Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

Is your company trying to change too many things at once?

Check change capacity by mapping concurrent initiatives against the same teams’ existing commitments. Identify shared dependencies and schedule collisions before choosing the sequence. Activity in several programs does not establish that the organization can absorb them together.

Cognitive load is the mental-resource demand imposed by a task. APA’s 2018 defining entry, APA Dictionary of Psychology: cognitive load, supplies that meaning. For this capacity review, distinguish the effort of learning a new workflow from the number of initiatives on a slide. Neither a project count nor a busy calendar measures that demand directly.

A private moment that makes the issue visible

Composite scenario, not a client case: Your family asks whether the next quarter will be quieter. You recall several individually reasonable initiatives, then realize they all require the same managers. At work, each sponsor describes a priority while nobody owns the combined load.

Bring the list you remembered at home into the next portfolio meeting. Put the named managers beside each initiative. Ask which appointments require preparation, which require a decision, and which merely circulate information. Use the scene to locate overlapping commitments, without deciding that any manager lacks resilience or commitment.

Use the research within its limits

Levitt and March describe organizational learning as encoding experience into routines. Their 1988 review, Levitt and March (1988): Organizational Learning, suggests a useful inspection target here: examine what the proposed sequencing changes in everyday work. A revised presentation is insufficient evidence that a supervisor has time for another training session. The capacity map is an editorial planning aid, not a measure validated by that review.

Apply industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, to the demands created by the rollout. Keep a capacity estimate tied to an identified task and role. Avoid attaching a psychological score to employees because several executive plans depend on them.

State the decision before discussing personalities

The decision is which changes can proceed together under actual capacity. Keep ordinary customer and operating obligations on the map rather than treating them as unused time.

Frame the approval as a choice among dated commitments. For each initiative, write the start condition and the work that must move if it proceeds. Ask the executive team to choose explicitly between delaying the migration, reducing the sales redesign, or supplying confirmed coverage. Do not let every sponsor record their project as an exception to the same limit.

When a supervisor misses a migration rehearsal, compare the invitation with the customer escalation they handled that afternoon. Record both commitments before interpreting the absence. Ask which instruction they followed and who could have released them. The remedy may be a sequencing decision above their authority rather than another reminder about participation.

Use the concurrent-change capacity map

  1. List the actual commitments. Include business-as-usual work and approved changes. Distinguish funded decisions from proposals still seeking attention. Make separate entries for preparation, attendance, and follow-up. A training invitation should include the time needed to practice afterward. Ask sponsors to identify commitments their plan assumes will disappear. Keep those entries on the map until the operating owner confirms removal; a slide marked complete does not release recurring work.

  2. Map affected roles. Identify which people supply decisions, training time, and implementation work. Look beyond the named project team. Include the person who covers an absent supervisor, the specialist who answers configuration questions, and the approver needed by several teams. Ask each role owner to inspect their own row. A manager’s name appearing once in the project chart should not hide that the same person supplies several kinds of effort.

  3. Find collisions and dependencies. Compare timing and required effort with responsible owners. Record uncertainty instead of presenting guessed capacity as confirmed. Place the migration rehearsal and sales redesign workshops on the same time line. Mark shared approvers and upstream information deadlines. Distinguish a confirmed schedule conflict from an effort estimate that remains untested. Give the sponsor a specific missing input to resolve, such as the duration of practice work on the late shift.

  4. Sequence or remove work. Choose what starts, pauses, or stops. Explain the tradeoff and confirm who can authorize changed commitments. Write the decision back into the affected schedules and cancel invitations for paused work. Name who may restart it and what evidence they need. If coverage is the proposed solution, check the covering person’s commitments too. Otherwise the map can move the overload to a less visible role without resolving it.

  5. Review capacity in practice. Inspect missed handoffs and workarounds after sequencing. Adjust the plan when actual demands differ from the estimate. Compare scheduled commitments with the handoffs completed during an ordinary operating cycle. Ask whether work moved into evenings or into an unofficial parallel process. Record that displaced effort in the next map. Use the result to revise the sequence, rather than praising a launch that depended on unrecorded work.

Keep an incident response separate from the discretionary change portfolio. If a safety owner requires immediate action, mark which planned activities are displaced and who will revise their dates. Once the incident is contained, return those commitments to the map instead of assuming the organization has absorbed a permanent additional workload.

Put the boundary into words

A capacity-review chair could use this proposed instruction after confirming authority to change project dates:

We cannot approve this change in isolation. Show the teams it needs and the commitments already using their capacity. We will choose the sequence and the work that moves, instead of asking every sponsor to remain first.

Ask each sponsor to name the commitment they will defer under the selected sequence. Put those answers beside the revised dates. If everyone agrees in the room but leaves their original milestones unchanged, the review has produced two incompatible plans. Resolve that discrepancy before the next team briefing.

Work through a bounded example

Hypothetical application: A company schedules a system migration and a sales-process redesign together. Both require the same supervisors to train staff. The capacity map leads to staggered implementation while preserving the customer work those supervisors must also support.

Extend the hypothetical by checking who performs customer cover during the staggered rollout. If the supervisors gain time only because another team takes their customer queue, include that team’s work. Compare the same handoffs before and after sequencing. A later customer deadline would be a different explanation for fewer conflicts, and should be reported separately.

Choose evidence that can change the decision

Build the review around a small set of work records: the shared-role map, the appointments it changes, and the handoffs those roles must complete. Ask a supervisor to walk through a real day using the proposed schedule. Locate the point where practice, production, or customer work would be postponed. Save the unresolved collision with its sponsor, rather than converting it into a generic risk rating. When the estimate is wrong, change the relevant assumption and show the affected dates. Do not claim a company-wide capacity number from this local exercise. For the worksheet, give every collision a start date, an affected role, the commitment already promised, and a person who can change that promise. Keep an estimate separate from a measured duration. Ask the operating owner to approve the resulting entry before using it to justify a delay. This makes the next portfolio discussion about an identified dependency instead of whose project has the strongest sponsor.

Check the failure mode before scaling

Do not invent a universal number of changes a company can absorb. Avoid counting initiatives without examining their demands. A small change can create a large collision at a shared dependency.

Explain which projects the portfolio review can pause and which obligations remain fixed. Consult employment counsel before altering terms or introducing monitoring to estimate capacity. If stress-related symptoms persist or affect daily life, a licensed clinician is the appropriate professional. The capacity worksheet addresses work allocation; it does not assess anyone’s health.

Review the work, then revise the arrangement

Review whether sequencing reduced actual conflicts and whether paused work stayed paused. Check the same teams’ commitments before approving another initiative.

Bring the original version of the map to the follow-up meeting. Check whether the migration’s protected practice time existed and whether sales managers stopped attending the deferred redesign sessions. Review the commitments that reappeared under another name. Require a new approval when a sponsor adds them back, even if the activity is described as informal preparation.

Let a shift representative challenge the assumption that a pause released time. Ask them to identify any report, meeting, or manual process that continued. Give the sponsor responsibility for confirming or removing it. Keep the observation visible when the executive summary says capacity improved, so a favorable overall judgment does not erase a local collision.

Edmondson’s 1999 study links team psychological safety with learning behavior; see Edmondson (1999): Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Apply that boundary by allowing supervisors to report that the sequence still fails. Their report is evidence for this planning review, not a diagnosis of the team’s safety or proof that the capacity map improves performance.

Connect this decision to the next one

After choosing a feasible sequence, use the change-story framework to explain the tradeoff. Check that explanation against the guide to avoiding company spin. Plan message repetition around actual milestones, and examine turnaround pace and team capacity when the broader recovery timetable sets the constraint.

Take the next proposed initiative to the shared-role map before approving its launch date. Leave that meeting with one visible sequencing decision and the calendars it changes. The useful output is work that has been deferred, removed, or resourced, rather than a new expectation that managers somehow find more time.

Sources

Steady at the Top