by The Change Compass | Change approach
Telling compelling stories of change is one of the most underinvested capabilities in organisational transformation. Leaders spend enormous effort designing the technical components of a change — the new system, the restructured process, the revised operating model — but comparatively little time on the narrative that will make employees understand why it matters, what it means for them, and why they should commit to it. The result is change programmes that are technically sound but emotionally absent, where communications are accurate but not persuasive, and where the case for change exists in a strategy document but never lands in the hearts and minds of the people who have to live it.
This is a significant capability gap with measurable consequences. McKinsey research on organisational transformations consistently finds that clear, compelling communication of the change rationale is one of the strongest predictors of transformation success — and that the absence of a coherent narrative is among the most common causes of change resistance. Stories are not soft extras layered on top of the real change work. They are the mechanism through which change becomes real for the people it affects.
Why stories work where data does not
Most change communications lead with data: the business case figures, the efficiency gains, the market share rationale, the cost savings. This is understandable — leaders feel more confident presenting quantified arguments, and finance departments require them. But data alone rarely generates commitment. It generates comprehension at best, compliance at worst, and it almost never produces the emotional engagement that sustains behaviour change through the difficulty and disruption that real transformation involves.
The reason stories are more effective than data at driving behavioural change is neurological. Research published in Harvard Business Review on the neuroscience of storytelling found that narratives trigger the release of oxytocin — a neurochemical associated with trust, empathy, and cooperation — in ways that data presentation does not. When we hear a story that involves a character facing a recognisable challenge, our brains synchronise with the narrator’s. We feel the tension, the stakes, and the possibility of resolution. This neural coupling is what makes stories memorable and motivating in ways that spreadsheets are not.
For change leaders, this means that the most important communication about a transformation is not the business case slide with the projected ROI. It is the story of why this change is necessary, who it will benefit, what the organisation is moving away from and what it is moving towards, and what is at stake if the change does not succeed. Told well, this narrative creates the psychological conditions for commitment. Told poorly — or not told at all — it leaves a vacuum that is filled by rumour, cynicism, and resistance.
The anatomy of a compelling change story
Effective change stories are not simply positive communications about a programme. They have a recognisable structure that mirrors the structure of compelling narrative across all human cultures: a protagonist facing a challenge, a turning point that requires action, a path forward, and a vision of what success looks like. This structure is not manipulative — it is the shape that human beings use to make sense of their experience, and it is the shape that makes information most easily retained and acted upon.
The protagonist in a change story is almost always the audience — the employees who are being asked to change. Not the organisation in the abstract, not the leadership team, not the technology platform. The people sitting in the room or reading the communication, whose daily work is about to be affected. A change story that positions the employees as passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere does not generate commitment. One that positions them as agents facing a shared challenge — and that offers them a meaningful role in the resolution — does.
The challenge in a change story is the honest account of why the status quo is not sustainable. This requires candour that many change programmes avoid: the competitor that is gaining ground, the customer experience that is falling short, the process inefficiency that is costing the organisation in ways that are no longer tolerable. Leaders sometimes fear that this honesty will create alarm or undermine confidence. The research suggests the opposite: employees who understand the real reason for a change are substantially more likely to engage with it than those who receive sanitised communications that never explain why the organisation cannot stay where it is.
The turning point is the decision to act — the moment at which the organisation commits to a different path. This is where the change programme itself enters the story, not as the whole story but as the response to the challenge. And the vision of success is the specific, concrete description of what the organisation will look like when the change has worked: not in the abstract language of values and aspirations, but in the lived experience of the employees who will inhabit that future.
Three types of change stories leaders need to master
Different moments in a transformation call for different kinds of story. The most effective change communicators have a repertoire — they know which type of story to reach for depending on the audience, the stage of the programme, and the specific barrier they are trying to overcome.
The vision story is the foundational narrative: where are we going, why does it matter, and what will be better when we get there? This is the story that senior leaders need to be able to tell consistently and compellingly from the earliest stages of a transformation. Its purpose is not to answer all the questions — those will emerge as the programme develops — but to establish the emotional north star that gives the change meaning. The best vision stories are specific enough to be credible and human enough to be motivating. They describe the experience of a customer, an employee, or a community in the transformed world, not just the organisation’s strategic position.
The progress story is told during implementation, and it serves a different function. Its purpose is to sustain momentum through the period — which is longer and harder than most change plans acknowledge — between the initial excitement of launch and the eventual consolidation of the new way of working. Progress stories celebrate early evidence that the change is working: a team that has adopted a new process and found it genuinely easier, a customer whose experience has improved, a metric that has moved in the right direction. Research on the power of small wins published in Harvard Business Review found that visible progress, even in small increments, is one of the most powerful motivators of sustained effort. Progress stories make that progress visible.
The challenge-and-response story is the one that most change communicators avoid, but it is often the most credible and most powerful. It acknowledges that the change has not gone according to plan in a specific area — and then describes what the organisation did to respond. This is the story that builds trust, because it demonstrates that leadership is honest, that the organisation learns rather than just reporting its successes, and that the people who raised concerns were heard. In an environment where employees have lived through multiple transformations and have grown sceptical of communications that consistently present the programme in a positive light, the candid challenge-and-response story is frequently more persuasive than any amount of good news.
The role of specific detail in making stories credible
The single most common failure in change storytelling is abstraction. Leaders default to general language — “we need to become more agile,” “our customers expect a better experience,” “we need to compete in a rapidly changing environment” — because it feels safe and avoids saying anything that might be contested. But abstraction is the enemy of persuasion. Employees who hear general language about the need for change do not feel the urgency. They do not see themselves in the story. They do not understand what, specifically, is expected of them.
Specific detail does the opposite. A story about a specific customer who experienced a specific problem with the current process is more persuasive than a reference to “declining customer satisfaction scores.” A description of what a specific team’s daily work will look like under the new operating model is more motivating than a slide about “improved ways of working.” The specificity signals that the change has been thought through, that leadership understands the real implications, and that the vision is achievable rather than aspirational in the vague sense of that word.
Specificity also supports one of the most important functions of change storytelling: helping employees understand what the change means for their role specifically, not for the organisation in general. The question that sits behind almost every employee’s engagement with a change communication is “what does this mean for me?” A story that answers that question — even partially, even incompletely — is far more effective than one that does not. This is why the most effective change stories are told at the team level, by immediate managers who can translate the organisational narrative into the specific daily reality of the people who report to them.
Equipping managers to tell the story
The research is consistent on this point: the immediate manager is the most significant mediator of how employees experience and respond to organisational change. Prosci’s research on the manager’s role in change found that employees who rated their manager as effective at communicating about and supporting change were five times more likely to report successful personal adoption than those with ineffective managers. This places an enormous premium on manager capability in change storytelling — and an enormous responsibility on the change team and senior leadership to equip managers to perform that role.
Equipping managers to tell change stories well requires more than sending them a communication pack and asking them to cascade the key messages. It requires giving them the underlying narrative — the honest account of why the change is happening, including the parts that are uncomfortable — and trusting them to translate it for their team. It requires giving them sufficient notice and context to have genuine conversations rather than reading from a script. And it requires giving them guidance on how to handle the questions they are most likely to receive, including the ones that do not yet have definitive answers.
This preparation is different from message training. The goal is not to create consistency of wording across all managers — employees notice when their manager is reciting a script, and it is counterproductive. The goal is to create consistency of understanding, so that every manager is drawing on the same honest account of the change and can answer questions authentically, with their own words, in ways that resonate with their team’s specific concerns.
Using data to support the story rather than replace it
Data and story are not alternatives — they are complements. The most effective change communications embed data within a narrative frame rather than presenting the data and expecting it to generate its own meaning. A statistic that the organisation’s customer satisfaction score has declined by eight percentage points over two years is a data point. The story of the specific customers who experienced that decline, what it means for their relationship with the organisation, and what the organisation has decided to do about it, with the data as supporting evidence, is persuasive.
This principle extends to the way change measurement data is communicated during implementation. Adoption rates, readiness survey results, and training completion figures are all useful, but they are most powerful when embedded in a narrative about how the programme is progressing, what the data reveals about where additional support is needed, and what the organisation is doing in response. A measurement report presented as a table of numbers generates much less engagement than the same data woven into a story about the programme’s journey and the actions being taken to support the people who are finding the transition difficult.
Platforms like The Change Compass support this integration by providing change leaders and portfolio managers with the structured data — change load, impact distribution, adoption indicators by team and programme — that can anchor a credible story about how the portfolio is being managed. The data does not tell the story on its own, but it gives change communicators the factual grounding that makes their narrative credible to sceptical audiences, particularly at the executive and governance level where the story needs to be told in the language of evidence as well as the language of meaning.
Frequently asked questions
Why is storytelling important in change management?
Storytelling is important in change management because data and logical arguments alone rarely generate the emotional commitment that sustained behaviour change requires. Stories trigger neurological responses — including the release of oxytocin — that create empathy, trust, and motivation in ways that data presentation does not. Employees who understand the why of a change through a compelling narrative are substantially more likely to engage, adopt, and sustain new behaviours than those who receive only factual information about what is changing.
What makes a change story compelling?
A compelling change story has a clear protagonist — ideally the audience themselves — facing a recognisable challenge that is honestly described. It includes a turning point that explains why the status quo is no longer viable, a credible path forward, and a specific, human description of what success will look like. It avoids abstraction in favour of specific detail, and it is honest about difficulty and uncertainty rather than presenting an unrealistically positive picture.
How should leaders use stories differently at different stages of a change programme?
In the early stages of a transformation, the vision story is most important: it establishes why the change is necessary and what the organisation is moving towards. During implementation, progress stories sustain momentum by making small wins visible and demonstrating that the change is working. When difficulties emerge, challenge-and-response stories build trust by showing that leadership is honest about setbacks and responsive to concerns. Each type of story serves a different purpose and should be part of a deliberate communication strategy rather than generated ad hoc.
How do managers contribute to change storytelling?
Managers are the most important storytellers in any change programme because they translate the organisational narrative into the specific daily reality of their team. Their credibility with their team members — built through ongoing relationships — makes their version of the change story far more persuasive than anything delivered centrally. Effective change programmes equip managers with the underlying narrative, the honest context, and the guidance to handle questions authentically, rather than asking them to cascade scripted key messages.
References
by The Change Compass | Change approach, Change Initiatives
Recently, with the relentless pace of work, the changing weather conditions, and inadequate sleep, I had caught a cold. In recovering from the cold I started wondering more about the whole life cycle of sickness and wellness. Could it be that we can leverage from medicine how we improve the health of the organization as we design the change management process? In many ways, organizational health and well-being can be an analogy to how healthy a human being is. If the health of the organization is not great due to various imbalances in the system, it can fall ill and become less effective, thereby not meeting its goals, which is a topic often discussed in various organizational health blogs.
So how may we leverage the clinical approach that medicine adopts to disease treatment and maintenance of health to how we approach change management for positive change? In Medicine, the approach is based on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. Let’s use these three phases to further understand what this approach means when applied in a change management context.
Diagnosis
One of the most important parts of being a medical practitioner is the ability to establish rapport with a patient. We have all been to doctors who spend barely 5 minutes with us and quickly subscribe pills before moving on to the next patient. Whilst the ramifications of limited rapport may not be great with a minor ailment, with complex diseases lack of rapport may result in the wrong diagnosis as important detail may have been missed or not prompted.
To effectively diagnose a patient the medical practitioner begins by taking the medical history before commencing on a physical examination. In a similar way, to really understand what is going on in the organization and why it needs to change we need to understand where it has been. Can an organization’s history can tell us why it is in the position that it is in currently? What are external factors? What has worked or has not worked in the past in undergoing change? What best practices have been used? Have there been incidents where change outcome was disastrous? What were the lessons learnt? What leadership style or ways of engagement has worked?
Similar to undertaking a physical examination, it is also important to analyze what conditions the organization is in currently prior to implementing a change. How effective are different levels of leaders is driving and engaging their teams on change initiatives? Is there any ‘signal loss’ in cascading information up and down or across the organization? What have been some of the common stories told about change? What systems are in place to support change initiatives? For example, change champions, communication channels or learning processes.
Diagnostic tools
Physicians leverage diagnostic tools in diagnosing a patient’s illness. This is based on what is presented by the patient and the physician’s overall assessment based on visible or inferred observations. For example, the DSM-5 is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that is used to diagnose psychological and psychiatric disorders. The physician does not blindly follow the diagnostic tools to formulate an assessment. In the same way in diagnosing the organization we should also seek to understand first and then make the diagnosis based on evidence (inferred or observable). In this way, we should not blindly follow a particular change framework in ‘diagnosing’ the organization as this depends on the organization as well as the chosen change framework.
In change management we do not have just one diagnostic tool, we have several frameworks in which to help our diagnosis. There is no one framework that is applicable in all situations. Different models may be useful in certain situation. The trick is to know which ones to leverage in the right type of situations. There are various models such as the Mckinsey STAR model, systems theory, SWOT analysis, nudge theory, or force field analysis to identify key issues across the organisations. Here, we focus on some of the more ‘change-specific models’.
John Kotter’s theory (8-step model) is great when applied to a significant strategy execution, restructuring or organization-wide change. In these situations, the strategy vision clarity has to be clear, a clear sense of urgency created and understood, and strong leadership coalition to drive through any employee resistance to the change. With this type of significant change leaders need to continuously drive and reinforce the change, and integrate this within the ways of working within the organization.
However, when the organizational change is more of a project such as a technology or process change, then the Prosci ADKAR change management model (Awareness Desire Knowledge Ability Reinforcement) model may be more relevant. This is a process focused model that aims to transition an individual from the current situation to the new state. Key enablers or activities may be executed on to help drive this transition. These include providing the right communications, addressing any employee inputs, training sessions, coaching and recognition for the right behaviors adopted.
When the change involves significant restructuring where there could be redundancies including role changes and people transitions then the Kubler-Ross model may be leveraged. The model outlines an individual’s emotional journey through loss and stages of grief during the change process. The journey starts with shock, denial, then frustration, depression, experimentation and finally decision and integration. As often with significant people transitions and job redundancies emotions are high and these need to be carefully addressed and managed. However, if the change is more focused on a simple process change where there is not a lot of heightened emotional reactions, this model may not be as useful.
The change practitioner is not always engaged or consulted at the beginning of a change initiative. Sometimes it is only when things are not going well and according to plan that the change consultant is engaged to turn things around. Irrespective of whether the change initiative is in the commencement or in the middle of the journey, effective organizational diagnosis is important to understand exactly what change intervention is required to address the situation. You may need to conduct focus groups as a part of employee engagement to get this data, and depending on the measurement model you take a Likert system analysis may be used.
Just as a good medical practitioner will utilize a combination of evidence/data and judgment according to diagnostic frameworks to determine the best course of treatment, the change practitioner should also follow suit. What types of data should be used to not only diagnose but also to subscribe treatment? The following is a summary of key types of data to look for and collect.
What is the change
– Why is the organisational change necessary?
– What does the change benefit? Its customers or its employees?
– What does the end state look like?
What is the impact
– Who is impacted by the change projects?
– What is the extent of the impact?
– What are the impacts on the role/person/organization? How does it affect organizational culture, organisational structures or organizational performance?
– What time period is the impact? In what ways?
– What are the change transition activities proposed?
Readiness for the change
– How ready are the impacted people for the change? What is the organisational diagnosis?
– How is this measured and reported for change management metrics?
– What is the minimum readiness criteria?
A good physician looks at the patient as a whole and not just the particular symptoms he or she is presenting. Based on the the symptoms presented, it could be that there are several disorders and not just one. In a similar way, a change leader needs to understand what the total picture of change in doing an organisational diagnosis is and not just isolate change to one project. Understanding what the totality of changes mean to the impacted stakeholder will go a long way in deriving what change approach or support is required.
To effectively diagnose a change situation the practitioner needs to use a data and evidence-based approach to understand where the organization has been, where it is and where it is going. Again using data, the practitioner needs to effectively frame the problem and diagnose the situation using the appropriate change model/framework(s). The right diagnose is critical to ensure the right change intervention is subscribed. For the same reason that wrongly diagnosing a patient could lead to further illness the same can be said for the wrong diagnosis of the change situation for an organization.
—————
If you enjoyed this article please share this with your contacts.
AI-Assisted Change Diagnostics in 2025
The field of change diagnostics has changed significantly since 2018. The most important development is the availability of AI-powered tools that can process large volumes of organisational data to produce a change diagnostic much faster and with much greater coverage than traditional interview-based or survey-based approaches.
Where a traditional change diagnostic might involve 20-30 stakeholder interviews over four to six weeks, an AI-assisted diagnostic can analyse HR system data, communication patterns, survey history, and project data to identify the highest-risk employee groups, likely resistance sources, and change capacity constraints in a fraction of the time. The qualitative depth of interviews remains valuable for understanding context and building relationships with key stakeholders – but as a complement to data-driven diagnostics, not as the primary method.
The Change Compass platform provides a structured change diagnostic capability that combines change impact data with workforce data to assess change readiness and saturation at the group level – enabling change leaders to make diagnostic decisions based on evidence rather than assumption.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a change diagnostic in change management? A change diagnostic is a structured assessment conducted before a change programme begins, designed to identify the key risks, resistance sources, and readiness gaps that the change management approach needs to address. It typically covers the scale and nature of the change, the readiness and alignment of key leaders, the change capacity of affected employee groups, and the cultural factors that will influence adoption. A good change diagnostic prevents the change team from applying a generic approach to a specific organisational context.
What are the most common change diagnostic models? Commonly used change diagnostic models include the McKinsey 7-S Framework, the Burke-Litwin Causal Model, Force Field Analysis, and change saturation assessment. The right model depends on the diagnostic question – not all models are equally useful in all contexts.
How long does a change diagnostic take? A basic change diagnostic for a mid-scale initiative can be completed in two to four weeks. A comprehensive diagnostic for a large, complex transformation programme may take six to eight weeks. AI-assisted diagnostics that draw on existing organisational data can significantly compress this timeline while increasing the coverage of the assessment.
by The Change Compass | Change approach, Change Initiatives
How to prove the value of change management: a practical guide for 2026
Change management has a persistent credibility problem. Not because the discipline lacks value, but because the discipline has historically struggled to demonstrate its value in the language that organisations use to make resource and investment decisions.
In organisations that take change management seriously, the evidence of its impact is visible in adoption rates, in sustained behaviour change, in transformation programmes that deliver their projected benefits. But in organisations that are still debating whether to invest, change practitioners are still being asked to justify their presence at the table, still being brought in too late, and still being defunded when cost pressure builds.
The answer to this problem is not to make a better argument. It is to build a better evidence base. Proving the value of change management requires the same discipline that any other business function uses to justify its investment: defined outcomes, tracked metrics, and a credible link between the resources deployed and the results achieved.
This article sets out a practical framework for proving the value of change management in enterprise environments, drawing on the most robust research available and the specific methods that have worked in practice.
Why the standard arguments no longer cut through
The traditional approach to proving change management value relies heavily on research statistics. Change practitioners cite the familiar figures: 70% of transformation programmes fail, projects with excellent change management are six times more likely to meet their objectives, organisations without change management see adoption rates well below target.
These statistics are true and they matter. But they have a significant limitation: they are generic. An executive who has heard them three times is no more likely to increase the change management budget on the fourth hearing than on the first. What they actually need is evidence that is specific to their organisation, their portfolio, and their investment.
The shift from generic research citations to organisation-specific evidence is the single most powerful change a change function can make in how it presents its case. Research becomes context. Organisation-specific data becomes proof.
The four levels at which change management value can be demonstrated
There are four distinct levels at which the value of change management can be measured and communicated, and each level is more compelling than the last.
Level 1: Activity output. This is the most common level at which change management demonstrates its work: how many communications were sent, how many training sessions were delivered, how many stakeholder engagements were conducted. Activity output is useful for demonstrating that work is being done, but it does not demonstrate that the work is producing outcomes. It is the weakest form of value evidence.
Level 2: Adoption outcomes. This is where change management starts to build a genuinely compelling case. If a programme can demonstrate that 85% of the target population is actively using the new system or following the new process, and that this adoption level was achieved within the planned timeframe, that is evidence of change management effectiveness that connects directly to programme delivery.
Level 3: Benefits realisation. This is the level that matters most to finance and executive leadership. If adoption data can be linked to the expected business outcomes in the programme business case, the value of change management becomes measurable in the language of the organisation’s strategic plan: productivity improvement, cost reduction, revenue uplift, or risk reduction. A programme that projected a 15% efficiency gain and achieved it, attributable in part to adoption rates that were above the industry benchmark, has a compelling change management value story.
Level 4: Portfolio impact. This is the most sophisticated level and the one that elevates change management from a programme-level activity to an enterprise strategic asset. A change function that can demonstrate that programmes with strong change management investment consistently deliver better adoption outcomes than those without, across the organisation’s full portfolio over multiple years, has built an evidence base that is effectively unanswerable.
Building the evidence base: what to track and from when
The reason most change functions cannot demonstrate their value at Levels 3 and 4 is not that the evidence does not exist. It is that they have not built the systems to collect and retain it. Retrospective value demonstration, trying to reconstruct the impact of change management after a programme has closed, is very difficult and always weaker than prospective measurement that was designed in from the start.
The practical solution is to establish a minimum viable measurement framework at the beginning of every programme: define what success looks like for change management, identify the metrics that will measure it, establish a baseline, and collect data at defined intervals through the programme lifecycle.
The minimum viable measurement set for a single programme includes:
Readiness baseline and trend: pre-go-live readiness survey data, collected at four to six weeks before go-live and again at two weeks before. This provides evidence that the change function was monitoring and responding to readiness risk, and a benchmark for comparing actual adoption to predicted readiness.
Adoption rate at 30, 60, and 90 days post-go-live: the percentage of the target population actively using the new way of working at each interval. Adoption data disaggregated by group, role, and geography is significantly more useful than a single organisation-wide figure.
Benefits realisation correlation: if the programme has a business case with defined expected outcomes, the adoption data can be correlated with the benefits realisation trajectory. This does not require change management to claim sole credit for benefits realised. It requires demonstrating that adoption was a necessary condition for benefits realisation, and that the adoption level achieved was a result of the change management investment.
Comparison with no-change-management baseline: if the organisation has historical data from programmes that did not have active change management, or had materially lower change management investment, comparing adoption outcomes across programmes is one of the most powerful forms of internal evidence available.
Prosci’s longitudinal research on change management and project success provides the external benchmark for this internal comparison: 88% of projects with excellent change management meet or exceed their objectives, compared to 13% of those with poor change management. If an organisation’s internal data shows a similar pattern, the ROI case for change management investment is built from its own evidence.
The ROI calculation method
For change management functions that need to quantify their financial value, the ROI calculation approach provides a structured method for connecting programme investment to financial return.
The calculation works as follows. Start with the total expected financial benefit from the programme, as defined in the business case. Identify the portion of that benefit that is adoption-dependent: the percentage of the projected return that will only be realised if employees actually use the new system, follow the new process, or perform the new behaviour at the expected level. This is typically between 50 and 100% for most enterprise change programmes.
Then calculate the adoption-dependent benefit at the actual adoption level achieved versus the adoption level that would have been expected without change management investment. The difference in expected benefit realisation, multiplied by the proportion of that difference attributable to change management activity, represents the financial contribution of the change management investment.
This calculation will always involve estimation, and it should be presented as such. But a well-constructed ROI estimate with conservative assumptions is far more compelling in an executive conversation than a general assertion about the importance of change management. Prosci’s analysis of change management ROI found that organisations with robust change management average 143% ROI on their change programmes, compared to 35% for those without. Using that benchmark to contextualise an organisation-specific calculation is a credible and defensible approach.
The resistance cost argument
One of the most underused approaches to proving change management value is quantifying the cost of inadequate change management rather than the benefit of good change management. For organisations that are sceptical of benefit projections, this can be a more persuasive angle.
The cost of inadequate change management shows up in several measurable places: delayed adoption (how long before the programme delivers its projected benefits, and what is the financial cost of that delay?), productivity loss during transition (the performance dip that occurs when employees are partway through a change process is well documented, with research indicating it can reduce individual productivity by 15 to 20%), rework and error costs (the operational cost of mistakes made by employees who are not yet proficient in new ways of working), and attrition (the cost of replacing employees who leave during poorly managed change, which Prosci research links to change fatigue and change saturation).
When these costs are aggregated and compared to the cost of the change management investment, the ROI argument often becomes straightforward. The question is not whether to spend on change management. It is whether to spend it proactively (on structured change management) or reactively (on remediation when adoption fails).
Communicating value to different audiences
The evidence that proves change management value needs to be presented differently to different audiences, because different stakeholders have different decision-making criteria.
For finance and executive leadership: lead with financial outcomes. What did the investment cost? What adoption outcome was achieved? What benefits are on track to be realised that would not have been without the change management investment? Keep the analysis concise and anchor it to the business case figures the audience already knows.
For programme sponsors: focus on programme success outcomes. How does adoption compare to the programme’s defined success metrics? How does this programme compare to others in the portfolio? What is the risk profile of the remaining adoption journey?
For HR and people leadership: connect change management outcomes to people metrics they care about. How has employee readiness and confidence tracked through the change? What does the adoption data say about the employee experience of this change? How does this programme’s attrition rate during the change period compare to baseline?
For sceptical stakeholders: do not lead with advocacy. Lead with measurement. The strongest position a change function can take with a sceptical executive is not “change management is important” but “here is the data from our last five programmes that shows what happens to adoption outcomes when change management resourcing is above average versus below average.”
Building internal benchmarks over time
The most sustainable approach to proving change management value is to build an internal evidence base over time. Single-programme data is useful. Multi-programme data over multiple years is compelling. Portfolio-level data that shows a consistent relationship between change management investment and programme outcomes, across different programme types, business units, and geographies, is effectively conclusive.
This requires a change function to be disciplined about data collection and retention across every programme it touches, even programmes where the change management investment was modest. Programmes with light-touch change management that underperformed on adoption are as valuable to the evidence base as programmes with high investment that outperformed, because they provide the counterfactual comparison that makes the investment case legible.
Change Compass provides the data infrastructure to build and maintain this kind of multi-programme evidence base. By aggregating adoption, readiness, and impact data across the portfolio in a standardised format, the platform makes it possible to generate the organisation-specific benchmarks that transform change management from a function that asserts its value to one that proves it.
The link between proving value and securing investment
The strategic reason to invest in proving change management value is not primarily about defending the current budget. It is about building the evidence base that justifies expanding change management capability as the organisation’s transformation ambitions grow.
Organisations facing increasing change complexity need to increase change capability. But the argument for that investment is much more persuasive when it is backed by internal evidence than when it relies on external research alone. A change function that can show its board that every 10% increase in change management investment in the previous three years has been associated with a statistically meaningful improvement in adoption outcomes has a fundamentally different conversation about resourcing than one that is still arguing from first principles.
The practical path to that conversation starts with the first programme where adoption data is properly collected and linked to business outcomes. Each subsequent programme strengthens the evidence base. Over three to five years, a change function that has been disciplined about measurement builds the kind of organisation-specific data that makes the value conversation straightforward.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best way to prove the value of change management?
The most credible approach is to build an organisation-specific evidence base that links change management investment to adoption outcomes and adoption outcomes to benefits realisation. This is more persuasive than generic research statistics because it is directly applicable to the organisation’s own programme portfolio. Key steps include defining success metrics at the start of each programme, collecting adoption and readiness data consistently, and retaining that data across programmes to build internal benchmarks.
What statistics prove the value of change management?
Prosci’s research shows that 88% of projects with excellent change management meet or exceed their objectives, compared to 13% of those with poor change management. Organisations with robust change management average 143% ROI on change programmes versus 35% without. These figures provide a credible external benchmark, but the most compelling evidence for any specific organisation is always its own data.
How do you calculate the ROI of change management?
The standard ROI calculation starts with the adoption-dependent benefits from the programme business case (the financial outcomes that will only be realised if employees adopt the new way of working). The difference in expected benefit realisation at the actual adoption level achieved versus the expected level without active change management, attributable to the change management investment, represents the financial return. This always involves estimation and should be presented with conservative assumptions.
How do you convince executives that change management is worth investing in?
Lead with their decision-making criteria, not your advocacy. For finance-focused executives, show the financial cost of adoption failure and the ROI of adoption success. For strategy-focused executives, connect change adoption to the specific strategic outcomes the programmes are designed to deliver. For sceptical executives, lead with data from previous programmes rather than assertions about change management importance.
What is the difference between change management output and change management outcome?
Outputs are the activities the change team delivers: communications sent, training sessions run, workshops facilitated. Outcomes are the results those activities produce: employees who are ready and able to work in the new way. The value of change management is demonstrated through outcomes, not outputs. A change dashboard that measures only outputs is activity tracking. A dashboard that measures adoption, readiness, and benefits realisation is outcome tracking.
References
by The Change Compass | Agile, Change Initiatives
There is now a lot of content out there on how to manage agile changes, including agile methodology and agile ways of working. This includes early and continuous engagement, creating a multidisciplinary team and designing smaller iterative changes. There are kanban and scrum approaches. What actually happens in organizations in terms of how people experience this? Most organizations experience this is a series of multiple initiatives going on, all iterating at the same time. The effect is various ripples of changes coming from different directions, with each initiative driving separate ripples.
Impact of agile changes
Let’s dive deeper into what this experience feels like for the organization. For the employee, changes are becoming more rapid than before with agile changes. Most organizations have at least several initiatives going on at any one time. Therefore, the employee will likely experience different changes at the same time. This could feel very overwhelming and hectic as the employee tries to keep up with a myriad of initiatives that are all working on the goals of the particular initiative.
For team managers this could also be equally overwhelming as various sources of initiative information is handed down and they are expected to be delivering and engaging their teams on the changes. Getting the details right is often a challenge and it is easy to just ‘pass down’ the given write-up about the initiative without talking through what it means specifically for the individual.
On top of this in a typical agile environment, there are always release changes and changes in the timeline. So, one of the challenges is that what is communicated through the various channels to engage employees will often be inaccurate as the dates change. This could create frustration and lack of trust as what is communicated keeps shifting.
For business unit managers the trick is to balance business-as-usual activities for employees and the demands of change initiatives. There can be occasions when there are simply too many changes at the same time impacting the same group of employees, whilst other times there seems to be little change – feast or famine. In this situation, there can be significant business performance impacts if there is too much change. Customer service levels may drop, customer satisfaction levels may be impacted, or work efficiency and work allocation may be impacted.
In a nutshell, the different ripples from different directions could all intersect and meet in one particular part of the business and create potential turmoil and business disruption. Which initiative is trying to do what? Which one benefits us more than the other? Which one requires more effort to get ready? These are typical questions faced by the business.
So how do we resolve this?
Planning and prioritization
Effective planning across initiatives is critical to managing the various ripples. There needs to be effective agreement across the organization which initiative has the priority using a set of agreed criteria. Typical factors include benefit size, strategic importance or any non-negotiables such as regulatory requirements. Both businesses and projects need to be part of this process. Data to support this process need to include all initiatives impacting a particular part of the business, whether it is deemed a ‘program’, ‘project’, or ‘BAU initiative’. The groups should look for opportunities to potentially ‘package’ certain changes that are more alike so that it is easier for employee absorption and adoption.
A key part of the input into this discussion is change impact. With clarity of the quantum and nature of change impact at any given time, along with other initiative information, decisions may be made on prioritization and sequencing. To read more about change portfolio management click here.
Communication and engagement
To effectively communicate with employees within an agile environment where there is constant shifting of timeline some use monthly release blocks versus communicating actual dates. Another way of addressing this challenge is to continuously remind employees the ‘why’ of the shifting timeline. This is focused on building employee expectation for the agile environment that there will often be constant shifting of dates and releases.
With multiple changes, it is also important to effectively link initiatives to their intent and goals. An overarching grouping or linking of initiatives to organizational strategies could be one way of doing this. In this way, it is easier to draw linkages for employees to seemingly disparate initiatives.
Business forums and routines
As a part of running an effective business operation, it is important to establish the right forums and routines to ensure that there is ongoing visibility of change impact. The routine should focus on examining the data on what the changes are at any given point in time, what happened previously in implementing changes, what will happen in the next quarter or month, and what actions are required to get the business ready.
There should also be regular examination of the level of ‘change heat’ to effectively manage business performance. Where there is a lack of heat there could be opportunities to fast-forward certain changes to balance the overall change loading.
The discussion on business readiness and capacity for change should be a balanced one, taking into account any operational challenges. These could include sales target stretches, resourcing levels, customer contact volumes, and other operational activities. In this way, the understanding of the employee capacity for change is taking into account a range of activities and focus areas at a given point in time.
The importance of change data
A critical part of creating an agile environment is a reliance on data. Agile teams are reliant on data in how solutions are developed, tested, deployed and evaluated. Without data it is not possible to test the hypothesis. In a similar way, the organization also needs to look at how it is collecting and analyzing change data to make effective business decisions. Managing the various ripples within the organization requires data-based decision making and not gut feel and hunches.
Read more about agile and change management in our article ‘The ultimate guide to Agile for change managers’ or ‘What we need to know about agile we learnt from change management’.
If you enjoyed reading this article please share this with your contacts.
by The Change Compass | Change approach, Change Initiatives
In business literature having senior leader sponsorship and buy-in is always highlighted as one of the most if not the most important factor in determining successful initiative outcome. It is touted that without senior leaders to drive the initiative, it is difficult to get traction. The respective senior leaders that own the initiative are identified as the most important stakeholders to engage. As a result, most project managers and change managers spend significant amount of time aligning and influencing the senior leader.
What happens if your particular senior leader(s) are not along the journey, do not engage employees, or are simply absent? Sounds familiar? Does this mean that the initiative will definitely fail? According to research that McKinsey and others have conducted yes there will be a significant risk of failure. So what is one to do in this situation? In fact, in our recent change practice benchmarking study (click here to find out more) many respondents stated that their biggest challenge is to influence senior stakeholders.
Project or change managers will most likely not have the hierarchical status in the organization to influence senior stakeholders based on power or rank. However, do not give up. There is another way …. using soft power. What is soft power? In the field of international relations, soft power is the ability to attract or co-opt rather than coerce (hard power) as a means of persuasion (according to Wikipedia). It is having the ability to influence the behavior or thinking of others through the power of attraction and ideas.
Across the globe some countries are great at using soft power to influence other nations. How? Having strong business brands, artists/designers/musicians who are popular, etc. People all over the world are influenced by soft power through the brands they interact with every day. Apple users interact with their iPhone, iWatch, iPads or iMacs and know its Californian ideals. K-pop music lovers across Asia are influenced by the fashion trends from Korea. Ikea furniture owners experience a piece of Sweden when they walk into an Ikea store, Swedish food, Swedish minimalist design, and modern sensibilities.
So how do we leverage soft power to influence a range of stakeholders including senior stakeholders?
- Leverage your ‘popular stars’. Just as Taylor Swift and Eminem popularize trends and attitudes across the global audience, leverage your organization’s stars. They can be popular bloggers on your internal company social networks such as Yammer. They can also be well-respected figures who have established famous personal brands that are not necessarily the most senior. They can have interesting job titles or particular insights, or are just well-connected. Enlist these figures to help you influence your stakeholders through their presence and visible actions.
- Design an effective internal marketing campaign. Global artists weren’t born popular. They are popularized by marketing machines. Don’t be shy about marketing your selected stars and their messages. Leverage the various corporate channels to market their messages, including intranet articles, posters, emails, videos, blogs, talks, etc. Work on your branding consistency, consistency of messaging, and ensure there is an alignment of different communication channels used.
- To influence key stakeholders such as senior executives, conduct detailed social network analysis. Social network analysis is the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups and organizations. Interview those who are close to the chosen targets and start to map out those who are connected and how they are connected. Identify and leverage the targeted network to influence your senior executives. Find out what turns them on and what their pet peeves are. Then, leverage your selected network to influence.
- Attract your stakeholders. Soft power is not about coercion or using carrot or stick. It is about attracting someone to your perspective. How do we do this? From a messaging perspective, appeal to the emotional core of what the stakeholders are attracted to, rather than relying purely on logical arguments. For example, if there is a history of employees jumping in to help one another in times of crisis, then leverage this history and theme to arouse the emotional connection. Tie your message to this theme. Also, work on your visual attraction. Use video imagery, infographic, photographs, and charts to tell a compelling and memorable story. Your stakeholders will remember these a lot more than a long speech or an article.
- Create and leverage your change champions network. In the new world, employees no longer only look to their leader for instruction and information. They leverage their social network to stay informed and engaged. A good change champion network with members that are carefully selected can do just this – pollinate, broadcast and engage a broad range of audience. An effective change champion network that is well-supported can drive significant change across the organization. There are examples of initiatives with poor senior leader sponsorship but have resulted in significant impact due to its change champions at various levels.
Ghandi popularized a non-violent struggle against Great Britain’s colonization of India. Using peaceful means, Ghandi managed to empower the masses to overthrow a dominant superpower. Martin Luther King is another fantastic example of the power of soft power. Using his oration and people motivation skills he was able to amass a large number of people to march for civil rights. This is the magnitude of soft power. While for organizations we may not have such grand ambitions for initiatives, it is worth calling out that one should not underestimate the force of soft power. For Generation Z hierarchy and coercion will not work as well as for previous generations. They want to be inspired to change the world. As a result, how we influence and drive change initiatives will also need to change – from that which is focused on top-down command and control to one that leverages soft power.
—————————-
