Change Fatigue and Mandated Communications

MoP's energised change culture is about the organisation's capacity and willingness to change, captured by SCRAM: Social (relationships and networks), Cultural (shared values and norms), Relational (trust between leaders and staff), Attitudinal (how people feel about change) and Motivational (what drives people to engage). The current approach fails on most dimensions. Weekly mandated communications and a monthly toolkit are push, not engagement; they do not build trust or address the real job-role concerns. Middle managers are bypassed, so the social and relational channels that carry change are weakened. Union resistance is a symptom of unaddressed attitudinal and relational concerns. Calling culture 'soft' is a category error: the 34% engagement score, low session attendance and initiative overload are delivery risks. The board should treat change capacity as a constraint, just like money. Visible leadership, genuine involvement, honest communication about what will not change, and sequencing are the starting points.

At portfolio level, stakeholder engagement should be planned, not improvised project by project. First, a stakeholder analysis covering influence, interest, impact and attitude, segmented by group, including field engineers, unions, middle managers and customers. Second, an engagement strategy with objectives, commitments, channels and responsibilities. Third, a single portfolio narrative explaining why the 22 projects exist, what changes for whom, and what is not happening. Fourth, involve middle managers early as change agents: give them information and authority before decisions are announced, not after. Fifth, engage unions early and formally on job-role changes, with a joint plan. Sixth, measure engagement and act on feedback. MoP's stakeholder engagement practice should sit alongside communications; the difference is two-way influence. The portfolio office or change team should facilitate, but senior leaders must own the relationships. Attendance below 20% is feedback on the approach, not evidence that staff do not care.

Initiative overload is a portfolio balance problem as well as a culture problem. Three major go-lives in one quarter, with no change capacity assessment, is a predictable failure. I would: (1) assess change capacity by business area and quarter, including business-as-usual pressures; (2) resequence the three go-lives if the capacity data shows saturation; (3) stop or defer low-value projects to create breathing space, and communicate that decision; (4) align the portfolio's change curve with resource management, so the same people are not expected to absorb everything at once; (5) monitor fatigue and engagement as portfolio health indicators. The board should include change capacity in its balance decisions, alongside risk and time horizon. A short moratorium on non-essential communications may help, but it is not enough: staff need to see that priorities have changed. Publishing a stop list is often more credible than another engagement campaign.