that are revolutionizing how organizations navigate transitions. One of the most exciting developments is the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into change management processes. AI-powered analytics can provide deep insights into organizational dynamics, predicting potential challenges and offering personalized interventions to drive successful change outcomes.
Furthermore, the rise of agile methodologies is transforming traditional change management practices. Agile principles emphasize adaptability, collaboration, and iterative progress, enabling organizations to respond rapidly to evolving market conditions and stakeholder needs. By embracing agile frameworks, change leaders can foster a culture of continuous improvement and empower teams to embrace change as a catalyst for innovation.
Moreover, digital transformation initiatives are reshaping the landscape of change management. As businesses undergo digital transformations to stay competitive in today’s rapidly evolving digital economy, change management becomes increasingly intertwined with technology adoption and organizational agility. Leaders must navigate complex ecosystems of interconnected systems, processes, and stakeholders, leveraging digital tools and platforms to drive seamless transitions and sustainable change.
Incorporating these emerging trends into their change management strategies, organizations can position themselves at the forefront of innovation, driving successful transformations that propel them toward future growth and success.
Ever since the epidemic began people have started to suffer mental health issues. In fact, according to Harvard Business Review, recent studies have shown that 42% of employees globally have experienced a decline in mental health since the commencement of Covid. This is not a surprise given that governments have routinely locked-down populations to ensure safety and contain the spread of the virus. For change practitioners driving change initiatives within this context, it is hard to ignore these facts.
However, a lot of change practitioners are advised to steer clear of any mental health issues since they are not health practitioners and not qualified to deal with mental health issues. This may be true. However, just because change practitioners cannot advise on dealing with individuals with mental health issues, this does not mean that their approaches cannot take mental health into consideration. In fact, if a significant portion of the employee population have experienced reduced mental health, this needs to be taken into account and not ignored. Ignoring the facts can mean unsuccessful change outcomes.
So how can change practitioners take into account mental health issues affecting employees so that they are still able to drive successful initiatives?
Common mental health issues
Firstly, let’s look closer at common mental health issues impacting employees during the pandemic.
Anxiety and Depression
A recent report found that a quarter of 10-24-year-olds in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) said that they had seriously considered suicide. Other surveys consistently show significant increases in anxiety and depressive disorders and correspond with pandemic trends.
Symptoms of anxiety can range from insomnia, panic attacks, feeling of apprehension, or impending doom, and breathlessness. Anxiety symptoms can also be less physically pronounced such as sweating, dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating, and irritability. Symptoms of depression can include difficulty finding joy and difficulty in engaging in normal activities, low energy, declined appetite, hopelessness, and that everything seems an effort.
Languishing
For a section of the population, it may be that they are not feeling severe enough to be diagnosed as being depressed or anxious in a clinical sense. However, it does not mean that their mental health states are optimal. The New York Times labelled this ‘feeling blah’ as ‘languishing’ and that it could be the dominant emotion of 2021. Languishing is the in-between level of the optimal level of mental health and suffering from mental health illness.
People were not feeling burnt out of depressed per se. However, there’s less of the usual excitement, hope and joy in their usual daily lives. Recently I visited my medical practitioner and he commented that of his patients most are suffering various medical conditions and that there are definitely a lot more reports of mental health concerns. People who experience this may not even report it nor even notice it. First comes fewer social interactions, then comes increasing solitude and even isolation.
Incorporating mental health concerns in change delivery tactics
Acknowledgement
The first step to take in incorporating people’s mental health concerns in change delivery is to openly acknowledge this. A lot of corporate communications functions would much prefer to not touch anything that is even remotely negative. However, acknowledging what people are going through builds trust and connection. Ignoring the elephant in the room will not help to engage employees. It is not that this needs to be the front-and-centre of the communication messaging. However, mentioning that there may be employees suffering from mental health issues can be the first step in building improved connections and confront the stigma.
This is especially important if you are driving an initiative that will have a significant impact on employees. If you are requiring employees to undergo significant impact whilst they may be battling with mental health issues, then addressing it head-on is critical.
Role model and sharing of experiences
The initiative sponsor and various change champions can be leveraged to share their personal experiences in dealing with mental health concerns. This helps to de-stigmatize mental health in the workplace and open up the discussion of people’s challenges. During forums, town halls, or even in articles or newsletters, the sponsor can share his/her own experiences in dealing with mental health issues. The trick is to be candid and open. This helps to foster trust with the employees.
Picking up on cues when engaging with individual stakeholders
When working with various stakeholders it helps to establish routine of ‘checking-in’ to sense-check the mental status of everyone prior to starting the meeting. This helps to level-set everyone’s mental status prior to diving into work discussions and helps everyone to understand how others are doing, thereby creating connectivity and inclusiveness.
If you pick up particular cues that the stakeholder may be suffering from mental health issues check-in individually with them to see if they are doing ok. Then, connect them to any company resources available such as employee assistance programs.
Map out the initiatives that impact them – prioritise and sequence.
Mapping out the various initiatives that impact the stakeholder group is one of the most strategic tactics in this list. It means taking an end-user perspective and plotting out all the various initiatives and changes that impact them. Taking this end-user, and design thinking approach, we are not just concerned about the particular initiative that we are driving, but all the various initiatives that the person is/will be experiencing.
During times of change fatigue, it may be that proactive intervention may be required to better prioritise and sequence the change rollout to manage the capacity of the impacted stakeholders. To read up on how to do this refer to the following article:
Different employee groups may be experiencing different needs and challenges. Those with children and that are dealing with childcare challenges during the working day may be experiencing different mental health challenges than those who are singles. Singles may be more inclined to feel isolated and disconnected with limited social support.
By creating different segments, you can position communication messages to better target those audience groups. These are some ideas of potential change tactics for different employee groups:
Employees with children and/or dependents – Offering flexibility in selecting time slots for training sessions, or record any town hall sessions in case they were interrupted during the session
Fully remote workers – Scheduling engagement sessions that involve facilitated discussions on personal experiences in the broader sense beyond just the initiative itself
Non-remote workers – Organising virtual sessions for non-remote workers to connect with remote workers to foster greater connection
Managers – Organise engagement sessions with managers that include content on dealing with employees on mental health issues as a part of the overall manager engagement session content
Measure
As a part of the overall change tactic of successfully implementing the initiative, it makes sense to measure and track employee sentiments. A typical change readiness assessment survey may be supplemented by items on employee mental health. This will help to proactively assess the extent of the mental health challenge for employees and how they may impact the extent to which the initiative could be successful. Survey findings may be socialised with leaders to derive subsequent strategies to tackle the issues.
Surveys do not need to be long and exhaustive. A common digital practice for applications is short, and sharp pulse ratings that only have a few items. Having frequent pulse surveys also helps to assess the development of the issues at hand and to what extent employee sentiments are as anticipated.
