PT
EN
During a Kanban Coaching Professional (KCP) training, a discussion emerged that synthesized one of the greatest difficulties of any organizational transformation.
One of the participants shared a significant experience.
He took over an environment with approximately 50 squads following a series of changes made by a previous leadership. The alterations had been implemented abruptly and, despite good intentions, had produced instability in the organization.
His mission was not to accelerate the transformation.
It was to stabilize it.
In many cases, that meant taking a few steps back, revisiting decisions, and rebuilding strategic alignments.
The conversation quickly moved away from Kanban.
It became about people.
The Question That Really Matters
The group began asking questions that, in my opinion, are far more relevant than any discussion about frameworks.
How did he gain the political capital to drive these changes?
How did he get people to want to participate in the transformation?
How did he earn enough trust for dozens of teams to agree to revisit recent decisions?
Notice that none of these questions involve metrics, Kanban boards, service classes, or cadences.
They all involve human relationships.
I Have Also Been on the Other Side
During the conversation, I shared experiences in which I held leadership positions in major organizational transformations.
In some of them, I succeeded.
In others, I did not.
And analyzing those situations years later, I realize that failure rarely happened because the chosen technique was inadequate.
It was not because the change model was wrong.
It was not because the framework was insufficient.
It was because I overestimated the power of methodology and underestimated the importance of trust.
Every Change Is Personal
That is when an interesting conclusion emerged.
Every organizational change is, first and foremost, a personal change.
Organizations do not change.
People change.
Every process change represents insecurity for someone. Every redefinition of responsibilities alters power relations. Every new workflow modifies habits built over years.
That is why every transformation happens simultaneously on two levels.
There is the formal change — represented by new processes, structures, and practices.
And there is the emotional change — happening inside each individual.
It is precisely this second level that tends to be ignored.
Political Capital Is Also Personal
Another concept discussed was political capital.
Many people associate political capital with hierarchical influence.
My experience shows something different.
Political capital is the trust people place in you when they need to take risks.
This trust does not come from a title. Nor from formal authority. Much less from technical knowledge.
It comes from the consistency between words and behavior.
It comes from the credibility built in the small interactions of everyday life.
When trust exists, people are willing to experiment.
When it does not, any change feels like a threat.
Kaizen Does Not Perform Miracles
There is a fairly widespread idea that small changes are naturally easier to implement.
It is true that incremental initiatives tend to generate less resistance than major disruptions.
But that does not mean they are sufficient.
Kaizen is not a magic tool. The famous J-Curve is not either. No technique can overcome the absence of trust.
A small change led by someone no one believes in will continue to face resistance.
Meanwhile, much larger changes can be accepted when there is legitimacy in the leadership.
The determining factor is not the size of the change.
It is the quality of the relationship between those who propose the change and those who will be affected by it.
The Power of Vulnerability
One of the most interesting points in the discussion was a strategy used across different success stories.
Instead of arriving with ready-made answers, some leaders began by admitting they did not have all the answers.
This posture produced an unexpected effect.
Rather than weakness, it conveyed maturity.
Simple questions can completely transform a conversation.
- “Can you help me better understand this situation?”
- “What am I not seeing?”
- “Can we build a solution together?”
These questions lower defenses. They shift the conversation from the field of imposition to the field of collaboration.
In environments marked by conflict, this change in posture often matters more than any facilitation technique.
The Danger of Being the Smartest Person in the Room
There is a common temptation among experts.
To believe that displaying knowledge increases influence.
In practice, the opposite often happens.
When a leader assumes the role of someone who always has the correct answer, they reduce the space for participation. People stop contributing. Stop questioning. Start merely executing.
The result tends to be a false sense of alignment.
Silence becomes confused with agreement.
Perhaps that is why one of the most distinctive characteristics of great transformation leaders is precisely curiosity.
They ask more questions than they offer answers.
The Quotes That Summarize the Discussion
At the end of the conversation, three quotes synthesized everything that had been debated.
Peter Senge wrote:
“People do not resist change, they resist being changed.”
Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, stated:
“All politics is local.”
And David J. Anderson often recalls an idea that resonates perfectly with both:
“All change is personal.”
Together, these three phrases describe a fundamental principle for any organizational transformation.
Changes do not happen because a framework was adopted. Nor because a new process was designed. They happen when people choose to trust one another.
Conclusion
Methods matter. Frameworks help. Management models organize work.
But none of them replaces the most important element of any transformation: trust.
Before trying to convince people to change processes, it is worth answering a much simpler question.
Do they trust you?
If the answer is positive, methodology becomes an accelerator.
If the answer is negative, no methodology will compensate for that absence.
In the end, perhaps the greatest competence of a transformation leader is not knowing Kanban, Lean, Agile, or OKRs deeply.
It is winning people over before trying to transform organizations.