Seven Signs Your Change Management Is Ad Hoc

Every organisation changes. New systems arrive, teams are restructured, processes are redesigned, policies are rewritten. What differs is how deliberately that change is managed.

In an organisation with ad hoc change management, each change is handled from scratch by whoever happens to be leading it. Some go well because the person in charge is naturally good at bringing people along. Many do not. The organisation does not learn from either, because nothing is captured or repeated.

Here are seven signs you are in that position, and a practical first step for each. If several sound familiar, the Change Management assessment will give you a more complete picture in about fifteen minutes.

1. Change is announced, not introduced

The first most people hear of a change is an email or a town hall announcement saying it is happening, often with a date that is already fixed. There has been no earlier conversation, no chance to raise concerns, and no explanation of why the change is needed beyond a slide or two.

Why it matters: people who first hear about a change when it is already decided tend to focus on what they are losing rather than what they might gain. Resistance is not a character flaw; it is a natural response to being surprised.

First step: for the next significant change, identify the groups most affected and talk to them before the announcement. Even a short conversation with team leaders a week earlier makes a noticeable difference.

2. Success is declared at go-live

The project closes when the new system is switched on or the new structure takes effect. The project team moves on, and nobody checks whether people are actually working the new way three months later.

Why it matters: go-live is the start of adoption, not the end. Many changes quietly fail after launch, as people revert to old habits, build workarounds or use only a fraction of what was delivered.

First step: for every significant change, agree two or three simple adoption measures in advance, such as the proportion of transactions going through the new process, and check them at one, three and six months after go-live.

3. Sponsors sign off, then disappear

A senior leader approves the change and appears at the launch, but is otherwise invisible. When difficulties arise, the project team cannot get decisions made, and staff notice that leadership has moved on to the next priority.

Why it matters: people watch what leaders do, not what they say. A sponsor who stops talking about a change signals that it no longer matters.

First step: agree specific, visible actions with the sponsor before launch: which meetings they will attend, what they will say, and how often they will check progress.

4. Every change uses a different approach

One project produces detailed communication plans and training; the next has none. Different teams use different templates, language and methods, and there is no common understanding of what "managing change" involves.

Why it matters: inconsistency means the quality of change depends on luck. It also makes it impossible to learn, because there is no baseline to improve on.

First step: write down a lightweight, one-page approach covering the essentials: who to involve, when to communicate, how to prepare people, and how to check adoption. Use it on the next three changes and refine it.

5. Nobody knows how many changes are landing at once

Each project plans its own change in isolation. Frontline teams find themselves absorbing a new system, a new structure and a new policy in the same quarter, with nobody having looked at the combined impact.

Why it matters: people have a limited capacity to absorb change. When too much lands at once, everything is adopted badly, and change fatigue sets in.

First step: build a simple calendar of planned changes and the groups each will affect. Review it at a leadership meeting each quarter and move or stagger changes when one group is overloaded.

6. Resistance is treated as a problem to overcome

When people push back, the response is to communicate harder or escalate. Objections are seen as obstacles rather than information.

Why it matters: resistance often contains useful intelligence. People closest to the work frequently spot practical problems that the design missed. Treating every objection as obstruction means those problems surface later, at greater cost.

First step: for each change, create a simple way to collect concerns, such as a short form or a regular drop-in session, and report back on what was changed as a result.

7. Lessons are never captured

When a change goes badly, there may be a frustrated conversation, but nothing is written down or shared. When a change goes well, nobody asks why. The next project team starts from zero.

Why it matters: without learning, an organisation repeats the same mistakes indefinitely, and good practice stays locked inside the heads of a few individuals.

First step: hold a short review at the end of every significant change, asking three questions: what worked, what did not, and what would we do differently? Store the answers somewhere the next project team will find them.

What these signs have in common

All seven point to the same root cause: change management depends on individuals rather than on a shared, repeatable way of working. That is the defining feature of the lowest maturity level in most change management models.

The good news is that the first steps are small. Moving from ad hoc to structured change does not require a large programme, a certification or a dedicated department. It requires a lightweight common approach, sponsors who stay visible, attention to the combined load on people, and the discipline to check whether change has actually stuck.

How to know where you stand

These seven signs are a quick check, not a full diagnosis. A structured assessment looks across the whole picture: strategy and planning, leadership and sponsorship, stakeholder engagement, communication, training, resistance and adoption, and measurement.

Running it with a few colleagues is even better, because people at different levels often see change very differently. Our guide to running a maturity assessment workshop explains how to set that up.

Frequently asked questions

Do we need a change management methodology?

Not a heavyweight one. A simple, consistent approach that everyone understands is worth more than an elaborate methodology that only specialists use. Many organisations do well with a one-page checklist applied consistently.

Who should be responsible for change management?

Every leader of a change is responsible for managing its people side. A central change specialist or small team can provide tools, coaching and an overview of all the changes in flight, but cannot do the work for every project.

How long does it take to move beyond ad hoc change?

Most organisations can establish a consistent, structured approach within a year if leaders commit to using it. Making it a natural part of how the organisation works, so that nobody would think of launching a change without it, usually takes longer.