Why is your transformation not progressing in day-to-day work?

Here, transformation means a connected redesign of an organisation or the way it works, bringing several changes together. For example, responsibilities are redistributed, systems adjusted and more decisions moved into teams that span departments. This is a working definition for this article; companies use the term in different ways.

A single new handover route is initially a defined change initiative. If its success also depends on other goals, roles and processes, you need to widen the scope. The article on the change process helps with the practical planning of an individual transition. Here, the focus is how several initiatives work together.

The CIPD describes organisation design as aligning organisational structures and practices with strategy, also considering the connections between them. You can find this perspective in the Organisation design factsheet. In practical terms for your review, this means looking beyond the completion report for an individual work package.

Choose a case that requires the intended collaboration. In a fictional company, customer enquiries are to be handled by a joint team from sales, engineering and service. The new team exists, the system is set up and training has taken place. Yet quotations still wait for several approvals.

Work through the case from receipt to decision. Which information is needed when? Who has authority to decide? Which requirement prevents the next step? This reveals whether the bottleneck concerns access, responsibility, a rule or a technical prerequisite. “The transformation has not taken hold yet” would be too vague.

Document the difference between the intended and actual process. The aim is not to hold individual participants responsible for a delay. The case should show which rule, responsibility or lack of time is slowing implementation. A specific bottleneck is easier to decide on than a general call for greater willingness to change.

Check whether the new tasks are compatible with existing goals. A team spanning departments cannot make independent decisions if every deviation still needs approval through the old hierarchy. Additional trial work is equally difficult if the previous workload is still expected unchanged.

In the example, engineering needs time for an early review of an enquiry. However, its department target measures only work on ongoing projects. The delay is then more than a coordination problem. The responsible manager needs to decide which task takes priority and how the effort required will be accounted for.

Such contradictions should reach a designated decision-maker. The team can provide input and try out suggestions. But it cannot change objectives across departments on its own. Without this distinction, more workshops are scheduled while the decisive rule stays in place.

Create a short overview of the changes actually reaching people. The team's perspective matters more here than the number of projects on a central list. One initiative may only mean new information; another changes working time, responsibility and decision routes all at once.

The overview does not require additional software. It can be kept in an existing working document. Its purpose is the next decision: What can run in parallel, what needs a prerequisite, and what should wait? The number of completed rows is not a measure of progress.

Ask whether the agreed work can be carried out. Our own example statements are: “I am clear about which of the current initiatives takes priority in my work” or “When obstacles span departments, it is clear who makes the next decision”. Choose the statement to fit the suspected gap rather than asking about general satisfaction with the transformation.

Add specific cases and existing process information to the feedback. If a team reports missing decision-making rights, examine a case with actual waiting time. If the authority was available, investigate access and awareness. If it was missing, the next task belongs to the responsible manager.

A survey can provide indications of how day-to-day work is experienced. It does not assess individual abilities or automatically show the status of every transformation project. For sensitive information, access and analysis must be clarified in advance. The Confidentiality page explains the limits of feedback without names.

Prefer an action that addresses a named obstacle. In the example, this could be a defined scope of authority for standard quotations. Management records which decisions the customer team may make itself and which exceptions still require review. The rule is then tested on suitable cases.

Choose a different action if the cause lies elsewhere. Missing expertise requires practice and support; an inaccessible data source needs a technical or organisational solution. A lunch-and-learn can help when people lack confidence in applying something. It does not remove a conflicting target.

Record which assumption you are testing with the action and who can decide on further intervention. A clear working note is enough initially. A long action list without these connections makes the programme larger, but not necessarily easier to steer. Measuring change management provides details on assessment.

Check whether the previously blocked case can now be carried out. Are decisions made within the agreed scope? Does an exception go to the right place? Is the required quality maintained? Then consider whether the improvement also holds for other suitable cases.

Feedback on clarity can change earlier than operational results. Conversely, a process may temporarily become faster while the team takes on an unsustainable extra workload. Both observations matter for a financial decision. Avoid choosing one value that is meant to overshadow all other developments.

If capacity conflicts recur across several initiatives, a decision on sequence or scope is needed. The article on change fatigue considers this situation from the affected teams' perspective. If old expectations consistently prevent new decisions, there may also be a cultural issue.

Bring the specific blocked case, the explanation you have checked and the decision needed. A general status of “implementation ongoing” is not enough if authority across departments remains unclear. The meeting should address precisely those questions the team cannot decide for itself.

End with clear feedback to those affected. Which rule applies from now on? Which dependency remains unresolved? When will another decision be made? This connects central coordination with actual work. Feedback that disappears into a presentation for programme management does not yet improve that connection.

EngageBeat Fokus captures how the team experiences the change. Use prepared questions about change or ask your own, for example about clarity and support. Questions rotate, so a selected question will not automatically appear the following week. Responses do not replace a complete project status. The page Supporting transformation with EngageBeat shows how it can be used. You manage priorities, dependencies and operational metrics through your existing procedures.