Transformation Projects Have a Human Undercurrent
Yesterday I was in a conversation with a Transformation Director and another Project Manager; a frustrated project manager. An IT workstream was not progressing as expected, and one person in particular was not getting things done. The Transformation Director paused, then said:
“Just think about it from their perspective. They might not have a job in six months, so we’re not necessarily expecting them to be fully engaged.”
I have not been able to stop thinking about that, because in one utterance, he named an undercurrent that shapes transformation projects, and the project approach we need to take.
In many project environments, the work can be broken down into tasks, dependencies, milestones, resources and deliverables. That discipline still matters in transformation. I use it. I value it. Without structure, transformation does not happen.
But transformation work has an additional layer.
When people work on a transformation programme, they are not always just delivering tasks; they may also be living with uncertainty about their role, their team, their managers, their status, their expertise, their workload, and sometimes their future employment.
This, of course, affects what people do. It affects what they avoid, how quickly they respond, how much energy they bring, what they are willing to own, and whether they feel safe enough to tell the truth.
People are not just building something external to themselves. They may be helping to build a future operating model that changes their own job. They may be designing a process that removes work they currently do. They may be documenting systems knowledge that makes their role less dependent on them. They may be training someone else to take over part of their function. They may be asked to support a programme whose benefits depend on reducing cost, consolidating teams, changing reporting lines, or outsourcing activity.
Even where people’s jobs are not genuinely under threat, the perception may still exist - and perception affects behaviour.
A person may appear disengaged, obstructive, slow, difficult or unreliable. Sometimes they are. But sometimes they are anxious, overloaded, mistrustful, under-informed, or quietly trying to protect themselves.
If people think the programme threatens them, several risks increase:
They may delay decisions or actions because they do not want to accelerate their own uncertainty.
They may share only partial information because hoarding knowledge feels like self-protection.
They may become fatigued by constant ambiguity and stop investing discretionary effort.
Being sensitive to the human experience of transformation does not mean accepting or excusing poor or non-delivery.
It does mean we need to understand what may be driving it.
It means reading the room accurately enough to choose the right intervention: empathy, escalation, a clearer decision, a more realistic plan, a direct conversation about performance, protecting a team from impossible demands.
Sensitivity helps a project or programme manager act with precision.
I approach transformation project and programme management with two lenses.
The first lens is delivery discipline.
There still needs to be a plan. There still need to be milestones, dependencies, risks, issues, decisions, owners and governance. People still need to know what is expected, by when, and to what standard. Leaders still need accurate reporting. Teams still need momentum.
The second lens is organisational understanding.
I pay attention to how people are experiencing the work. I listen for hesitation, fatigue, ambiguity and fear. I look for the gap between formal agreement and actual commitment. I notice when decisions are being avoided.. I consider whether a lack of progress is caused by the person, the system around them, or the way the change has been framed.
Transformation needs both delivery discipline and organisational understanding.
The conversation yesterday captured something unique about transformation delivery environments.
The uncertainty. The perceived threat. The resistance. The people waiting to see what happens. The decisions no one wants to own. The knowledge held by people who are not sure whether sharing it helps or harms them.
If we ignore that undercurrent, we manage only part of the project. If we understand it, we can lead the work more intelligently. That does not mean lowering expectations bur rather, setting expectations in a way that recognises the real conditions of delivery.
Transformation projects need more than task management. They need project and programme managers who can deliver the plan, read the organisation, and create the conditions in which people can do difficult work, even when the future does not yet feel safe.