Do We Really Need a View of Changes Across the Organisation?
As the pace of change accelerates, senior leaders are increasingly asking for a comprehensive view of changes happening across the organisation. However, not everyone sees the need for this. Some change practitioners focus solely on project-level implementation, while others concentrate on developing change capability or leadership. So, is a broad organisational view of change necessary? The short answer is yes—and here’s why.
Why is a View of Changes Important?
1. Understanding Change is Key to Improving It
Managing change effectively requires a clear understanding of what is changing. Without visibility into the scope and nature of changes, how can we improve them? Imagine if Finance attempted to manage an organisation’s finances without access to financial data. The same principle applies to change management—without insights into ongoing changes, making informed improvements to how change is managed becomes impossible or at least ineffective.
A holistic view also helps identify patterns and systemic issues that may not be visible when looking at changes in isolation. For example, if multiple teams are experiencing resistance to similar types of change, it may indicate an underlying cultural or structural issue rather than a problem with individual initiatives.
2. Avoiding a Myopic View
Many change practitioners operate at the project level, focusing on the change they are driving without visibility into other initiatives. This narrow focus can lead to conflicting priorities, resource constraints, and stakeholder fatigue. A fragmented approach often results in duplication of effort, where multiple teams work on similar initiatives without coordination, wasting time and resources.
A lack of visibility can also cause bottlenecks. For instance, two major transformation projects requiring input from the same group of employees may create undue pressure, leading to burnout and decreased productivity. With an organisational view, leaders can identify these risks in advance and implement measures to mitigate them, such as staggering implementation timelines or providing additional support.
3. Taking a Human-Centred Approach
A human-centred approach to change means viewing change from the perspective of impacted stakeholders rather than just from a project lens. Employees and customers experience multiple changes together, not in isolated silos. To design change experiences that work, we must understand the overall change landscape and how it affects people’s daily work and interactions.
Without a consolidated view, employees may feel overwhelmed by frequent, disconnected changes. This often leads to change fatigue, disengagement, and resistance. By considering how multiple changes intersect, organisations can design more coherent and supportive transition experiences for their people, improving adoption rates and overall satisfaction.
There are some who would rather not use the term ‘change fatigue’. Sure. Other labels may be used instead. However, not acknowledging its existence does not mean that it does not exists. We can choose to not label and not address the impacts of multiple changes. By doing this it will not magically go away. This is not going to help the business perform better and reach its targets.
4. Supporting Leadership in Managing Business Performance
Leaders are concerned about how changes impact business performance. Without a consolidated view of what is changing, how those changes interact, and their organisational impact, it is difficult to provide meaningful insights. A structured view of change enables leaders to make informed decisions, mitigate risks, and optimise the overall change portfolio to support business objectives.
For example, if an organisation is rolling out a new customer relationship management (CRM) system while simultaneously restructuring its sales teams, leaders need to assess whether these initiatives will complement or hinder each other. Without this awareness, they may inadvertently introduce inefficiencies, such as duplicate training efforts or conflicting performance expectations.
5. Enhancing Organisational Readiness for Change
A key benefit of having a comprehensive view of change is improving organisational readiness. Readiness is not just about preparing individuals for a specific change but ensuring the organisation as a whole is capable of absorbing and adapting to continuous transformation.
An organisation that understands its change landscape can proactively assess its capacity for change at any given time. If several major initiatives are running concurrently, leaders can evaluate whether the organisation has the resources, cultural maturity, and leadership alignment to support them. Without this visibility, companies risk overloading employees and creating resistance due to excessive, poorly timed changes.
Furthermore, readiness assessments can identify gaps in capability, such as the need for additional training, clearer communication, or adjustments in leadership support. When organisations have a clear view of upcoming changes, they can put proactive measures in place, such as phased rollouts, targeted engagement efforts, or reinforcement mechanisms, to ensure smoother transitions and greater adoption success.
6. How an Integrated View of Change Supports Business Readiness
An integrated view of change enables organisations to move beyond reactive change management and embrace proactive change readiness. By mapping all significant transformations across the business, leaders can anticipate challenges, synchronise efforts, and prepare employees more effectively.
For example, if a company is implementing a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system while also shifting to a hybrid work model, an integrated change view allows decision-makers to assess whether these changes will create conflicting demands on employees. Instead of overwhelming teams with simultaneous process and technology shifts, adjustments can be made to stagger rollouts, align training programs, and provide tailored support.
Additionally, when businesses have a comprehensive perspective on change, they can implement readiness initiatives such as leadership coaching, employee engagement strategies, and resilience-building programs well in advance. This ensures that by the time changes take effect, the organisation is not just aware of them but fully prepared to embrace and sustain them. An integrated approach fosters a culture of adaptability, making the business more resilient in the face of continuous transformation.
Addressing Common Concerns: “It’s Too Complicated”
A frequent argument against establishing an organisation-wide change view is that it is too complex and resource-intensive. However, this does not need to be the case.
1. Start Small and Scale Gradually
Instead of attempting a whole-organisation approach from the outset, begin with a stakeholder lens. Understand how changes impact specific stakeholder groups, then expand to teams, departments, and eventually the entire organisation. This phased approach ensures manageable progress without overwhelming stakeholders.
One way to do this is by focusing on a single high-impact function, such as IT or HR, and mapping their change landscape before expanding outward. By demonstrating value in a contained environment, it becomes easier to gain buy-in for broader adoption.
2. Begin with Basic Data
There is no need to start with an elaborate data set. A simple list of initiatives is enough to begin forming a picture. Over time, additional data points—such as timelines, affected stakeholders, and interdependencies—can be added to enhance visibility and analysis.
Many organisations already have elements of this data scattered across different departments. Consolidating this information in a central repository can be a quick win that provides immediate value without requiring extensive new processes.
3. Take an Agile, Iterative Approach
Building a change view incrementally allows for continuous refinement and adaptation. By adopting an agile mindset, practitioners can deliver immediate value while progressively enhancing the data set. This approach ensures that the effort remains practical and sustainable while demonstrating benefits to stakeholders at each stage.
Using lightweight collaboration tools, such as shared spreadsheets or simple dashboard software, can help kickstart the process without significant investment in complex change management platforms.
Once you progress to a more sophisticated level where you need AI support and advanced dashboarding, check out Change Compass.
The Benefits of an Organisational View of Change
1. Improved Stakeholder Experience
By understanding the cumulative impact of multiple changes, organisations can better manage stakeholder experiences. Employees are often subject to change saturation when faced with numerous uncoordinated initiatives. A holistic view enables better sequencing and pacing of change to ensure smoother transitions.
2. Enhanced Risk Management
Without an overarching view, risks associated with overlapping initiatives may go unnoticed until issues arise. Identifying potential bottlenecks and conflicts early helps in designing mitigating strategies before problems escalate. Risks may include program delivery risk, operational risk, benefit realisation risk and various people risks.
3. Better Resource Allocation
Organisations often face resource constraints, whether in terms of budget, personnel, or time. A consolidated view helps leaders prioritise initiatives effectively, ensuring that resources are allocated to high-impact changes while minimising inefficiencies.
4. Strengthened Leadership Decision-Making
Leaders require data-driven insights to make informed strategic decisions. A comprehensive change landscape provides clarity on what is happening across the organisation, empowering leaders to align transformation efforts with business objectives.
Practical Steps to Establish an Organisation-Wide Change View
Step 1: Identify Key Stakeholders
Begin by engaging stakeholders across the organisation to understand their concerns and expectations. These may include senior executives, department heads, project managers, and frontline employees.
Step 2: Map Current and Upcoming Changes
Compile a list of all ongoing and planned initiatives. Categorise them by business function, timeline, impacted teams, and strategic priority. This will create an initial snapshot of the change landscape.
Step 3: Identify Interdependencies
Assess how different initiatives interact with each other. Are there overlapping resource requirements? Do changes in one area impact another? Recognising these dependencies enables better coordination and minimises disruption.
Step 4: Develop a Change Portfolio View
Use visualisation tools to represent the collected data in a meaningful way. Heatmaps, Gantt charts, and stakeholder impact matrices can help illustrate the overall change picture.
Step 5: Implement Governance Structures
Establish governance mechanisms to continuously update and refine the change portfolio. This may involve periodic reviews, a centralised change coordination team, or designated change champions within each department.
Step 6: Communicate Insights Effectively
Share findings with stakeholders in a digestible format. Providing clarity on how changes align with organisational priorities fosters engagement and encourages proactive collaboration.
Future Trends in Organisational Change Visibility
1. Increased Use of Digital Tools
Advanced analytics, AI-driven insights, and dashboard visualisation tools are making it easier to track and analyse change across an organisation in real-time.
2. Integration with Business Strategy
Change management is increasingly being embedded within broader business strategy execution and performance metrics tracking, ensuring alignment with long-term goals.
3. Greater Focus on Employee Experience
Organisations are recognising the importance of measuring change from an employee perspective. This includes sentiment analysis, real-time feedback loops, and adaptive communication strategies.
A comprehensive view of change across an organisation is not just a ‘nice-to-have’—it is essential for effective change management. It enables better decision-making, reduces unintended consequences, and enhances the overall employee experience. While establishing such a view may seem complex, taking a pragmatic, step-by-step approach makes it achievable and valuable.
For experienced change and transformation professionals, this shift in perspective is not just about managing change—it’s about leading it effectively in an increasingly dynamic world.
Change saturation has become one of the most searched concepts in change management practice – and one of the most inconsistently understood. In its simplest definition, change saturation occurs when the cumulative demand of concurrent change programmes on a specific employee group exceeds that group’s adaptive capacity. The employees in question do not simply slow down in their adoption of any individual change. They enter a qualitatively different state in which their willingness and ability to engage with any further change demand is fundamentally reduced. This state – characterised by fatigue, cynicism, and disengagement – is what distinguishes change saturation from ordinary change challenge, and it is why measuring it accurately matters for how organisations manage their change portfolios.
The problem is that most organisations measure change saturation using subjective methods – asking managers or employees whether they feel “overloaded,” collecting anecdotal feedback in town halls, or relying on pulse survey questions that do not produce data comparable across teams or time periods. These approaches are better than nothing, but they produce results that are difficult to act on because they cannot be disaggregated by programme, by employee group, or by change type. They tell an organisation that saturation is a problem. They do not tell it where, why, or what to do about it.
A more structured approach – a measurement recipe that produces actionable, comparable data – is what effective change saturation management requires. Download the Change Saturation Assessment Recipe for a step-by-step guide to measuring change saturation using The Change Compass.
Why personal opinion is an unreliable saturation measure
The instinct to measure change saturation through personal opinion – asking people whether they feel overwhelmed – has an obvious appeal. People experiencing saturation know it. Their self-report seems like direct access to the phenomenon being measured. The problem is that self-reported saturation is systematically biased in ways that make it unreliable for portfolio management decisions.
The first bias is social desirability. Employees who are experiencing genuine saturation may not report it accurately in formal measurement contexts if they believe reporting saturation will reflect negatively on their resilience or capability, or if they believe the organisation is not genuinely open to reducing the change load. In cultures where maintaining a positive front through adversity is valued, saturation is consistently underreported through self-report mechanisms.
The second bias is anchoring. Employees’ assessment of their saturation is relative to their recent experience. A team that has been operating at high saturation for an extended period may rate their current state as normal – because it is normal for them – even though it would be rated as high saturation by an objective measure. Conversely, a team that has recently experienced a significant increase in change load may rate themselves as highly saturated even if their objective load is within a manageable range, simply because the change from their recent baseline feels dramatic.
The third bias is aggregation. Even when individual self-reports are reasonably accurate, aggregating them across teams produces a misleading picture because the teams most likely to underreport saturation – those with the most competitive cultures, the most pressure to appear capable – are also those most likely to be genuinely saturated. The aggregate measure therefore understates saturation precisely where it is most severe.
The components of a structured saturation measurement approach
An effective change saturation measurement recipe builds the saturation assessment from objective components rather than deriving it from subjective opinion. The core components are: the volume of change programmes affecting a specific employee group, the intensity of those impacts (how much behavioural shift each change requires), the timing concentration of those impacts (how many significant changes are happening simultaneously versus sequenced), and a capacity baseline against which the aggregate load can be assessed.
Volume is the most commonly measured dimension – it is what heatmaps capture. But volume alone is insufficient, for the reasons described in change measurement literature. A single high-intensity change requiring employees to completely redesign their workflows is a fundamentally different saturation driver than five low-intensity changes requiring minor process adjustments. A measurement approach that counts changes without weighting them by intensity will misclassify teams’ saturation risk: overestimating the saturation of teams with many minor changes and underestimating it for teams with fewer but more transformative ones.
Prosci’s ADKAR model provides a useful framework for thinking about impact intensity – the degree to which a change requires employees to develop new knowledge, new capability, and new habitual behaviours, as distinct from simply being aware that something has changed. Changes that require new knowledge and capability development impose a substantially higher saturation load than those that require awareness and comprehension only. Structuring impact assessment around these ADKAR dimensions allows intensity to be captured in a way that reflects the actual cognitive and behavioural demand on employees.
Establishing capacity baselines and thresholds
Saturation is a relative concept – it describes the relationship between demand and capacity, not demand alone. Measuring demand without reference to capacity produces a number with no meaning. The second essential component of a structured saturation measurement recipe is a capacity baseline: an estimate of how much change demand a specific employee group can absorb sustainably over a defined period.
Capacity baselines can be established from multiple sources. Research-derived benchmarks – the published estimates of sustainable change load from organisations like Gartner and Prosci – provide starting points that can be calibrated to the specific context. Historical data – the correlation between past change load levels and subsequent adoption rates, attrition data, and engagement score movements – provides an empirical basis for establishing what level of change demand has historically been sustainable for specific employee groups in this organisation. And contextual factors – the current operational pressure on a team, their recent change history, their access to change support resources – adjust the baseline upward or downward based on factors the generic benchmarks do not capture.
Gartner research on change fatigue provides one of the most widely referenced frameworks for understanding capacity thresholds – specifically the finding that the average employee can effectively absorb a limited number of concurrent major changes before saturation occurs. Using this research as a calibration reference, combined with organisational-specific data, allows change leaders to establish saturation thresholds that are both research-grounded and contextually valid.
From measurement to actionable recommendations
The purpose of change saturation measurement is not to produce a number. It is to produce recommendations that stakeholders can act on. The measurement recipe therefore needs to specify not just how to assess saturation but how to translate the assessment into specific governance decisions and operational interventions.
At the governance level, saturation data should inform three types of decision: sequencing decisions (should this programme’s implementation be deferred because the affected teams are currently at or near their saturation threshold?), descoping decisions (can this programme be redesigned to reduce its saturation impact on the most overloaded employee groups without materially compromising its intended outcomes?), and resourcing decisions (does this programme require additional change support investment because the teams it is landing on have limited remaining adaptive capacity?).
At the programme level, saturation data should inform stakeholder engagement prioritisation (which teams need the most intensive support?), communication design (what communication approach is appropriate for teams in a high-saturation state versus those with ample capacity?), and the structure of transition support (what is the right blend of training, peer support, manager coaching, and post-go-live stabilisation for teams at different saturation levels?).
Platforms like The Change Compass support the full saturation measurement recipe by providing the data infrastructure – structured impact collection, portfolio aggregation by employee group, and visualisation of saturation against capacity thresholds – that makes this analysis operationally viable. Rather than assembling the measurement manually from programme-level spreadsheets, change leaders can access the saturation picture in real time and model the saturation implications of proposed portfolio decisions before committing to them.
Common mistakes in change saturation measurement
Several recurring errors undermine change saturation measurement efforts even in organisations that have invested in structured approaches. The first is measuring saturation at the wrong level of granularity. A division-level saturation score conceals the variation between teams within that division – a team experiencing extreme saturation may be averaged out by adjacent teams with much lighter loads, producing a comfortable aggregate that masks a genuine crisis at the team level. Effective saturation measurement requires the resolution to be at the team or role group level, not the business unit level.
The second mistake is measuring saturation at a single point in time rather than tracking it over a rolling period. A team that appears to be within its capacity threshold today may be accumulating load from changes that are about to peak simultaneously in the next quarter. Saturation measurement that shows only the current state rather than the projected trend line provides insufficient warning for the governance decisions that require lead time to implement.
The third mistake is treating the saturation assessment as separate from the portfolio governance process. Saturation data that is produced and then not connected to a decision-making process – where the data sits in a report that no governance body is empowered to act on – is not a management tool. It is a documentation exercise. McKinsey research on change programme failure consistently identifies the absence of in-flight decision authority as a primary cause of poor change outcomes – the data exists but no one has the authority or the process to act on what it shows. Connecting saturation measurement to governance structures with real authority to defer, descope, or resource programmes accordingly is what converts measurement from a reporting activity into a management capability.
Frequently asked questions
What is change saturation and how is it measured?
Change saturation occurs when the cumulative demand of concurrent change programmes on a specific employee group exceeds that group’s adaptive capacity. It is measured by combining three components: the volume of changes affecting the group, the intensity of those changes (the degree of behavioural shift each requires), and the timing concentration (how many significant changes overlap simultaneously). This demand measure is then compared against a capacity baseline to determine whether the group is operating within, at, or above its saturation threshold. Subjective self-report alone is insufficient as a saturation measure due to systematic biases in how saturation is perceived and reported.
How do you establish a capacity baseline for change saturation measurement?
Capacity baselines can be established from published research benchmarks (such as Gartner’s research on change fatigue and sustainable change load), from historical organisational data showing the relationship between past change load levels and adoption outcomes, and from contextual calibration factors such as the current operational pressure on the team, their recent change history, and their access to change support. The most reliable baselines combine all three sources, using the research as a starting point and calibrating it to the specific organisational context.
What decisions should change saturation data inform?
At the portfolio governance level, saturation data should inform decisions about programme sequencing (deferring changes to groups at or near saturation), descoping (reducing impact intensity for overloaded groups), and resourcing (allocating additional change support to high-saturation teams). At the programme level, it should inform stakeholder engagement prioritisation, communication design, and the structure of transition support. Saturation measurement that is not connected to a governance process with authority to act on its findings is a reporting activity rather than a management tool.
Why is team-level granularity important in change saturation measurement?
Business unit or division-level saturation scores conceal the variation between teams within those units. A team experiencing extreme saturation may be averaged out by adjacent teams with much lighter loads, producing an apparently comfortable aggregate score that masks a genuine crisis at the team level. Effective saturation measurement requires team or role group-level granularity to surface the concentrated saturation patterns that require targeted management responses and that business unit aggregates systematically obscure.
Change Saturation is a concept that describes our capacity for change as limited … like a cup. We have a limited amount of capacity for change. When there is too much change going on the cup spills over and there is ‘change saturation’. When this happens with too much change then there is stress in the impacted stakeholder groups.
It could be that there is intense increase in workload or work complexity. Performance could drop as a result. When frontline staff experience change saturation it could be that they don’t have the capacity to support all the customer enquires leading to longer customer wait times. Customer satisfaction levels could be impacted. Employee satisfaction could also be impacted.
What causes it?
There are 3 causes for change saturation
1. There are too many initiatives going on at the same time. The totality of changes across multiple initiatives leads to the cup being overfilled. This is the reality of corporate life. There aren’t many organizations that are only executing one initiative at any one time. However, it also depends on the level of impact within each initiative and not just the number of initiatives in total. If every initiative has very little impact it could be smaller in total than a very large complex change initiative with very high impact. It will take a lot of peanuts to fill up a jar, versus a few large biscuits.
2. The change initiatives are occurring too fast. We have all been through highly agile initiatives that have short sprints, that pivot quickly and implement the change quickly as well. Often due to discoveries and learnings along the way there are project delays as the project figures out how to get itself on track. However, the original go-live date has not been changed so as to meet senior stakeholder expectations and to manage project cost. What this means is that the impacted business suddenly has much less time to get ready for the change compared to the original timeline. This condensed timeline to go through and embed the changes leads to increased change saturation.
3. Business circumstances have lead to the cup being overfilled. In the case of COVID19, most businesses are going through challenging times. Some are struggling to cope with increased customer volumes, whilst others have lost significant business and can no longer operate. During these times businesses revert to survival mode, or their business continuity plan. The top focus remains to delivery its core services with all other priorities to take a back seat. The very nature of this environment means that a large part of the organisation is under immense pressure to perform. The cup is saturated even before any additional planned initiatives. To read more about Planning for change during COVID19 click here.
How to measure it
Every part of the organization may have a different level of change saturation. This is because different teams play different functional roles by definition. As a result one department may be impacted by the same change differently compared to another.
Therefore it is important to be able to measure the change saturation point for a part of the business if we are aiming to manage it. Change saturation should not just be a point of discussion just based on feelings and perceptions.
How do we measure the change saturation point for one part of the business? Measuring change saturation is not purely a science but more of an art.
Take for example, you have been working closely with the call centre team and have monitored their business performance across different initiatives over the past few months. Last month you noticed that they had reached a point where there were more initiatives being implemented than previously.
On top of this you noticed that some of their performance metrics that may be linked to change saturation were negatively affected. These included increased call waiting time, decreased customer satisfaction, increased staff turnover, and challenges for planners to schedule sufficient resources to cover shifts and undergo allocated initiative activities such as training. Team leaders also provided feedback that there was too much change going on and managing workload was challenging.
You can then calculate this change saturation by assigning a weighting to each change initiative in terms of its change impacts on the business. Then adding the various change impacts for last month will give you a total factor of change saturation. Last month your assessment, together with the call centre business, is that there was definite change saturation. So, if you see this level of change approaching in your planning coming up, then this would be a red signal for you to start to work with your stakeholders on managing this upcoming Change saturation.
Here is an example of measuring change saturation with The Change Compass.
The green line depicts change saturation for this department
It is important to note that some businesses may be calling out that they have change saturation simply to lower the expectation bar. By lowering the bar expected to undergo change volume, it is then easier for them to meet their performance targets. This is why it is important to measure change saturation. Anyone can claim that their cup is overflowing with change without data to support.
How to manage it
There are 2 main ways to manage change saturation. Either you reduce the change saturation level or you increase the change capacity (increasing the size of the cup).
Short term – Reduce change saturation
1. Stop all change initiative roll out during COVID19. If your organization is undergoing significant challenges and it was deemed that the cup is already overflowing in terms of capacity, then work with your business to determine how long of a period would there need to be a hold of any change implementation. This decision may be reviewed on a monthly basis or fortnightly basis to enable careful monitoring of the development COVID19 impact on the organisation.
2. Delay the roll-out of change initiatives to reduce change saturation. Work with your stakeholders to re-prioritise certain initiatives and push out others to better manage the change saturation. During COVID19 your organization may have a significantly reduced level of change tolerance, whether its because everyone is adjusting to working from home or its ‘all hands on deck’ in serving the customer. Work with your stakeholders to understand what initiatives are critical in order to meet any shorter or medium-term business objectives or deemed a priority by senior managers. Then determine the roadmap of implementation taking into account business change capacity.
3. Use a scenario approach to model the period in which COVID19 may be impacting your organisation and therefore model the recommended change implementation sequences. This approach requires that you have a good awareness of the existing planned initiatives across the business. You may need to adopt a logic-based approach to assess the change saturation points if you have not collected historical data. Here is an example of a scenario planning feature from The Change Compass where you can visually model likely scenarios of change roll-out sequences.
Initiatives may be dragged around to model different change scenarios
Long term – Build change capacity and resilience
1. Hire more people. For some parts of the organisation where there the change saturation is on frontline consultants servicing the customer. It may be possible to increase change capacity to some extent by hiring more staff to serve the customer. However, this depends how effective the organization is in quickly hire and onboard frontline consultants to reach ‘time to performance’. For other parts of the organisation where the subject matter experts may be in short demand because of COVID19, leveraging potential business substitutes where available may be an option. This approach may be used in conjunction with other recommendations to reduce change saturation.
2. Improve the change capability of leaders. One of the most important levers in building change capacity and resilience is the effectiveness of leaders. We have all seen how some leaders who are engaging, open, actively make way for the change, and address any obstacles, have led teams to undergo significant change journeys. Other leaders may be undergoing the same change journey but somehow have not had the same success. Instead, they could be plagued with change resistance and stagnation due to the ability of its leader. Change leadership development of leaders is a long term play and not a quick win by any means.
3. Work on change maturity. Organisations that have higher change maturity have more capacity for change and are more resilient to constant changes. Change maturity measures such as change leadership capability, business change readiness and project change implementation maturity. This is also a long term play, requiring significant focus and time investment.
