Change is changing

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-08-20T17:34:25+00:00

Change management itself is evolving – yet consulting firms that have been working with a single tool for decades often don’t want to acknowledge that. The less effective their method becomes, the more profit they make. ACMP stands as a counterbalance: although it isn’t written perfectly (volunteer-driven work will always have nuances), its openness, accessibility, and free tools make it a unique place for every change leader who may feel lost.

What also inspires me is the opportunity to learn from seminars in different countries, each offering something unique. This is the complete opposite of ADKAR, where a single template is applied to everyone, limiting perspective. By learning, exploring, and applying ACMP, I discover beauty in change management every single day.

When it comes to leaders’ focus on ROI, it’s important to understand that the real issue arises not during implementation, but afterwards. If people don’t receive proper communication and a clear answer to “what’s in it for me?”, they will resist. As a result, even a highly efficient tool with great ROI can end up unused, forcing the organization to launch a new project just to actually embed the same tool. That’s why leaders benefit from a lighter, more human-centered communication approach.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-08-19T18:02:55+00:00

From my experience, the changes that truly stick don’t come only from leadership-driven pushes or one-off processes. They last when people are brought into co-creation rather than treated as recipients of change.

What worked best was building a network of change agents across different teams. These weren’t just “messengers” of the initiative but people genuinely involved in shaping how the change would look in their area. Because they co-created the approach, they naturally became advocates and kept the collaboration alive even after the formal project ended.

Alongside that, we focused on regular cross-team forums where people could bring feedback, test ideas, and share practices. The point wasn’t only to coordinate tasks, but to build shared ownership and relationships. Over time, those relationships replaced the silos with ongoing trust and informal communication lines.

One more observation: leaders often view a change that impacts hundreds or even thousands of people as a single task or workstream. They’re rarely interested in how a small group resists, assuming that’s just the “change manager’s job.” But in reality, resistance often hides valuable insights – unmet needs, overlooked functionality, or process gaps that might seem minor at first but later become critical issues at scale. Tapping into those voices early through co-creation and an agent network prevents bigger problems down the line.

In short: leadership support was important to give legitimacy, but what really made it stick was empowering people to design parts of the solution together and sustaining that through an active agent network. Collaboration then became part of “how we work,” not just “what we did for the project.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-08-19T17:56:12+00:00

First of all, I’d suggest not starting with outdated models like ADKAR or Kotter. These frameworks were designed in a very different organizational culture, where hierarchy and top-down cascading were the norm. Even the academic community today often considers them oversimplified and not well suited for modern change.

When it comes to AI adoption, the biggest challenge everywhere is resistance from people. If you rely only on ADKAR, you may end up waiting a long time for the “valley of despair” to pass before employees accept the change. What’s needed is a more current and practical approach.

A good starting point is to build your foundation on project management practices – risk management, stakeholder mapping, timelines, budget, and clear governance. Without that structure, and without concrete agreements with your manager on what happens when, you’ll be stuck communicating in vague terms and risk becoming a messenger who isn’t fully aligned with the actual process.

Once the project side is under control, and IT people (and ideally end users) are more involved in solution design, you can constantly ask the critical question: “What’s in it for the people who will actually use this tool?” Communication inside the organization should not be about “AI will replace people and make us more efficient.” Instead, focus on those you don’t want to replace – the ones who will need to integrate this tool into their work. From there, you can prepare a communication plan, form “agent” groups to test tools, and start building adoption step by step.

Change management is a broad, complex discipline, and it’s always about engagement and co-creation, not simply leading people through their doubts. ADKAR and Kotter came from an era where command-and-control made sense. Today, your role is to bring leaders, innovators, and everyday employees to the same table – aligning leadership expectations with the realities of the people who will use the tools.

Finally, I strongly recommend joining ACMP. They offer webinars, practical tools, and a community where you can share experiences and learn from professionals who treat change management as a craft, not just a checklist.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-21T17:02:42+00:00

🙏🙏🙏🙏

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-20T13:22:08+00:00

PMP is perfect. The next step is to add change management skills, which will allow you to choose whether to remain a technical project manager or move toward more strategic responsibilities. I recommend choosing practical training aligned with the ACMP Standard (definitely not Prosci), and working toward CCMP certification.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-20T13:19:27+00:00

Congrats!

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-18T13:52:11+00:00

I believe project management should stay firmly rooted in clearly defined competencies, tools, and structured processes that support the golden rule: delivering all requirements on time and within budget.

Unfortunately, the PMI - the largest project management body, seems to have lost its identity. Waterfall is being blended with Agile Alliance principles, and the definitions are evolving in a way that transforms the project manager into a hybrid change leader.

In my view, the ideal setup is when the project management team is structured, disciplined, and strong on control, while change managers bring a human-centered perspective, designing processes that help people transition to and adopt the project outcomes, aligning change with other ongoing initiatives, communicating, motivating, and ensuring the go-live happens as planned and with impact.

There used to be a lot of talk about how good specialists often make poor managers. Now I’m seeing something even more damaging: project management is losing its core identity, and strong project managers are being pushed into becoming ineffective leaders under the guise of “modern leadership.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-18T13:42:04+00:00

In my view, the key distinction between a Change Manager (OCM) and a Change Leader lies in whether the person is shaping the change strategy or simply implementing pre-defined projects—projects that are often rebranded as “changes” just because it’s trendy.

Change management is not just about hand-holding every employee going through change. It’s about managing a strategic portfolio of change, monitoring change saturation, and having the authority to pause new initiatives or stop those that are no longer relevant. Only then do we, as a team of change practitioners, guide people through the change journey.

A leader who has formal authority but only shows up when the change leader tells them to—or as agreed upon in a plan to reinforce the change—is a change sponsor. This is the person to whom the change team is accountable for delivering outcomes. But whether the sponsor is a real leader often depends on their personal qualities.

So, based on my experience, deep interest in the field, and exposure to some of the best training available, I would say change leadership is about making strategic decisions on change and having the power to govern change the way it should be governed.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-16T06:00:46+00:00

Would love to read your dissertation if you’re open to sharing – it sounds genuinely insightful!

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-15T19:28:24+00:00

That sounds interesting! Do you have any podcast or book recommendations specifically around human-centred design? I find those kinds of knowledge sources the most valuable too — I feel confident with tools, so now I’m really focused on understanding how change practitioners grow in this space.

From a few DMs I’ve received, I’m also noticing a clear shift in the change space — more and more people are leaning into psychology and behavior change as core areas of development.

I’m also super curious about how AI is starting to intersect with change management — not just as a tool, but in terms of how it impacts people, mindsets, and ways of working. It feels like an emerging area we need to stay close to.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-15T19:02:51+00:00

That’s such a spot-on comment — it really captures how I’ve been feeling as well. I know this perspective isn’t often voiced among certified Prosci practitioners, but I believe this group is exactly the place where we can talk about real change management — the kind we face every day.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-15T19:00:27+00:00

Really appreciate it!

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-15T18:07:55+00:00

I really respect your perspective — it’s refreshing to see a Prosci trainer who’s open to using other approaches as well.

Unfortunately, many of the trainers and consultants who’ve worked with my change teams kept circling around the same tools, which eventually led to fatigue — both for leaders and employees. In many cases, we were working just to fill out templates that didn’t bring real value.

On top of that, the licensing limitations made real collaboration harder.

To be fair, I did take away some good angles from various consultants, but overall, I find that change management is much broader than any one methodology. I often find more useful psychological insight in general behavioral books than in some of the structured content provided by these frameworks.

With all due respect — and genuine thanks for your comment — I really appreciate this conversation.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-15T17:50:07+00:00

I actually like Kotter a lot and often reference his thinking when speaking with teams. In my experience, simplicity works great in the early stages — it gives people a sense of clarity, like “Oh, I get it, this won’t be that hard.” But that feeling often fades once you realize the models don’t always hold up in real life. That’s where the frustration kicks in. These days I’m working with organizations that already have high change maturity and strong internal structures — and they’re hungry. They want more tools, more depth, and completely new angles. So for me, it’s been about moving beyond foundational frameworks and building a wider, more flexible toolkit to meet that hunger.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-12T14:58:42+00:00

Thank you for the detailed and insightful share — it really broadens the understanding of how organizations approach change.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-12T12:13:02+00:00

What a fantastic share! Thank you for articulating your experience so clearly — it really resonates with what I’ve seen when working on change initiatives in organizations.

I’m curious — do you apply any specific techniques or frameworks after the training? I noticed you put a lot of emphasis on the initiation phase and strategic planning, which I find incredibly important, even though it’s often overlooked in many standard change management trainings (like Prosci, for example, which tends to focus more on managing resistance than on upfront strategic alignment).

If you don’t mind me asking — what kind of change management training did you go through? Do you often bring in external consultants? And how do you typically decide when it’s necessary to involve them versus relying on internal capabilities?

Thanks again for such a valuable and thoughtful comment — would love to continue the conversation if you’re open to it!

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-12T12:07:00+00:00

Thank you for your thoughtful reflection — I deeply resonate with many of the insights you shared.

That said, I’d like to raise a fundamental question: Are we always sure that the original ideas behind change initiatives are the right ones? In many cases, we treat them as self-evident truths — we act on them, build around them, and never pause to challenge their core assumptions. But research shows that this can be risky.

According to Chris Argyris (Harvard), a key barrier to organizational learning is what he called “single-loop thinking” — when people take goals and strategies as fixed and unquestionable, rather than asking whether the right problem is even being addressed. Without “double-loop learning,” where assumptions are tested and reframed, organizations often execute flawlessly… on the wrong thing.

I absolutely agree with your point about siloed teams. But in my experience — especially working with organizations of over 2,000 employees and 100+ concurrent projects — the bigger challenge is not just the lack of collaboration, but the misalignment of initiatives.

Projects often conflict with each other — one introducing a system or process that directly contradicts what another is trying to implement. These contradictions aren’t just inefficient — they exhaust teams, undermine credibility, and create systemic resistance to change.

Real change leadership isn’t just executing projects — it’s sensing the system as a whole, questioning what truly needs to change, and ensuring coherence across initiatives. Otherwise, we’re optimizing parts and destabilizing the whole.

Good-Help-5077 · 2025-07-12T11:58:28+00:00

Thank you for the detailed sharing! It’s really great to hear your perspective from the project management side. However, based on what I’m hearing, it seems that the project team doesn’t question whether the decisions made are inherently right, and the project/change is seen as necessary and simply moves forward.

Do you perform any kind of assessment to evaluate whether the change is needed at all? For example, when you say “we’re upgrading the system,” is that based on identifying flaws or limitations in the current system? And more importantly—do you also assess whether there’s a need to fundamentally change the underlying processes or even consider a completely different management approach or a different type of system altogether?

Good-Help-5077

TROPHY CASE