Most organisations are entering major periods of change without preparing across a broad enough range of operational and behavioural areas, with weaker preparation associated with greater productivity disruption and slower recovery.
Research from Insights found that 87% of organisations were not highly prepared for their most recent significant change. The Global Change Readiness Report surveyed 880 senior HR and people professionals across 11 international markets.
Only 13% of organisations prepared across at least four of the six areas examined, while 46% completed only one or two forms of preparation.
The research covered structural and operational planning, communication planning, team alignment, cultural integration, employee engagement, and behavioural leadership preparation. Behavioural leadership was the least commonly addressed area, included by 43% of respondents.
Organisations also tended to underestimate the disruption they would experience. While 39% expected their most recent change to cause moderate or major disruption to performance, 51% subsequently reported disruption at that level.
The productivity gap was most pronounced among organisations that had undertaken the least preparation. Twenty-two per cent of that group reported a decline in productivity, compared with 10% among the most-prepared organisations.
Across the whole sample, 17% experienced falling productivity during the change process. Recovery was not immediate for many: 42% took between one and three months to return to their previous productivity level, 31% took between three and six months, and 8% needed more than six months. A further 2% had not recovered when surveyed.
Dr Tanya Boyd, thought leadership and insights lead at Insights, said: “Our global research found that organisations can point to a change plan and still be unprepared for what change does to day-to-day performance.”
The findings separate formal change planning from operational readiness. A project can specify systems, structures, deadlines, budgets, and communication programmes without fully preparing managers and teams for how responsibilities and working relationships will change under pressure.
That distinction becomes more relevant as organisations manage repeated technology, organisational, and workforce changes rather than isolated transformation programmes. Restructures, acquisitions, systems implementations, AI deployments, and new operating models increasingly overlap.
The research associates weaker preparation with measurable commercial consequences. A temporary productivity reduction becomes more expensive when recovery extends for several months, particularly where the purpose of the programme was to improve efficiency in the first place.
The findings also challenge the assumption that previous experience automatically creates readiness. Organisations may have completed several transformations without converting what they learned into repeatable leadership behaviour, clearer decision rights, or better preparation for future disruption.
That creates a governance issue for major programmes. Boards and executive teams usually monitor budgets, milestones, implementation risks, and technology delivery. Indicators such as leadership consistency, team alignment, decision clarity, and trust can be harder to quantify, but the research suggests they are associated with whether performance is maintained through the transition.
AI-led change intensifies that problem. Organisations can deploy technology relatively quickly while working practices around it continue to evolve. Productivity gains depend on whether employees understand how responsibilities, review processes, escalation routes, and decision rights change once the system is introduced.
The report does not establish that broader preparation alone causes stronger productivity performance. The research is based on reported organisational experience and shows association rather than a controlled causal relationship.
The difference between the least- and most-prepared groups is nevertheless substantial. Organisations doing the least preparation were more than twice as likely to report falling productivity.
That gap can carry financial consequences beyond lost output. Extended disruption can increase overtime, management intervention, rework, employee turnover, customer-service problems, and the time before an investment begins producing its expected return.
Change readiness therefore extends beyond whether a project has a plan. Organisations repeatedly undertaking transformation need a repeatable operating capability for preparing teams, leaders, and decision structures before disruption begins.
As significant change becomes a recurring feature of corporate life, the commercial test is increasingly whether organisations can maintain performance while changing, rather than merely whether a transformation programme reaches its formal completion date.
You must be logged in to post a comment.