Why change rarely fails on the change itself

Where there is a lack of clarity, resistance arises

Anyone in a position of responsibility within a company is familiar with situations like this: new software is introduced, processes are adapted or an organisational unit is restructured. The business objectives are clear, the project plan is in place and those involved have invested a great deal of time in the preparations. Yet the project is not going as expected. Discussions intensify, decisions drag on, and resistance arises in many quarters against something that was originally intended as a sensible improvement.

At such times, people often look for the causes. It is claimed that staff are unwilling to embrace change, that communication has been inadequate, or that project management needs to be improved. Certainly, all these factors can play a part. However, in my experience as a manager and organisational developer, this perspective often falls short.

Many change initiatives do not fail because of the change itself. They fail because of a lack of clarity and, consequently, the necessary guidance for staff. The issue is not whether the change is technically right or wrong. Most employees are well aware that companies need to evolve. They themselves experience changing customer demands, economic pressure, skills shortages or technological developments. The real question is often not whether a change is necessary. The crucial question is rather: what does it mean for me and my work?

This is precisely where the real leadership task begins.

People need not only information, but also guidance

In many projects, communication is still equated with the sharing of information. Presentations are prepared, timetables are distributed and progress reports are issued. Managers assume that sufficient communication has taken place because a great deal of information is available.

Employees often experience the same situation in a completely different way.

They may be familiar with the project plan, but cannot deduce from it what will be expected of them in future. They know that new software is being introduced, but do not understand how this will change the way they work. They hear about new processes, but cannot assess what consequences this will have for their responsibilities or their role.

Information answers questions about the ‘what’.

Guidance answers questions about the ‘why’ and the ‘what for’.

This distinction is particularly crucial in change processes. Employees are not primarily seeking more information. They are looking for a clear framework within which they can make sense of the change.

That is why we often observe an interesting phenomenon in projects: although there is a great deal of communication, a sense of uncertainty persists. The volume of communication is therefore not the real problem. The crucial question is whether clarity is achieved.

The software is rarely the actual change

This is particularly evident in software projects. At first glance, it all seems simple. A company decides to adopt a new ERP system, implements a CRM system or modernises its time-recording system.

From a technical perspective, this is an IT project.

From an organisational perspective, however, it involves far more than that.

New software almost always changes habits. It alters information flows, responsibilities and decision-making processes. Some tasks are eliminated, whilst others become more important. Transparency is increased, processes are standardised and interfaces are redefined.

In other words: the visible change is the software. The real change concerns the behaviour of employees.

That is why software roll-outs rarely proceed in a purely businesslike manner. Behind technical discussions often lie questions that are hardly ever voiced. Some staff members wonder whether their experience will still be valued in future. Others worry about their influence or autonomy. Still others fear an increased workload in their day-to-day work.

Anyone who views these dynamics solely from a technical perspective will find it difficult to understand the resistance. Anyone who sees them as an expression of a need for guidance gains a completely different perspective on the situation.

Why uncertainty is normal

Many managers view uncertainty during change processes as a problem that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. This is understandable, as uncertainty gives rise to questions, discussions and, occasionally, criticism.

In fact, however, uncertainty is a natural reaction to change.

When employees do not know what to expect, they initially try to make sense of the situation. This does not automatically mean resistance. Nor does it mean a lack of willingness to change.

Uncertainty only becomes problematic when it persists and is exacerbated by a lack of clarity. In this situation, people begin to develop their own explanations. Assumptions replace facts. Rumours replace communication. Individual statements are interpreted and condensed into supposed certainties.

The real risk therefore does not lie in the uncertainty itself. The risk arises when leadership unconsciously leaves the resulting scope for interpretation to its own devices.

Clarity does not mean having an answer to everything

Particularly in complex projects, managers often wait too long before communicating. There is usually a well-meaning rationale behind this: they want everything to be clarified before discussing it.

In practice, however, this often leads to the opposite of what is actually intended. Employees do not expect managers to already know every answer. Rather, they expect transparency regarding the current state of affairs.

A manager can certainly say that certain decisions have not yet been made. They can explain which questions are currently unresolved and by when clarification is expected. They can acknowledge uncertainty without losing their own sense of direction. This is precisely where effective leadership shines through.

Clarity does not mean conveying complete certainty. Clarity means making it clear what is known, what is still open to debate, and what the next steps are. Employees are surprisingly good at accepting unanswered questions. What they find much harder to accept are unspoken questions.

The underestimated power of unspoken expectations

Another reason for difficulties in change processes lies in unspoken expectations. In almost every organisation, there are expectations that seem self-evident to everyone involved and, precisely for that reason, are never discussed. Managers assume that certain things are clear. Employees make the same assumption from their own perspective.

It is often only in conflict situations that both sides realise they have been operating on the basis of completely different assumptions. In workshops, I therefore regularly ask a simple question: “What expectations do you have of your team that you have never explicitly articulated?”

The answers are often remarkable. Many managers realise that their most important expectations have never been articulated anywhere. At the same time, employees realise that, in some cases, they have interpreted these expectations completely differently.

Change processes bring such differences to light. They therefore act as a magnifying glass for existing ambiguities within the system.

Leadership sets the stage

The more complex changes become, the more important a leadership task becomes that is often underestimated: the deliberate provision of direction. This is less about control and more about setting the stage.

Employees need clarity on why a change is necessary, what the objective is and what contribution is expected of them. They want to know what decisions have already been made, what scope for action exists and how they can align their own actions accordingly.

When this frame is described in a way that is easy to understand, the willingness to take on responsibility usually increases as well. If this frame is missing, it leads to queries, endless rounds of consultation and uncertainties, which are often interpreted as a lack of personal responsibility. Experience shows, however, that employees find it much easier to take on responsibility when they know the boundaries within which they can operate.

Conclusion: Clarity is a leadership responsibility

Change will continue to be part of everyday life in organisations. New technologies, new market demands and new forms of collaboration will continue to challenge businesses.

However, the success of such initiatives does not depend solely on the quality of the solution. It depends largely on whether managers can provide direction. Employees rarely fail to embrace change simply because they are fundamentally opposed to new ideas. Often, they simply lack the necessary clarity regarding expectations, roles and objectives. This is precisely why clarity is far more than just good communication.

Clarity is leadership. Clarity creates added value.

Notes:

Are you interested in the topics of leadership, change and organisational development? Then connect with Jens Elfert on LinkedIn.

Would you like to support Jens Elfert and discuss clarity and guidance during times of change? Then share this post within your network or within your organisation.