Artificial Intelligence Revenues Would Need to Grow by 80 Percent Annually
Benedikt Langer
4 min. reading time Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh of Columbia Business School calculates that AI investment ...
Read Article
7 min read
83 percent of executives are experiencing more profound change than ever before. Yet workforces can realistically absorb only one to two major transformations per year, while leadership is planning three to four by 2027. Most transformations fail not because of strategy, but because of the gap between the intended pace and the capacity of the people who are supposed to carry the change.
Key Takeaways
- It’s not too much, but too much at once. Organizations rarely fail because the scope of change is too large; they fail because initiatives run in parallel without sequencing. Employees try to absorb every initiative simultaneously.
- Communication is overrated. Nearly all executives believe they communicate change well. One in four employees disagrees or is unsure. This perception gap is the real risk hotspot.
- Capacity is a steering variable. If you don’t actively manage the pace and volume of change, you lose engagement, productivity-and ultimately the transformation itself. Change sequencing deserves the same priority as budget sequencing.
The issue isn’t the volume-it’s the simultaneity
Mergers, restructurings, economic volatility, geopolitical uncertainty and AI are hitting organizations all at once. Executives evaluate each change in isolation and convince themselves that none can wait. The workforce doesn’t have that luxury. It absorbs every change simultaneously. A management psychologist compares the effect to standing beneath Niagara Falls: awe-inspiring and powerful-until you feel like you’re drowning.
The data backs up the picture. A survey by The Grossman Group with The Harris Poll shows that 83 percent of executives are experiencing more change than ever before, yet plan three to four major transformations for 2027 while realistic absorption capacity sits at one to two. The bottleneck isn’t the will to change, but the human bandwidth to process it.
Executives evaluate each change in isolation. The workforce absorbs them all at once.
Three disciplines that make all the difference
The first is dialogue-and it’s non-negotiable. In times of upheaval, leaders paradoxically cut back on listening, because it takes time. They craft the message, send it out, and move on. Yet change is emotional, not merely operational. Those who feel unheard fall silent, and leadership loses precisely the information it needs most urgently. One executive tasked with turning around a unit of several hundred people after losing a major client didn’t start with ideas-she began with one-on-one conversations. Within months, growth flipped from negative to double-digit.
The second discipline is a cohesive narrative. Dialogue with staff only works when leadership tells the same story. Too often, it doesn’t: each manager spins their own version, leaving employees to stitch together meaning from fragments. Before any communication goes out, four questions must be answered by the leadership team: Where did we come from? Where are we now? Where are we going? What do we need to win? Skip this step, and staff rarely fill the gaps with goodwill.
The third discipline is sequencing by capacity. A retail chain running store redesign, a new customer strategy, and a revamped shopping experience all at once pushed its people to the brink. The leadership’s unusual response? They celebrated endings. Instead of letting initiatives die quietly, they marked their completion-often with cake. The message was clear: ending something isn’t failure; it’s the prerequisite for starting something new.
The number that shifts the calculation
One to two instead of three to four. That’s the gap between the capacity a workforce can absorb in a year and what leadership plans. This gap isn’t a soft issue-it’s the most precise early indicator of failed transformations.
The DACH factor: codetermination turns dialogue into a duty
In Germany, the first discipline isn’t just good form-it’s legally enshrined. In cases of operational changes, restructuring, or new technology rollouts, the works council holds participation and codetermination rights. Pushing change without genuine dialogue risks not only silent resistance but formal blockades. That’s not an obstacle; it’s a built-in sequencing mechanism: codetermination forces leaders to explain changes before they’re rolled out.
In Germany’s Mittelstand and large corporations, a second reality comes into play. Reorganizations often hit workforces with decades of tenure. That stability is an asset, yet it’s acutely sensitive to a cascade of half-finished initiatives. Run three transformations in parallel here, and you burn through loyal high performers faster than the labor market can replenish them.
The counterpoint: speed is a competitive edge
One might argue that slower sequencing is dangerous in competition. Those who wait get left behind. Yet that objection confuses speed with simultaneity. The lesson isn’t to do less-it’s to do fewer things at once. A Canadian contract research organization that tripled its business in 20 months via acquisitions introduced a single rule after a wave of burnout and resignations: no new project may overlap with an ongoing major initiative. The result wasn’t stagnation-it was lower turnover, a rising share price, and higher engagement scores. Speed comes from focus, not parallelism.
The first step in the next 90 days
An inventory of ongoing changes. Every initiative currently impacting the same group of employees should be listed, with an honest assessment of how many of them overlap. This leads to a strict rule, following the example above: no new major project starts as long as it conflicts with an ongoing one. At the same time, establish a format that makes endings visible so the workforce knows what’s still active and what’s been discontinued. The pace of change won’t slow down. But leaders who engage in dialogue, align a shared narrative, and sequence initiatives by capacity ensure that change happens with people-not over their heads.
Frequently Asked Questions
What do transformations most often fail at?
Not because of scope, but because of simultaneous change without sequencing. Leaders evaluate each change individually, while the workforce absorbs them all at once. The gap between planned pace (three to four major changes) and realistic capacity (one to two per year) is the most precise early indicator of failure.
Which three disciplines help make change manageable?
First, non-negotiable dialogue-listening before acting. Second, an aligned narrative agreed upon within the leadership team before communication. Third, sequencing by capacity, including consciously ending initiatives before new ones begin.
What role does co-determination play in Germany?
A central one. In cases of operational changes and the introduction of new technology, the works council has participation rights. This forces organizations to explain changes before rolling them out, acting as an embedded sequencing and dialogue mechanism rather than just an obstacle.
Image source: AI-generated (June 2026)
Translated from the German original using artificial intelligence. The German version is authoritative.