Most organisations invest heavily in strategy and systems, then hand execution to managers who have never been taught how to manage. Cheryl Burgess explores the hidden cost of undertrained managers – and what to do about it.

There’s a statistic that gets quoted a lot in change management circles: that around 70% of organisational change programmes fail to deliver their intended results. The exact number varies depending on who you ask, but the pattern is consistent enough to be worth taking seriously. What’s less often discussed is why they fail. It’s rarely because the strategy was wrong. It’s rarely because the process design was flawed or the technology didn’t work. In the vast majority of cases, change fails because the people who were supposed to deliver it didn’t understand it, didn’t believe in it, or didn’t feel any ownership of it. That’s not a process problem. That’s a people problem. And it requires a people-first response. What “people-first” actually means The phrase gets used a lot. In my experience, it’s often used to describe organisations that care about their employees’ wellbeing – and that matters, but it’s not quite what I mean here. A people-first approach to change delivery means designing the entire change process around the human beings who will carry it out – from the way the plan is built, to the way it’s communicated, to the way performance is managed and results are sustained. It’s a fundamentally different way of thinking about transformation. Here’s what it looks like in practice. Involving people early, not informing them late The most common mistake I see in change programmes is this: a leadership team or external consultancy develops a detailed plan, then presents it to the wider organisation for implementation. By that point, the people who will actually deliver the change have had no input into it. They’re being asked to execute something they didn’t shape. The result is predictable. Resistance. Workarounds. A plan that looks good on paper but never quite lands in practice. At Opexcell, we do it differently. Before a plan takes shape, we go to the frontline. We talk to the people who do the work every day, because they understand the operational reality in a way that no leadership team, however experienced, can fully see from the top. They know where the workarounds are. They know which processes only function because one particular person holds them together. They know where the bottlenecks are and why they exist. Building a plan around that insight doesn’t just produce a better plan. It creates ownership before the change has even begun. When people have contributed to something, they have a reason to make it work. Communicating the why, not just the what My background in the Royal Air Force shaped a lot of how I think about leadership and communication – but this principle, more than any other, comes directly from that experience. Military operations depend on every single person understanding the mission. Not just their individual task, but why it matters, how it connects to the wider objective, and what success looks like. That clarity isn’t a nice-to-have. In high-stakes environments, it’s the difference between a team that adapts intelligently when things don’t go to plan and one that freezes or falls back on procedure. The same is true in business. When people understand the reason behind a change – not just the what, but the why – they make better decisions. They adapt more effectively when they hit obstacles. They’re more resilient when the inevitable disruption arrives. And crucially, they can explain it to the people around them, which is how change spreads through an organisation rather than staying at the top of it. Too many change communications focus entirely on what is changing and when. The why gets a paragraph in a town hall presentation and then disappears. In my experience, the why deserves more airtime than almost anything else. Building capability, not dependency This one matters to me deeply, both professionally and personally. A people-first approach to change means leaving organisations stronger than you found them. Not creating a situation where the improvement only holds while the consultant is in the room. Not building frameworks that only the external team knows how to operate. Not fostering a relationship where the client keeps coming back because they need you, rather than because they want you. The goal is always to build the skills, confidence and habits within your teams so that improvement continues long after an engagement ends. This is where my previous experience as a Human Factors Facilitator and Instructor becomes particularly relevant. Human Factors is a discipline that explores how people think, communicate, make decisions and perform, especially under pressure. Applied in an organisational context, it informs how I coach individuals and teams to develop the kind of psychological safety, open communication and shared accountability that makes continuous improvement not just possible, but self-sustaining. The measure of a successful engagement isn’t how much the organisation has changed while I’ve been there. It’s how much it continues to change after I’ve left. Holding people accountable with care I want to be clear about something, because “people-first” can sometimes be misread as soft. It isn’t. A genuinely people-first approach doesn’t avoid difficult conversations – it has them better. It holds people accountable, clearly and consistently, in a way that is honest, respectful and focused on progress rather than blame. The OKR (Objectives and Key Results) framework I use at Opexcell is designed precisely for this. OKRs make commitments visible – everyone in the organisation can see what has been agreed to and whether it is being delivered. That transparency creates accountability in the most constructive sense: not the kind that makes people afraid to flag problems, but the kind that makes it impossible to ignore them. The performance conversations that happen around OKRs are always focused on two things: removing the barriers that are getting in the way of delivery, and understanding what support people need to succeed. That’s very different from a culture where performance management means waiting for someone to fail and then documenting it. Reading the human dynamics of change Organisational change always produces the same set of

Walking In as a Senior Leader: What I Found Beneath the Surface When I joined one organisation as a senior leader, I came in with a fresh pair of eyes, a clear remit, and a strong focus on delivery. On paper, the operation was sound: capable people, strong technical expertise, and a history of meeting targets. But it didn’t take long to realise that something wasn’t quite right beneath the surface. Performance issues were surfacing late. Engagement felt fragile. HR cases were far more complex than they needed to be. And there was a noticeable lack of consistency in how people were being managed across teams. What I was seeing wasn’t the result of poor intent or bad leadership. It was the legacy of line managers having been asked to carry people responsibility without the right capability or support. The Inheritance Problem Senior Leaders Rarely Talk About One of the hardest parts of stepping into a senior role is inheriting systems, behaviours, and team dynamics that were shaped long before you arrived. In this organisation, many line managers had been promoted because they were excellent technically. They knew the operation inside out, had strong credibility with their peers, and had stepped up when needed. What they hadn’t been given was meaningful leadership development. As a result, managers and supervisors were: Uncertain about how to hold people to account. Nervous about holding difficult conversations. Unsure where their role ended and HR’s began. Managing issues reactively rather than proactively. By the time challenges reached my desk, they were rarely simple. What could have been early performance conversations had turned into absence issues, grievances, or disengagement. Relationships were already strained, and trust had often been eroded on all sides. The Challenge of Starting with a New Team Joining a new leadership team in this context brought its own set of challenges. As a senior leader, you’re expected to set direction, raise standards, and stabilise performance, but you must do that without undermining the very managers you rely on to deliver change. That balance is delicate. I could see line managers who were trying hard, carrying significant emotional load, and often feeling exposed. Some had lost confidence in their ability to manage people. Others had defaulted to avoidance – not because they didn’t care, but because past experiences had taught them that people issues were risky, messy, and best escalated upwards. Introducing new expectations around accountability and consistency was necessary, but it had to be done with empathy and support, not blame. The reality was that these managers were operating in the system they had been given. The Impact of What Hadn’t Happened Before What became very clear was that the organisation hadn’t lacked talent, it had lacked early intervention and leadership capability building. The absence of structured support earlier on had led to: Inconsistent people management practices. Managers unclear on what “good” looked like. Over-reliance on HR to resolve line‑level issues. Senior leaders being drawn into operational people problems. This created drag across the organisation. Delivery slowed. Confidence dipped. And iron­ically, the very managers promoted for their strength became constrained by a role they hadn’t been prepared for. Rebuilding Confidence, Not Just Processes One of the most important lessons for me was that addressing this wasn’t about implementing more policies or tighter controls. It was about rebuilding leadership confidence at the line‑manager level. That meant: Creating clarity around role and responsibility. Normalising difficult conversations as part of the job. Giving managers practical tools, not theory. Making support visible and accessible. When managers felt equipped rather than exposed, behaviour changed. Conversations happened earlier. Issues reduced in severity. Teams became clearer on expectations. Performance improved, not through pressure, but through confidence and consistency. What This Experience Reinforced for Me Stepping into that organisation reinforced something I’ve carried throughout my leadership career: we often underestimate how hard line management really is. When people are promoted without support, we don’t just set them up to struggle, we unintentionally create downstream challenges that senior leaders later have to fix. As leaders, we inherit the outcomes of previous decisions. The earlier we invest in practical, people‑focused leadership capability, the fewer fires we’ll need to put out at the top. Strong organisations don’t just rely on capable individuals. They invest in helping their line managers succeed, before the cracks start to show.

Supporting and Retaining People During Periods of Change and Uncertainty Periods of change and uncertainty are now a familiar part of organisational life. Whether driven by growth, transformation, restructuring, external pressures or shifting priorities, uncertainty places significant strain not just on systems and processes, but on our people. Whilst strategies, operating models and transformation plans are essential, organisations often underestimate the human cost of sustained change. When people feel overwhelmed, disconnected or unclear; engagement drops, performance suffers, and retention becomes a real risk. Supporting and retaining people during these moments is not simply an HR concern, it is a core leadership responsibility. Why change hits people harder than organisations expect. Change rarely fails because the strategy is wrong. More often, it falters because leaders underestimate the emotional and behavioural impact on those expected to deliver it. During periods of uncertainty, people commonly experience: Reduced sense of control or job security. Conflicting priorities and increased workload. Ambiguity about expectations and future direction. Fatigue from “constant change” with little time to recover. Left unaddressed, this can lead to disengagement, quiet attrition, or the loss of key talent just when stability is most needed. Leadership, not policies, makes the difference. In uncertain environments, people look to leaders for meaning, clarity and reassurance. Formal communications and HR processes matter, but day-to-day leadership behaviours are what people notice most. Strong leaders during change consistently: Create clarity where certainty isn’t possible, being honest about what is known, what isn’t, and how decisions will be made. Maintain visibility and presence, even when there are no easy answers. Role-model calm, purposeful behaviour, recognising that anxiety at the top quickly cascades through the organisation. Balance empathy with accountability, showing understanding without lowering expectations. This is especially important for line managers, who are often carrying the heaviest emotional load while feeling the least equipped to manage it. Supporting managers who are under pressure. One of the most common pain points during times of change is the “squeezed middle”. Managers are expected to deliver results, support their teams and absorb uncertainty, often without the time, confidence or tools to do so effectively. Supporting managers means: Providing clear priorities and decision‑making frameworks. Equipping them to have meaningful conversations about change, performance and expectations. Reducing unnecessary complexity and conflicting demands. Creating opportunities for peer support and shared problem-solving. When managers feel supported and confident, teams are far more likely to remain engaged and resilient. Real-life example – Leading an operational team through organisational redesign: I’ve seen first-hand how organisational redesign, when handled poorly, can quickly undermine trust, engagement and retention. One positive example that stands out was leading an operational team through a multi-site organisational redesign during a period of significant operational and commercial pressure. The organisation needed to realign its structure to better support delivery, improve accountability and reduce cost, but people were already experiencing change fatigue and uncertainty. Rather than treating the redesign as a purely structural exercise, I approached it first and foremost as a people and behavioural change challenge. The focus was not only on what needed to change, but how leaders led through it. Key elements of the approach included: Clear, honest communication about why the redesign was necessary, what decisions had already been taken and where there was still scope for input. Early involvement of leaders in shaping the new structure, roles and accountability, building ownership rather than resistance. Supporting managers to have difficult conversations, equipping them with the clarity and confidence to engage their teams openly and consistently. Maintaining operational stability throughout the transition, ensuring safety, performance and delivery standards were not compromised. Embedding new behaviours, not just new reporting lines, through role modelling, clear expectations and consistent follow-through. As a result, the organisation implemented the redesign whilst maintaining operational performance, improving clarity and accountability, and stabilising engagement during a particularly sensitive period. Most importantly, trust in leadership was preserved, and the organisation emerged with a structure that genuinely supported both people and performance. This experience reinforced a core belief: successful organisational change is less about perfect designs and more about confident, compassionate leadership. In periods of uncertainty, people rarely leave solely because of pay or benefits. They leave because trust erodes – in leadership, in the direction of the organisation, or in their own ability to thrive within it. Conclusion: Leading people through change, together… Retention during periods of change is rarely about incentives or interventions alone. It depends on trust – built through consistency between words and actions, fairness and transparency in decision‑making, and a clear sense of purpose, even when the path ahead is still evolving. Most importantly, it relies on people feeling seen, valued and genuinely listened to. Sustaining engagement through uncertainty requires moving beyond short‑term morale-boosting activity. Instead, engagement must be embedded into how work is led and how organisations operate day to day – through clear roles and accountability, meaningful opportunities for feedback, recognition of effort and adaptability, and realistic expectations around workload and capacity. Engagement thrives when people have clarity and confidence in their leaders. At Opexcell, we have seen this repeatedly. Organisations that navigate uncertainty well are those that treat people sustainability as a leadership priority, not as a side initiative. Supporting and retaining people during change requires leaders who understand the behavioural impact of change, clear priorities and governance that cut through complexity, structures that reduce unnecessary strain, and honest, consistent leadership at every level. When leaders take the time to bring people with them, even when decisions are difficult, change becomes something organisations move through together, rather than something that happens to people.

Why Operational Excellence Starts with Culture, Not Just Process When people hear the term Operational Excellence, they often think of systems, processes, and performance metrics. And yes – those things matter. But in my experience, especially from my time in aviation, I’ve learned that true operational excellence doesn’t start with a process. It starts with culture. In high-performance environments like aviation, Operational Excellence isn’t just a checklist…it’s a mindset. It’s how people think, act, and work together every day. Whether you’re in the cockpit or on the ground, everyone knows their role, understands the mission, and feels responsible for delivering great outcomes. That kind of excellence is only possible when people are clear on what’s expected of them, when they’re supported by the right systems, and when they feel genuinely connected to the bigger picture. That’s when the magic happens. That’s when teams stop just going through the motions and start driving real, lasting change. Psychological Safety: The Heart of Continuous Improvement In aviation, safety isn’t just a priority, it’s a way of life. I’ve worked in environments where speaking up was not only accepted, but it was also expected. If something didn’t look right, you said so – without fear of blame or backlash. Whether it was through anonymous reporting or open conversations, the focus was always on learning and improving, not pointing fingers. That kind of culture is just as powerful in a telecoms field team, a manufacturing plant, a logistics hub, or a customer service centre. When people feel safe to raise concerns, highlight inefficiencies, or suggest better ways of working, organisations become more agile, more resilient, and more innovative. This is what psychological safety looks like in action, and it’s a cornerstone of Operational Excellence. It’s about creating an environment where everyone feels confident contributing, regardless of their role or seniority. Because when people know their voice matters, they’re far more likely to share ideas, flag issues early, and help drive continuous improvement. I believe in creating a culture where feedback is welcomed, learning never stops, and improvement is a shared responsibility. It’s not just about having the right systems in place – it’s about ensuring your people feel safe, supported, and empowered to use them. Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities. One of the most valuable lessons aviation taught me: clarity isn’t optional – it’s critical. Whether you’re flying the aircraft or coordinating on the ground, everyone knows exactly what their roles and responsibilities are, and what aren’t. Even in high-pressure situations, there’s no second-guessing. Standardised procedures and clearly defined responsibilities mean everyone can act quickly, confidently, and in sync. That level of clarity isn’t just useful in the air, it’s essential in any industry – ambiguity leads to delays, duplication, and missed opportunities. When people aren’t sure who’s doing what, things fall through the cracks. But when roles are clearly defined and aligned to a shared goal, teams become more agile, more accountable, and more effective. It creates the space for people to focus on what they do best, and to step up when it really counts.   Standardisation Drives Consistency Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are the backbone of consistency. Every take-off, landing, and emergency response is executed with precision; not because people are told what to do, but because they understand why it matters. That same principle applies across all sectors. Whether you’re onboarding new clients, managing a complex project, or delivering a service, standardisation ensures consistency, quality, and compliance. It gives teams the confidence to perform, even as they scale or adapt to change. Why It Matters When Operational Excellence is embedded into your culture, the benefits are clear: Improved safety, compliance, and risk management. Stronger team cohesion and trust. Fewer errors and less rework. Enhanced performance and customer satisfaction.   It doesn’t matter who’s leading the meeting or which team is on shift, when culture and process are aligned, everyone knows what to do, how to do it, and why it matters.