Someone Has to Own It

Every transformation says "we're aligned" at kickoff. The real test comes six weeks in, when someone has to actually make the call.

Every organization says the same thing at the start of a big change: we're in this together, everyone's aligned.

Six weeks in, that gets tested. Someone has to decide how the new way of working will run, not just sit in meetings about it. That's the moment things either hold together or start to drift.

Showing up isn't owning

I see this all the time. A team shows up to every call, and everyone nods along. Underneath that, the client side is waiting for the vendor to make the call, and the vendor side is waiting for the client to make it. The assumption runs in both directions, and neither side notices until something breaks.

Here's how I think about where that responsibility sits. A consultant or vendor can guide the work, bring expertise, and make recommendations. But the client side has to own the decision, because they're the ones who live with the outcome long after the engagement ends. When the client side doesn't claim that role, the project keeps moving, but nobody on the inside is driving it.

A consultant or vendor can guide the work, bring expertise, and make recommendations. But the client side has to own the decision, because they're the ones who live with the outcome long after the engagement ends.

The tug of war

Most change pulls at least three groups in different directions. The group funding it wants a return they can point to. The group living with it every day wants something that doesn't slow them down. The group supporting it long term wants something they can maintain.

All three are fair positions, and none of them can speak for the whole organization on its own. Without someone empowered to sit above that pull and make the call, decisions happen in whatever meeting runs closest to the deadline, or they go to whoever argues loudest, or they don't get made at all and the old way wins by default.

The trap of rebuilding what you already had

When nobody owns the redesign, teams tend to rebuild their old way of working inside the new one. It's familiar, and it lets everyone skip a question they'd rather not answer.

I get it. Change is uncomfortable, and rebuilding the familiar feels like progress. But a new process or system is a chance to ask why you did things a certain way in the first place. Skip that question, and you end up with the same friction as before, just dressed up differently.

What ownership looks like

It isn't a title. It's a few habits I look for in organizations that get change right.

A specific person or small group is named as accountable for decisions, not just for keeping the trains running. Everyone knows who that is.

The reasoning behind a decision gets written down along with the decision, so two years later, when that person has moved on, the "why" is still there.

Trade-offs get said out loud instead of avoided. Nobody gets everything they asked for, and pretending otherwise just delays the fight.

Early decisions get revisited on a schedule instead of treated as permanent. What made sense on day one rarely fits a year later, and that's expected, not a failure.

The bottom line

I've watched enough of these to know it's rarely the new system, process, or structure that causes the failure. It's that neither side stepped up to own the decisions that shape it. Everyone agrees something has to change. The harder part, every time, is agreeing on who decides how.

Everyone agrees something has to change. The harder part, every time, is agreeing on who decides how.

If a change has stalled in your organization, the failure point is rarely the tool. It's usually this same unclaimed decision.