Are We Making Change Management Too Change-Specific?

Lately, I’ve been noticing a shift in how we talk about change management. We’re becoming increasingly specific.

• ERP change.

• AI transformation.

• Digital transformation.

• System implementations.

• Operating model redesigns.

This isn’t a bad thing. Context matters and yes, the type of change absolutely influences the approach. When I started in change management 15+ years ago, I stumbled into it, but I was drawn to it for one simple reason, an intentional recognition of the way business impacts people. I have a passion for helping people individually and/or collectively. Over the last few years, I feel like that message surrounding change management is shifting… I think we may be over-rotating.

In trying to tailor change management to the initiative, do we risk losing sight of the one thing that remains consistent across all change: the human experience?

Not all change is the same, ERP is different than AI and a restructure is different than a policy change… and these changes are different within different types of organizations.

But the core human experience of navigating change is remarkably consistent, and where change management becomes transformational.

In every one of these changes, people will still ask:

• What does this mean for me?

• What am I expected to do in my role differently?

• Will I be successful?

• What if I get it wrong?

• How does this affect my role?

• Why is the business doing this?

• Why is the business doing this now?

In every one of these changes, people still feel:

• Uncertainty.

• Loss of competence.

• Fear of expectations.

• Frustration with ambiguity.

• Pressure to maintain performance while learning something new.

The change changes…the human reaction patterns don’t change nearly as much and people don’t move through change because of communication plans or rollout strategies. They move through change because someone helps them make sense of it.

When I was grounding and growing in change management, I was taught that it was never meant to be about the change itself. It was meant to help people move through it. We emphasize executive sponsorship and the importance of leaders advocating for the change and communicating the business reason. We touch on middle management, but not deeply enough when it comes to the human experience of change and the skill sets that enable change plans to actually thrive after the communication plan is created and the first awareness email is sent. When someone needs to make progress with and through a change that directly impacts them, the person they turn to is almost always a manager.

Managers translate.
Managers absorb reactions.
Managers answer questions.
Managers create clarity.
Managers maintain stability.
Managers carry the emotional weight of change.

As change management becomes more tailored to the initiative, we risk making it less grounded in the people responsible for carrying it.

We optimize for deployment.
But not for conversation.

We design for rollout.
But not for reaction.

We plan for adoption.
But not for uncertainty.

The more specific we become about the change, the easier it is to unintentionally become less specific about the human experience. Maybe the next evolution of change management isn’t getting more sophisticated about the change. Maybe it’s simply refocusing on supporting the humans experiencing it and the managers guiding them through it.

Because change doesn’t succeed at the strategy level.
It succeed sat the people level.

That happens one conversation at a time.