The Execution Gap: where change initiatives bleed out

The pace of organisational change increased by 183% between 2020 and 2024, and globally, the majority of business leaders expect this acceleration to continue. 63% of employees experienced significant organisational change over the past year, yet only 25% feel their company implemented it effectively. According to Gartner research, only 32% of leaders managed to deliver their most recent change initiative on time whilst maintaining employee engagement. The reason is usually the same: the organisation recognises the need for change, but lacks the specialist competencies required for execution. Traditional internal management, already stretched by day-to-day operational demands, simply cannot deliver the necessary transformation focus simultaneously. Only a quarter of company-wide transformations create sustainable long-term value. Compounding this is the absence of a structured methodology: most organisations handle change instinctively, on an ad hoc basis, only confronting the real consequences afterwards—often when the fix has become more expensive than prevention would have been.

Three classic models, three different logics

Kurt Lewin's three-stage model, Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze, remains one of the most widely cited frameworks. It's a powerful tool for well-defined, discrete changes: it works well for a system migration or an internal policy update. Its main limitation is its linear logic: in an era of overlapping, simultaneous transformations, lasting refreezing is becoming increasingly rare.

John P. Kotter's eight-step model is designed for large-scale cultural transformations. The process runs from creating a sense of urgency, through building a guiding coalition and generating short-term wins, all the way to embedding the change in culture. The model's strength lies in building senior leadership commitment and sustaining momentum step by step. Its drawback is its rigid sequencing: the full cycle rarely plays out within a 6–12 month interim assignment.

The Prosci ADKAR model focuses on the individual: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement. The process is measurable, progress can be tracked through surveys and system usage data, allowing leaders to pinpoint exactly where the organisation is getting stuck during ERP and CRM rollouts. It's a particularly proven tool for individual skills development.

Change Management: systems diagnostics and emotional focus

The McKinsey 7-S framework starts from the premise that an organisation consists of more than just structure and strategy. Its seven elements, Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Style, Staff and Skills, are closely interconnected, and for change to succeed, all must be adjusted in parallel. It's a reliable diagnostic tool for mergers and reorganisations. Interim managers often rely on this framework during the first 15–30 days to uncover hidden organisational tensions, rather than simply treating symptoms.

William Bridges draws a sharp distinction between physical change and internal psychological transition. According to his model, most projects fail because leadership manages the technical parameters whilst leaving people to navigate their emotional processes alone. Every change begins with an ending: employees must let go of their old roles and identities. The neutral zone that follows, where the old order has ceased but the new one hasn't yet solidified, is simultaneously the most critical and the most creative phase. It's an indispensable tool for redundancies, ownership changes and cultural transformations.

The Kübler-Ross curve is useful for identifying individual reactions to unexpected organisational announcements, showing emotional states in sequence: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. The leader's task is to prepare for these waves and establish systems that provide psychological safety in good time. It's primarily a reactive tool for crisis management, mass redundancies and sudden ownership changes.

Nudge and Agility: the complementary tools

Nudge Theory is based on the behavioural economics work of Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. Its essence is that subtle adjustments to decision architecture steer people in the desired direction, without directives. Cleverly chosen defaults, simplified processes and demonstrating social proof can all change behaviour without restricting anyone's choices. It's a proven complementary method for driving adoption of digital tools and reshaping daily habits.

Agile change management applies the principles of the Agile Manifesto to managing transformation: it progresses through 2–4 week sprint cycles with built-in feedback loops. Affected employees shape the processes themselves, rather than having solutions handed down from leadership. This approach fits fixed-term, flexibility-demanding interim projects perfectly, and the regular feedback loops also help reduce the risk of change fatigue.

Hungarian cultural specifics and model selection

Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions help explain why these models play out differently within Hungarian corporate culture. The exceptionally high uncertainty avoidance index (UAI: 82) indicates that employees feel a strong need for detailed rules and precision. There's an instinctive resistance to unconventional ideas, with a sense of security serving as the primary individual motivating factor. The notably high masculinity score (MAS: 88) reflects a competitive, performance-oriented culture. Given the paternalistic leadership style and deeply rooted trust issues, transparent, two-way communication is essential here. One proven local practice is sharing strategy directly with frontline workers as well, this dramatically increases loyalty and dismantles informal sabotage.

Change fatigue and the age of Artificial Intelligence

According to Gartner's latest research, change fatigue has become the number one threat to corporate transformations. With projects piling up on top of one another, employees focus more on survival than genuine engagement. Only 41% are willing to actively change their daily working habits for an organisational goal. Artificial intelligence is both a tool and a subject of change in this context. According to McKinsey's 2025 survey, 88% of organisations are already using AI in at least one business function. Based on Gartner's December 2025 CHRO survey, 78% of HR leaders agree that job roles need to be fundamentally restructured to realise the value of AI investments. The phenomenon of "performative participation" has also emerged: employees outwardly demonstrate using AI tools but don't actually integrate them into their daily work, fearing for their positions amid full automation.

The 180-Day execution framework and interim symbiosis

Successful interim change leadership requires specific competencies: entrepreneurial decision-making, high emotional intelligence and rapid diagnostic skills. The models above can complement one another as part of an integrated execution framework. In a typical 180-day operational cycle, the first 30 days involve a McKinsey 7-S-based audit and Lewin-style unfreezing; days 31–90 focus on agile, sprint-based quick wins and managing the Bridges neutral zone; days 91–150 cover structured training programmes; and the final phase embeds the changes into KPIs and processes, with a structured handover to an internal successor. There's no single silver-bullet model in change management. A consultant or interim manager who clings exclusively to one theory will fail, because different models address different dimensions of the organisation. The 180-day structure makes sense precisely because it brings models in not all at once, but according to the project's evolving timing and functional needs, offsetting the shortcomings of each individual theory.

Change management and interim management form a natural pairing because both are fundamentally about operational accountability: delivering real results rather than just plans. Interim Ltd's specialists fill precisely the gap that internal teams feel most acutely during the most pressing transformation phases, pairing theoretical models with genuine execution responsibility. If your organisation is facing its next major change and needs an experienced partner to deliver it, Interim Ltd is ready to take the helm.

FAQ

Q1: What are the most important change management models?

The most widely used models are Lewin's three-stage model (Unfreeze–Change–Refreeze), Kotter's eight-step framework, the individual-focused ADKAR model, the McKinsey 7-S diagnostic tool, the Bridges transition model and the Kübler-Ross curve.

When is it worth applying the ADKAR model?

The ADKAR model is most suitable when the success of change needs to be measured and tracked at the individual level. It's particularly effective for ERP or CRM rollouts, driving adoption of digital tools, and skills development programmes.

What is the essence of the Bridges transition model, and how does it differ from other change management models?

The Bridges model focuses not on external change but on internal psychological transition. It distinguishes three phases: the ending (letting go of old roles), the neutral zone (uncertainty, but also a space for creativity) and the new beginning. It's an indispensable tool for redundancies and ownership changes.

What is change fatigue, and how can it be managed at an organisational level?

Change fatigue occurs when employees lose engagement due to overlapping transformations. According to Gartner, this is now the number one risk facing organisational change.

How does interim management connect with change management?

An interim manager takes on operational responsibility for delivering the transformation, something internal management, under day-to-day pressures, cannot effectively provide.