There's a concept I keep coming back to lately – the theory of change.
It's used in the not-for-profit sector. But I think it belongs in every conversation about organisational change.
A theory of change is the logic that connects what you do to what you're trying to achieve. It makes explicit the assumptions beneath your decisions of "if we do X, then Y will happen".
Most leaders have a theory of change when deciding what interventions to make to support an initiative. They just might not have examined their assumptions closely. And in my experience, those assumptions are worth a closer look.
Take a few common change management decisions:
- You run a leadership alignment workshop before the change is announced. The theory: if leaders are aligned, they'll cascade consistent messages and model the right behaviours. The assumption: that alignment in a room translates to alignment in practice, that they have the capability and confidence to actually lead the change when they get back to their teams.
- You deliver face-to-face training in the month before go-live. The theory: if people are trained, they'll be capable of using the new system. The assumption: that capability is the barrier – not willingness, not confidence, not trust in the solution itself.
- You establish a reference group of end users to provide input during design. The theory: if people have a voice, they'll feel ownership and be more likely to adopt the change. The assumption: the group is representative, their input is genuinely incorporated, and they'll carry that sense of ownership back to their teams.
These are good, solid interventions. I've recommended each of them many times. There's nothing wrong with any of these decisions.
The sticky bit is – has anyone actually challenged the underlying assumptions?
Are those things true? Maybe. And if you’re not sure, how do you mitigate the risk? What else might need to happen, or how could you adjust or support the approach?
I'm not raising this to create doubt. I'm raising it because the leaders I've seen lead change well are the ones who stay curious about their own thinking, and the thinking of the project and change managers who bring these ideas to them. They ask: what are we assuming here? Let's examine that.
Here's an invitation.
Pick a decision that was made in your change – about the approach, sequence, engagement, communication, whatever. Trace the logic underneath it. What was the assumption? Is there evidence the assumption's holding? If not, what needs to shift?
A good theory of change links cause to effect – with evidence, not just intent. It doesn’t have to live in a document. It’s a discipline. And the more you surface and question assumptions, the more it becomes the norm.
This is some of the most valuable work I do with leaders – pressure-testing the logic underneath change decisions, and making sure the interventions chosen are genuinely fit for purpose. If that's a conversation you'd like to have, book a no-obligation discovery call.
*************************
Sign up to our newsletter to receive more insights, freebies and news, to support you in the success of your change.
Because how you make change matters. It matters to your people, it matters to your customers, and it matters to your bottom line.
And it matters to us at ChangeEffect.
©2026 CHANGEEFFECT PTY LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.