Q&A Change Management - The human factor as the unpredictable variable

Change in organisations is no longer an exceptional situation – it has become the new normal. Yet as the frequency of transformation processes increases, so do the challenges: strategies must be adapted more quickly, employees need to be brought along, and cultural foundations have to be rethought.

In this context, the “human factor” is often underestimated – even though it is precisely what determines whether transformations succeed or fail. In conversation with Hendrik Wenner, we explore what really matters in change processes, how change fatigue emerges – and what organisations can do to strengthen resilience, clarity and trust.

What are currently the biggest challenges organisations face during transformations? Have these changed in recent years?

When looking at the challenges organisations face during transformation processes, it is important to distinguish between external and internal factors. These two dimensions influence transformation in different ways.

In the past, transformations were more predictable. Strategic planning followed a clearer, more stable framework, and change usually occurred at a controllable pace. Markets evolved more slowly, which created a certain level of predictability. At that time, transformations were often triggered by necessity or innovation and followed a defined plan.

Today, however, several developments make transformation processes more challenging. On the one hand, external impediments – disruptions coming from outside – are becoming more intense and occur at shorter intervals. This creates a “perceived uncertainty” that did not exist to the same extent just a few years ago. External influences such as geopolitical shifts require organisations to react more flexibly and more quickly.

On the other hand, the internal strength that is meant to drive change has become more values- and culture-based. An organisation that lives by a clear set of values has the best foundation for steering change from within. If the right values are embedded in the corporate culture, they provide a strong basis for transformation. This means that employees understand the direction in which the organisation is heading.

The key difference compared to the past is that change is now often initiated externally, through external impediments, which can lead to frequent shifts in direction. This creates uncertainty within organisations. All the more important, therefore, is that the organisation radiates stability internally and offers clear and reliable orientation – ideally based on a strong value foundation.

Another aspect is that strategic decisions today must be made much more dynamically. In the past, future hypotheses could be defined over longer time horizons. Today, these hypotheses must be adjusted regularly, as external influences such as geopolitical or economic developments can emerge far more quickly and intensely. This speed and dynamism in strategic planning represent one of the biggest differences compared to the past.

In summary, transformations today unfold faster and more dynamically, and planning must therefore become more flexible and adaptable. The focus increasingly lies on cultural and values-based leadership, while external influences and impulses occur far more frequently and with greater intensity.

How do you deal with so-called change fatigue? How can organisations address it?

For me, there is only one approach: put people at the centre. The paralysis that occurs with change fatigue begins with the individual. So the question must be: what do I need to ensure that this does not happen?

This fatigue often arises from a feeling of powerlessness. People feel they cannot react or act – that their actions have no impact or are not recognised. And that is exactly what demotivates them.

So I have to design change with a clear focus on the human factor. I must honestly ask myself: what pace is realistic? Too often, change is approached purely from a technical perspective – with project plans, communication measures and milestones. But these cannot be the only metrics.

Instead, I need to understand how far my organisation has actually understood the change.

Of course, there is external pressure. Often there is little time. But real change only happens quickly once I understand how my organisation reacts – how I can take my people along on the journey.

For that, I need milestones – but not technical ones. Rather questions such as: have we said it often enough, applied it often enough, so that it is truly understood? If it does not translate into action, it remains mere communication.

I need to know: how is my organisation functioning at this moment? Where might it already be at its limits? Or perhaps even under-challenged? Readiness for change is not absolute – an organisation is a living organism.

If I think about transformation this way, I can plan it – in phases, in stages. I cannot simply snap my fingers and say: in two years we will be finished. That is overly ambitious.

What transformation really requires is patience, endurance, humility and understanding. All of these are human factors, not technical ones.

And that is exactly where mistakes often happen: strategy and implementation become disconnected.

That is what makes change management so interesting. In many areas, people think in terms of automation. But in transformation contexts the human factor makes so much unpredictable.

Absolutely. It creates a wide range of possibilities – for some overwhelming, for others a playground. The real art lies in translating it in a way that becomes measurable.

But we must not say: “They are only humans, that’s why it doesn’t work.” That would be the next mistake.

Is there a “magic ingredient” that makes teams particularly resilient to change?

I would frame the question differently. To me, it carries a negative connotation – as if change were something bad. But change is something positive. Anyone who does not change stands still.

Believing you are the centre of the world is egocentric and fundamentally wrong.

Resilient teams do not see change as a threat but as an opportunity. And again, this is based on values. There is no universal recipe, but for me integrity before performance is crucial.

If someone delivers strong performance but destroys the team climate, it ultimately harms the team.

A stable team that trusts one another internally can process external changes much better. And of course, there must also be phases of stability in which new structures can settle.

When we speak about values-based organisations, we are referring to companies that promote the personal development of their people. Individuals become more stable – emotionally and professionally – and can therefore carry change more effectively.

Personal strength is decisive, not in the sense of arrogance, but as the ability to interpret and shape change.

That resonates strongly. Especially in project environments, transformation often fails because of personal uncertainty. People feel overlooked. My next question: how can change management be optimised through digital tools and AI? Are there best practices?

That is a big question. Digitalisation itself is not a tool. Digitalisation does not mean: “I now use a digital tool – and suddenly I am digital.”

Digitalisation begins with understanding what I am actually doing. It is about how I work with data, how I derive business cases from it, automate processes and break down silos.

Digitalisation can help organisations think in terms of end-to-end value chains – and that forces collaboration across departmental boundaries.

And this brings us back to the customer: the customer is the true centre of the world – not the department.

If I think from the customer’s perspective, my entire view of value creation, processes, cadence and priorities changes.

And at the latest with sustainability reporting requirements, digital systems become essential. Otherwise the requirements cannot be managed. Organisations must capture, analyse and report countless data points.

So digitalisation itself represents change – while simultaneously supporting change. But only if it is understood and lived within the organisation.

Tools can help – but only if the organisation is ready for them.

It is similar to A-SPICE: it is not a project. It is a process. Digitalisation works the same way – it is not an end in itself but a means of improving efficiency and performance.

If I place the customer at the centre and recognise that the customer is changing, it becomes obvious that I must also change – otherwise I lose relevance.

The real question is: how courageous am I?

Courage does not mean acting blindly. It means being aware of responsibility, having doubts – and still acting.

Transformation means thinking in a people- and customer-centric way.

Final question: what does a successful change look like for you? And how can sceptics and resistance be actively integrated?

I will take both questions – they belong together.

For me, a successful change is a completed increment on the path towards transformation. Transformation represents the state afterwards – the metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly. Change consists of the steps along that path.

A change is successful when it contributes to this target state – and does not deviate from it.

Regarding sceptics: they are extremely important. A healthy error culture does not only mean collecting feedback but also accepting it.

Sceptics are often the ones who see risks – not because they oppose change, but because they look closely. They want change as well, but they want it to be well thought through.

Sceptics help identify mistakes early. If I involve them, I increase the likelihood of addressing risks in time.

The real challenge is communicating this openly, honestly and strategically. Most organisations either do not do this – or do it too late.

Many say: “There will be change, but everything will stay the same.” That is the worst possible communication. Others say: “It will be tough.” – and then leave people alone with it.

If I take transformation seriously, I must bring people along.

Strategy, structure and culture – these are the three levels that must work together. And culture is often the one that is forgotten.

Sceptics bring balance to the system. They ask the questions others do not ask – and that helps avoid blind spots.

Yes, people often work with extremes.

Exactly. Everyone wants praise and approval – naturally. But if someone says: “This looks like a one-eyed dragon with three dog legs,” then the right response is: how do we turn that into something good?

And one more thing: change without considering people simply does not work. Paper is patient, processes are patient – but if people do not live it, everything else is worthless.