The new process has been announced. Everyone has attended the training. The launch email thanked colleagues for their enthusiasm, although enthusiasm was perhaps a generous interpretation of the meeting.
Three weeks later, the old spreadsheet is back. It arrives quietly, attached to an email: “I’ve updated this as well, just in case.” For a manager who has spent months preparing the change, this is frustrating. The new approach makes sense. People know what they are supposed to do. Why are they drifting back?
Before sending another reminder, it is worth finding out what happens when someone actually tries to use it.
What the plan didn’t show
Helen manages a small customer service team introducing a shared system for tracking enquiries. Previously, requests lived in personal inboxes and a spreadsheet. When someone was absent, colleagues struggled to establish what had been promised. The reason for changing was sound: customers should not have to repeat their story, and staff should be able to pick up outstanding work.
Yet, Helen’s launch presentation concentrated on features and deadlines. Her team heard plenty about mandatory fields and very little about how the change would make a difficult Tuesday easier.
When she notices people maintaining the spreadsheet, she initially assumes they lack confidence. Then she sits beside a colleague handling a real enquiry. One required field asks for information customers rarely provide at first contact. The colleague cannot save the record without it. Meanwhile, another customer is waiting on the telephone.
The spreadsheet suddenly looks rather less like stubbornness.
CIPD’s change management factsheet highlights the consequences poorly managed change can have for performance, engagement and stress. Helen’s difficulty illustrates how implementation problems can arise in ordinary daily work, even when the original proposal is sensible.
Listen while there is still something to change
Helen asks colleagues to show her where the process becomes difficult. She discovers a mixture of problems: the required field, uncertainty about who allocates enquiries and a genuine worry that the system will be used to judge individuals without considering case complexity. Those concerns need different responses. A software adjustment will not settle a question about trust.
She also realises that staff should have tested realistic enquiries before launch. They could have spotted the missing-information problem when it was cheaper and easier to address.
The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on organisational change emphasises timely explanations, opportunities to influence proposals, clarity about job impacts and access to support.
In Helen’s situation, a useful conversation would be specific: the organisation has committed to a shared system, but the allocation rules, guidance and implementation sequence can still change. That honesty matters. Asking for views after every decision has been settled leaves people wondering why they gave up their lunch break.
Knowing the steps is only the beginning
The team’s training covered a straightforward enquiry from start to finish. Real customers, unfortunately, had not seen the demonstration. Some changed their request halfway through. Others called about two unrelated issues. Staff needed practice with these situations, alongside someone who could help.
Prosci’s guidance on barriers to change distinguishes understanding what to do from being able to do it. Time, resources and support can affect whether people put new knowledge into practice.
For Helen, that means arranging short practice sessions using realistic cases and naming someone colleagues can approach when they get stuck. She also negotiates a temporary adjustment to workload expectations.
There is a cost. Practice takes time away from handling enquiries, and the team is already busy. Helen has to explain that trade-off to her manager rather than quietly expecting colleagues to absorb the extra work.
The manager’s habits count too
Then a colleague points out something awkward. Helen is still asking for the Friday figures in the old spreadsheet.
She has been doing it because the new reporting view feels unfamiliar and the weekly deadline has not moved. It is entirely understandable. It also gives everyone a good reason to maintain both systems.
Helen agrees a revised reporting arrangement with her manager and starts using the shared records in team discussions. A temporary fallback remains for exceptional cases, with a clear owner and review date.
People can see that she is learning too. More importantly, her requests now support the behaviour she is asking them to adopt.
Look beyond the launch checklist
A month later, Helen does not declare victory because everyone has logged in. She checks whether enquiries are recorded accurately, whether colleagues can take over cases and whether customers still need to chase. She asks how much additional effort the process creates.
The picture is mixed. Ownership is clearer, but complex cases still take longer to enter. Staff suggest simplifying one part of the form. Helen agrees another small test.
This week, try one conversation about a change you are leading: “Show me the part that is hardest to use during a normal working day.” Listen before explaining the intended process. Agree one practical response and a date to review it.
You may discover that your plan needs adjusting. That is useful information to have while you can still act on it.
For structured support, explore Compound Knowledge’s Change Management course and develop practical ways to help people adopt new approaches at work.