What Kind of Change Are You Leading?

Photo by Quang Nguyen Vinh

The program wrapped up. The new way of working is in place. Yet it feels like little has actually changed. Sound familiar?

In conversations, the same question keeps coming up. A lot of energy went into the change. Workshops, communication, training. And yes, things are different. But the breakthrough it was really about — did that happen?

What's going on here?

Same Solution for Different Problems

Here's what stands out: we use the word "change" for very different things. Sometimes we mean: this process needs to be more efficient. Sometimes: we need a new system. And sometimes: the way we look at our customers no longer fits.

These aren't variations on the same theme. They're fundamentally different challenges.

With the first two — improving efficiency, implementing a new system — the structure changes, but the underlying logic stays the same. You improve or renew what's already there. Most change programs are good at this.

But what if the logic itself no longer fits?

When the Logic Doesn't Hold

Take AI. Many organizations approach it as an efficiency question: how do we make existing processes faster? That's a legitimate question. But it's not the only one.

What if AI changes the value you deliver? What clients expect from you? Then it's not about a smarter process. It's about a different way of seeing.

Something similar is at play with sustainability. Or with the shift from product to service. When is the system itself up for debate?

The Question Behind the Question

Are we changing within our current way of thinking — or are we changing the way we think?

The first calls for different things than the second. Different conversations. Different timelines. Different forms of leadership.

In our work, we distinguish four types of change — from improving and renewing to transition and innovation. Each type calls for its own approach. (Read more about this model)

Maybe that explains why some changes land and others don't. Not because the approach was wrong, but because the approach didn't fit the type of change.