The board that doesn't lie
In the GBS transformation I'm describing here, I worked with 16 teams for over a year. Not a single change - not one - went in without a "Communication and Change" board.
What did the board look like? Simple.
Rows: each stakeholder. Not "the HR department" - each specific person. Columns: the five ADKAR letters, plus an "Action" column and a "Deadline" column. An added dimension: Power-Interest Matrix - who has authority and who is engaged.
When I could see that 8 of 12 managers were in the Ability phase while 4 were still in Awareness - I knew where the problem was. Without that board I'd have been guessing. And I'd probably have been wrong.
The board doesn't lie. Email lies. Newsletters lie. Training sessions where everyone nods and leaves without changing anything - lie. The board shows reality.
What I did at each ADKAR stage - concretely
A - Awareness
Not email. 15 minutes with each of the 12 managers individually.
Opening question: "What frustrates you most about how HR planning works right now?"
I needed to hear that from each person separately. Because only when I heard "the lack of transparency about who decides what, and why" - could I show them that TOM wasn't just another process handed down from above. It was a solution to their own pain.
One note: only face to face can I see whether someone is nodding with interest or clenching their jaw in resistance. Email never shows that. Ever.
Only face to face saves a transformation.
D - Desire
Not a strategy presentation. A "value mapping session" - a 30-minute meeting where I show one specific number.
"Right now, 30% of your requests disappear in review. With TOM you'll have visibility within 48 hours. Is that worth something?"
The HR manager responded: "OK, but if you fail, we go back to the old system."
Fair deal. I accepted it. And noted on the board: D = positive, conditional. That's important information. Conditional acceptance isn't the same as full commitment.
K - Knowledge
Not a playbook. Not a group training. A "shadow day."
A business manager spent two hours with a PO. Watching live how request intake works. They understood - not "knew," but understood - why "incomplete requirements" is a problem for both sides.
The difference between knowledge and understanding is enormous. Knowledge is information. Understanding is information plus context plus emotion. Only understanding changes behavior.
A - Ability
Not training. A buddy system.
Each manager was assigned a TOM Champion from GBS. Two weeks, side by side. Not "call me if you have questions" - physical presence through every operation.
It's expensive. Yes. But the alternative is a change that doesn't stick. Which is more expensive?
R - Reinforcement
Not a newsletter. A "pain review" every two weeks.
Agenda: "Where did TOM help, and where did it get in the way?"
Not "how's it going?" - too vague. Not "is TOM working?" - too defensive. I ask about pain. Because when I hear that TOM is getting in the way, that's not the time to defend the process. It's time to fix something.
Reinforcement isn't celebrating success. It's an honest conversation about what to improve before people quietly drift back to their old habits.
Results - honest, with context
After 12 months working with 16 teams:
- Time to Market down 35%
- 0% active resistance after the transformation (which doesn't mean everyone was enthusiastic - it means there was no boycott)
- Quality improved while maintaining pace
Important caveat: this was that organization, in those conditions, with those people. GBS is a service environment where the relationship equals the quality of delivery. Results may look different in a different context.
But the mechanism is transferable. That's why I'm writing about it.
One honest caveat: this model requires time and presence. Fifteen minutes with each of the 12 managers individually, a two-week buddy system, pain reviews every two weeks - this is not a plan for an organization in Friday-crisis mode. For smaller projects or teams under heavy time pressure, the approach may need to be simplified. The principle stays the same. The scale adjusts.
Three diagnostic questions for a change manager
Before the next change, ask yourself three questions:
1. What does your stakeholder map look like? Not a slide deck with circles. A list of specific people with their current ADKAR status. If you don't have that list - you're flying blind.
2. Where is your D - Desire? Do people want this change? Not "do they understand it" - "do they want it." That's a different question. Understanding isn't enough. Desire is the foundation. Without it, everything else is sand.
3. What are you doing about people at -1 or -2? Meaning those who actively don't want the change. There's no ADKAR process that skips this group. They're there. Always. The only question is: do you see them on the board, or are you pretending they don't exist?
And one question worth asking yourself honestly: what will you do if you have all the conversations, the board, the buddy system, the pain reviews - and the change still isn't sticking? Sometimes ADKAR reveals that the problem runs deeper than behavioral change. It's in the structure. In the culture. In the fact that the decision to change wasn't really a decision made by the whole organization. In that case, ADKAR is a mirror - not a cure.
Instead of a conclusion - one sentence
The most expensive element of a transformation isn't the tool, the consultant, or the methodology. It's the email you sent instead of having a conversation.
How many conversations did you replace with email in your last change initiative? And what came of it?