The Invisible Side of Transformation: Tools and Mindset for Sustainable Change in Complex Environments
- Dominique Giger
- 5 days ago
- 6 min read
Why Strategy and Planning Are Not Enough
Organizations define strategies, set ambitious targets, and invest heavily in change programs. Yet many initiatives fail to achieve their goals. A frequently cited figure in change management literature states that around 70 percent of all transformation programs do not reach their intended outcomes-a finding repeatedly confirmed in consulting and management circles. It underlines the urgency of looking beyond structural and procedural aspects of transformation.
This number, however, must be interpreted critically: it merges different studies, definitions of “success,” and heterogeneous objects of analysis. Still, the core message remains valid: many transformation efforts fail not because of flawed strategy or technology, but because of the human dimension-perceptions, emotions, power structures, and the absence of a learning mindset.
This article explores these invisible yet powerful factors, introduces proven frameworks, and defines concrete fields of action for leaders.
Making the Invisible Visible: Four Organizational Biases
Experience from practice reveals several recurring biases that silently sabotage transformation. Four major patterns can be distinguished:
1. Head Bias
Organizations plan with numbers, roadmaps, and KPIs-but often neglect how stakeholders feel the “why.” Meaning-making is decisive: when emotions and identity are addressed, adoption rates rise. Research shows that the people side of change largely determines its success.
2. Design Bias
Visually appealing interfaces, tools, and flashy rollout events are useful only if they are manageable and practical in daily work. Without usability and maintainability, such designs remain unused. Good design must be usability-oriented, not decorative.
3. Strategy Bias
Strategies are frequently crafted at the top and delegated downward. Implementation, however, requires ownership at all levels-otherwise a disconnect emerges between decision and execution. Visible leadership and broad participation throughout the transformation journey are essential for success.
4. Reform Bias
Many organizations launch multiple initiatives without defining accountability or closure mechanisms. This creates self-deception: activity is mistaken for progress. Productivity is simulated, while impact remains absent.
These biases are not immutable. They can be mitigated through clear interventions-provided leaders are willing to take these invisible dynamics seriously.
Theoretical Anchors: Lewin, Kotter, Kübler-Ross-Their Value (and Their Limits)
Change management offers a rich toolbox of models that illuminate different dimensions and provide orientation.
Kurt Lewin: Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze
Lewin’s three-phase model emphasizes that systems must “unfreeze” before transformation is possible, and that stabilization must follow after learning new behaviors. The metaphor is useful because it underlines the temporal dimension of change: without conscious refreezing, organizations slide back into old routines.
John P. Kotter: Eight Steps of Change
Kotter complements Lewin’s macro-logic with operational steps: from creating urgency to building vision, empowerment, and anchoring change in culture and structures. He stresses that successful transformation requires a powerful guiding coalition-leaders who actively champion the change.
The Kübler-Ross Change Curve
Originally designed to describe stages of grief, this model is widely applied to explain emotional reactions to change-from shock, denial, and frustration to acceptance. It highlights that people move through emotional cycles; change management must therefore address feelings, not just facts. Because the curve provides little implementation logic, it should be paired with concrete change tools.
Critical perspective: No single model is “the” answer.Lewin supplies the time structure; Kotter provides actionable steps; Kübler-Ross explains the emotional journey. The key lies in synchronizing all three dimensions-strategy, structure, and emotion-within an ongoing learning process.
Psychological Safety: The Underrated Component of Change
One of the strongest empirical findings in team research is the importance of psychological safety: when team members can take interpersonal risks without fear of social punishment, learning capacity and performance rise sharply.
Amy Edmondson’s seminal studies demonstrate that psychological safety fosters team learning-a central lever for implementing complex transformations. Likewise, Google’s Project Aristotle identified psychological safety as the top factor of effective teams.
What does this mean for leaders in practice?
Establish regular feedback routines where mistakes are discussed openly and framed as opportunities for growth.
Model vulnerability: admit your own mistakes and actively seek input.
Recognize and celebrate small learning milestones.
Psychological safety is not a nice-to-have-it is the prerequisite for employees to engage in experimental, adaptive work.
Measurement as an Orientation, Not a Control Instrument
Clear, measurable goals are vital. The SMART criteria-Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound-remain a reliable guide. SMART goals create orientation, enable objectivity, and support continuous learning.
Practical rule: Choose three to five core metrics directly tied to customer value or process quality. Metrics should also serve as early-warning indicators: the earlier deviations are detected, the easier they are to correct.
Stakeholder Analysis and a Common Language
Transformation projects operate within multi-stakeholder systems. A systematic stakeholder analysis identifies those affected and those exerting influence-both inside and outside the organization-and defines who is informed or involved at which stage.
Equally crucial is a shared vocabulary: different teams often use different terms (“milestones,” “waves,” “phases”), leading to confusion. A common language measurably reduces misunderstandings and error rates.
Force-Field Analysis: Identifying and Shaping Leverage Points
Kurt Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis visualizes driving and restraining forces. It takes a pragmatic stance: instead of labeling resistance as “the enemy,” it investigates root causes (e.g., fear of losing competence) and identifies intervention points (e.g., targeted training).
When pressure is applied, counter-pressure arises. Sustainable impact results not from intensifying pressure, but from reducing restraining forces and strengthening driving ones.
Agile Learning: Retrospectives, Experiments, Small Steps
Transformation thrives on iterative cycles. Plan–Do–Check–Act loops, retrospectives, and small, fast experiments allow organizations to learn quickly. Agile methods shift the focus from “plan-execute-operate” to continuous learning during implementation.
Mistakes are not stigmatized but treated as data. This represents a cultural choice, directly linked to leadership behavior and incentive structures.
Three Learning Archetypes
Experience shows that three archetypes support learning-oriented transformation:
The Explorers – drive vision and curiosity.
The Experimenters – test, measure, and iterate.
The Jazz Musicians – improvise and provoke perspective shifts.
These archetypes inspire diverse ways of thinking and foster an environment of agile learning.
Common Pitfalls-and How to Avoid Them
Launching only a “communication campaign.” Communication without dialogue or participation stays superficial.
→ Use dialogue formats, roundtables, and transparent messaging.
KPIs without relevance. Metrics designed only for reporting can distort incentives.
→ Choose outcome-oriented KPIs with a clear baseline and target value.
Absent top management. Visible sponsorship is essential; leaders must invest time in change work.
Pathologizing resistance. Resistance often signals unresolved interests or missing competencies.
→ Conduct root-cause analyses, provide training, and involve stakeholders.
No stabilization phase.
After rollout, refreezing is often neglected. Establishing new routines requires time and reinforcement.
A Pragmatic Operating Model for Leaders
Initial diagnosis: Conduct a concise Force-Field Analysis and stakeholder mapping.
Anchor psychological safety: Leadership workshops; establish behavioral norms (e.g., team-charter sessions, retrospectives).
Pilot and quick wins: Start with one pilot team, learn from it, then scale. Small, measurable projects with visible success increase motivation.
Scaling patterns: Discuss and document lessons learned; maintain visible executive sponsorship.
Anchoring / Refreezing: Adapt processes, roles, and incentive systems; celebrate milestones.
Critical Reflection: When Models Are Not Enough
Models are maps, not the terrain. They reveal blind spots but never replace contextual sensitivity. Especially in long-term, systemic transformations-such as cultural change-patience, iteration, and hypothesis testing are crucial. The “70 percent” figure should not induce fatalism but serve as a wake-up call, not a verdict. Transformation succeeds when leaders treat complexity as a field for learning, not control.
Summary
Change succeeds when strategy, structure, and the invisible dimensions-emotions, power relations, and learning culture-are addressed simultaneously.
In practice, this means:
Diagnose driving and restraining forces (Force-Field Analysis).
Create psychological safety as a foundation for experimentation.
Use relevant SMART metrics as learning compasses.
Work iteratively with pilots and retrospectives.
Ensure visible sponsorship and authentic leadership presence.
Ultimately, technology and tools do not decide success-the human environment that enables their use does.
About the Author
Dominique Giger is an expert in leadership, mindset, and organizational transformation. As a consultant, coach, and speaker with an MSc in Computer Science from ETH Zurich, she combines technical expertise with neuroscience, hypnotherapy, and 18 years of international experience in change and transformation management.
Dominique supports leaders and teams in both SMEs and global corporations, focusing on future-ready leadership, resilience, and sustainable cultural change.
🎧 This edition is based on episode #23 of her podcast: The invisible side of transformation – tools and mindset for sustainable change in complex environments
Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/folge-23-die-unsichtbare-seite-von-transformation-tools/id1801021329?i=1000734623756
References
McKinsey & Company. Changing Change Management
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review
Lewin, K. (1947/1951). Field Theory and Force-Field Analysis: The Unfreeze–Change–Refreeze Model
Prosci. The Kübler-Ross Change Curve and Its Application in Change Management
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management’s Goals and Objectives. Management Review Journal
Google Project Aristotle / re:Work. Understanding Team Effectiveness
Whatfix / Prosci. Applying the Kübler-Ross Curve in Practice. (2024/2025).
McCausland, T., et al. (2023). Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace. Taylor & Francis Online
Comments