The process in change seems to stay the same... leadership signs off, the project team makes a plan, the comms go out.. pretty straight forward right?
If you ask the people working on the change, they will tell you they did everything the methodology told them to do.. which makes it even more frustrating for them because they followed the playbook and didnt get the results they hoped for.
I've been trying to understand why this keeps happening.. and after years of reviewing toolkits and documenting patterns of behavior change, I've come to understand how underused diagnosis is in an organizational setting.
Diagnosis matters, because what you get from it is the right route to go on, from a big map. See, for someone that gets a new system that takes more effort than the old one, the problem isnt their mindset, their issue is the system.
Same goes for those who have the tools and the skills but can't see how the change connects to anything they care about.
Each of those needs a different strategy to get the behavior going, and while its tempting to always train and communicate (by all means, make sure you do)training won't fix a system problem.
But most change programs can't make this distinction, because they don't diagnore... hence the default response to everything becomes more training and more comms regardless of what's actually the issue.
The dominant frameworks are strong at getting your program going.. getting leadership aligned, building readiness, managing stakeholders, however they are weaker at diagnosing behavior-level barriers and matching them to the right interventions.
That's not a criticism.. it's just my observation about where the next layer of value sits.
So, with that, I made a free tool to help you, it starts from the patterns you're probably already seeing.. people building workarounds, teams still working in silos and so on.
You pick the pattern, and it shows you what's likely driving it at three levels.. what sits in the environment, what sits between people, and what sits inside the person.
The actions inside are specific to the cause, not the symptom, I also left two worked mini examples showing how common frameworks like ADKAR and Kotter diagnose a situation, and what changes when you run the same problem through all three levels.
It's not a replacement for what you're already using.. it's the diagnostic layer underneath it.