APMG Change Practitioner common mistakes
APMG Change Practitioner · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering an individual-change question with an organisational model, or vice versa - for example explaining a single person's dip in performance using Lewin's unfreeze/change/refreeze rather than the transition curve or a stages-of-concern view.
The models share vocabulary (stages, resistance, refreezing) and candidates learn them as a flat list rather than by the unit of change each one explains.
What to do instead
Before answering, ask 'who or what is the unit of change - one person, a group, or the whole organisation?' Build a one-page map pairing each model with its unit of change and the type of question it answers, then practise classifying five past-style questions a day.
Explaining behaviour with the assumption 'people resist change' and stopping there, instead of locating the person on a transition or learning curve and timing the intervention to that stage.
Resistance is treated as a personality trait in everyday language, so candidates skip diagnosis and jump to a reassurance tactic that does not match the stage the person is actually in.
What to do instead
Name the stage explicitly first (for example shock, denial, frustration, experimentation, integration, or the performance dip on a learning curve), then justify an intervention that fits that stage - information at one stage, involvement and practice at another.
Classifying every change as transformational and recommending a single large-scale programme approach, without weighing scale, urgency, starting point or the existing culture.
Textbook cases are memorable and dramatic, so candidates pattern-match to the biggest model they know and skip the situational analysis the question is really testing.
What to do instead
Always state the classification (developmental, transitional or transformational) with the evidence from the scenario that supports it, then choose the approach and say which situational factors - time, capability, culture, history of change - drove that choice.
Treating culture as a vague 'soft issue' - saying it must be 'managed' or 'taken into account' without naming a diagnostic framework, describing the current culture, or explaining how it constrains the change approach.
Culture feels subjective, so candidates retreat to generic statements that earn no application marks; they have also memorised frameworks without practising using them on a described organisation.
What to do instead
In every answer that touches culture, name a diagnostic lens, apply it to two or three specific artefacts or behaviours quoted in the scenario, and state one concrete implication for how the change should be designed or sequenced.
Producing a power/interest grid as the whole answer - plotting stakeholders into quadrants and stopping, with no engagement approach per quadrant and no trigger for re-plotting.
The grid is the easiest part to draw and feels like a complete tool, so candidates submit the analysis as the deliverable rather than as the input to a strategy.
What to do instead
For every quadrant state the engagement intent, the preferred channel, the frequency of contact and who owns the relationship; then add the events that would move a stakeholder between quadrants and how the analysis will be refreshed.
Calling all opposition 'resistance' and prescribing the same response, instead of identifying the type and source - for example whether it is informed objection, political positioning, ideological disagreement or anxiety about personal capability.
Resistance is used as a single catch-all label, and candidates have often memorised one generic 'engage and communicate' remedy that they apply to every scenario.
What to do instead
Diagnose in two steps: what is the person defending, and what evidence in the scenario shows it? Then match the response - genuine objection needs dialogue and evidence, political resistance needs sponsor leverage, capability anxiety needs training and support.
Presenting a communication plan as a timetable of channels ('monthly newsletter, town hall in week 3') with no key messages, no segmentation, no named sender and no feedback mechanism.
Timetables look like a finished artefact and are quick to produce under time pressure, whereas message design and sender credibility require a judgement the candidate is unsure of.
What to do instead
Produce a message matrix instead: stakeholder group, what they need to know or do, the most credible sender for that group, channel, timing, and how their response will be captured. Add a line on which messages must stay consistent across all groups.
Treating communication and engagement as the same thing - designing only informing activities (emails, briefings) when the scenario needs involvement, consultation or co-design, and omitting any evaluation of whether the engagement worked.
Informing is the visible, easy-to-commission part of communication, and candidates rarely rehearse the distinction between one-way transmission and genuine two-way participation.
What to do instead
For each stakeholder group decide the depth of engagement required (inform, consult, involve, collaborate) and choose activities that deliver it; finish with how you will measure reaction and understanding, such as pulse surveys, feedback routes or attendance and question tracking.
Confusing the change manager with the project manager or the sponsor - writing answers in which the change manager owns the business case and benefits, or the sponsor is absent while the change manager delivers all leadership communication.
All three roles appear in the same scenario and share overlapping activities, so candidates describe 'the team' loosely rather than allocating accountability precisely.
What to do instead
Write a short role table before answering: sponsor accountable for direction and visible leadership, project manager for delivery to time and cost, change manager for readiness, adoption and capability. Then attribute every action in the answer to a named role.
Writing long generic descriptions of a model instead of applying it to the named stakeholders and facts in the scenario, and spreading effort evenly rather than matching depth to the marks available.
Under time pressure candidates reproduce memorised content because it feels safe, and they misjudge the time budget across multi-part questions with unequal marks.
What to do instead
Read the directive verb and the marks per part, budget roughly two minutes per mark, and plan for two minutes before writing. In each paragraph name the scenario fact you are using and the model you are applying to it; stop describing once the application is made.