Why Your Change Initiative Is Stalling Even Though Everyone Agreed to It

There’s a moment that catches a lot of leaders off guard.

The strategy is set. The leadership team is on the same page. The plan has been communicated. Everyone nodded. Everyone agreed.

And then... not much happens.

Teams keep working the way they always have. Decisions take longer than expected. The momentum that felt so strong at launch starts to feel surprisingly fragile. Leaders start asking some version of the same question: if everyone agreed, why isn’t this moving?

The answer is both simple and a little uncomfortable.

Agreement is not the same as alignment. And it’s alignment, not agreement, that actually moves change forward.

Agreement Happens in Meetings. Alignment Happens in the Work.

Leadership agreement is a necessary starting point. It creates direction and gives the change legitimacy. But agreement tends to exist at the level of intent, which is fairly abstract.

Alignment exists at the level of execution, which is where things actually happen.

A leadership team might genuinely agree that a new operating model will improve efficiency. But individual leaders may still have very different ideas about what that actually means day to day. Who owns which decisions now? How do teams coordinate differently? What stops, and what continues?

When those questions don’t have clear answers, people fill in the gaps themselves. And when everyone fills in the gaps differently, you get divergence without any conflict, just a slow, quiet drift away from the intended direction.

When Things Feel Uncertain, People Gravitate Toward What’s Familiar

Even people who fully support a change will slow down when things feel ambiguous.

Uncertainty about roles, expectations, or priorities is enough to make people hesitate. So they do what’s natural: they keep operating in the ways that previously worked. They wait for more clarity. They watch what others are doing before adjusting their own behaviour.

This isn’t resistance. It’s risk management. When the path forward feels murky, staying in place feels safer than stepping into ambiguity.

Without clear alignment to anchor people, the status quo will always have the gravitational advantage.

Aligning on Strategy Is Not the Same as Aligning on How to Lead the Change

Most leadership teams invest real time in aligning on strategy. Fewer invest the same time in aligning on how they’ll lead the change together.

Those are two very different conversations. The second one tends to get skipped.

How will we communicate this consistently across the organization? Which decisions get made collectively versus individually? How do we respond when challenges come up, and they will come up? What does support look like from each of us during the transition?

When leaders haven’t worked through these questions together, they end up answering them differently in the moment. Teams pick up on those inconsistencies quickly. And when the signals from leadership don’t fully match, people hold back and wait until expectations become clearer.

The Structures Often Don’t Change, Even When the Strategy Does

Here’s something that gets overlooked more than it should: agreeing on a new direction doesn’t automatically update the structures people work within.

Decision rights, workflows, accountability structures — if those things stay the same, people will keep operating within the old system even while trying to implement something new. Not because they’re resistant, but because the old system is still the one they’re navigating.

A company might launch a new cross-functional initiative while decision-making authority still sits entirely within functional silos. The intent is collaborative, but the structure is not. Teams end up dealing with competing priorities and unclear authority, and progress slows.

The organization needs to actually support the change, not just endorse it.

Emotional Alignment Is the Part Nobody Talks About

Change doesn’t just affect processes and structures. It affects how people feel about their roles, their contributions, and their sense of stability.

Even genuinely positive changes can stir up real uncertainty. Will I succeed in this new setup? Does my experience still matter? How will my contribution be valued going forward?

These questions almost never get asked out loud. But they absolutely shape how people engage with the change. When leaders don’t create space to address them, people may go through the motions of compliance while remaining psychologically disconnected from what’s being asked of them.

That gap matters. Leaders who make room for honest conversations about uncertainty and impact help people actually integrate the change, not just tolerate it.

A Strong Launch Is Not the Same as Sustained Change

Most change initiatives get strong attention at the start. Communication is clear, leadership is visible, and energy is high.

Then other things demand attention, and the focus shifts. Leaders assume the organization has absorbed the change and can carry it from here.

But adoption isn’t a moment. It’s a process. And without consistent reinforcement, people gradually drift back toward familiar behaviour, especially when things get busy or pressured.

Ongoing reinforcement signals that the change is real and permanent, not just an initiative that will eventually fade. That signal matters more than most leaders realize.

The Middle Is Where Change Actually Lives or Dies

Most change initiatives get a lot of structured support at the beginning and formal evaluation at the end. The middle, which is usually the longest stretch, gets the least attention.

That’s also where change either stabilizes or quietly stalls.

This is when teams run into the real-world complexities that no plan fully anticipated. Questions emerge. Assumptions get tested. Coordination becomes critical. If leaders have stepped back by this point, there’s nothing to catch the drift.

Staying engaged and intentional during this phase, not just at launch and review, is what keeps change on track as conditions evolve.

Change Moves at the Speed of Alignment, Not Urgency

When progress is slow, the instinct is often to increase urgency. More pressure, clearer deadlines, higher expectations.

But slow progress is usually not a performance problem. It’s an alignment problem.

When alignment is strong, teams move forward with confidence because they know what’s expected and trust the direction. When alignment is weak, progress stalls regardless of how much urgency leaders add.

Addressing the alignment gap directly will do more to accelerate change than turning up the pressure ever will.

What Leaders Who Navigate This Well Actually Do

Leaders who guide change successfully don’t just align at the beginning and move on. They treat alignment as something that needs ongoing attention throughout the transition.

In practice, that looks like:

• Making sure roles and decision rights are genuinely clear, not just outlined in a deck
• Ensuring leadership messaging is consistent across the team
• Adjusting structures so the organization actually supports the change
• Creating real space for questions and honest conversations
• Staying visible and engaged well into the middle phase, not just at launch

These aren’t complicated actions. But they require consistent intention, and that’s exactly what most change initiatives are missing.

Agreement creates permission for change. Alignment creates movement.

When leaders understand that distinction, they stop focusing so much on announcing the change and start focusing on enabling it. That shift is where change becomes real, not in presentations or plans, but in how people actually work, decide, and show up together every day.

Already committed to change but progress feels slower than it should?

Lisa Blanchet works with leadership teams to identify alignment gaps, clarify roles, and create the conditions change needs to actually take hold. Book a consultation to explore how that support could help your organization move forward with more clarity and confidence.