Claude-Skills change-management

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/c-level-advisor/change-management" ~/.claude/skills/borghei-claude-skills-change-management && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: c-level-advisor/change-management/SKILL.md
source content

Change Management Playbook

Most changes fail at implementation, not design. This skill provides the complete framework for rolling out organizational changes -- from process tweaks to full strategic pivots -- with minimal disruption and maximum adoption.

Keywords

change management, ADKAR, organizational change, reorg, process change, tool migration, strategy pivot, change resistance, change fatigue, change communication, stakeholder management, adoption, compliance, change rollout, transition


Change Type Selection

START: Change is needed
  |
  v
[What type of change?]
  |
  +-- Process Change (new tools, workflows)
  |     Timeline: 4-8 weeks
  |     Hardest phase: Ability
  |     See: Process Change Playbook
  |
  +-- Org Change (reorg, new leader, team restructure)
  |     Timeline: 3-6 months
  |     Hardest phase: Desire
  |     See: Org Change Playbook
  |
  +-- Strategy Pivot (new direction, killed products)
  |     Timeline: 3-12 months
  |     Hardest phase: Awareness
  |     See: Strategy Pivot Playbook
  |
  +-- Culture Change (values refresh, behavior expectations)
        Timeline: 12-24 months
        Hardest phase: Reinforcement
        See: Culture Change Playbook

Core Model: ADKAR (Startup-Adapted)

Overview

PhaseWhat It IsFailure Symptom
AwarenessPeople understand WHY the change is happening"Nobody told me why"
DesirePeople want to participate (or at least don't resist)"I understand but I don't agree"
KnowledgePeople know HOW to do things the new way"I want to but I don't know how"
AbilityPeople have time, tools, and support to change"I know how but I can't do it yet"
ReinforcementThe change sticks as the new default"We tried but went back to the old way"

ADKAR Diagnostic

When a change is struggling, identify which phase is broken:

SymptomBroken PhaseFix
"Why are we doing this?"AwarenessRe-communicate the WHY with data
"This is a bad idea"DesireAddress concerns, involve in HOW
"I don't know how to do this"KnowledgeTraining, documentation, office hours
"I keep reverting to old habits"AbilityPractice time, reduce workload, support
"We started but stopped"ReinforcementMeasurement, recognition, remove old way

ADKAR Implementation Timeline

WeekPhaseKey Activities
-4Awareness prepIdentify stakeholders, draft communication
-2Awareness launchCEO/leader video explaining WHY
-1Desire buildingConcerns session, address fears, involve in HOW
0Knowledge + Go-liveTraining, documentation, launch
1-2Ability supportOffice hours, help desk, reduced load
3-4Ability + early ReinforcementAdoption check, public wins, feedback
6-8Full ReinforcementOld way deprecated, adoption measured, recognized

Resistance Patterns and Responses

Resistance Diagnostic Matrix

PatternWhat They SayWhat It SignalsResponse
Vocal opposition"This won't work"Awareness or credibility gapPresent evidence, acknowledge concern
Timing challenge"Why now?"Awareness gapExplain urgency and cost of delay
Process complaint"I wasn't consulted"Desire gapAcknowledge, involve in the HOW now
Capacity excuse"I don't have time"Ability gapReduce load or extend timeline
Historical reference"We tried this before"Trust gapName what is different this time
Silent non-compliance[No verbal pushback, just doesn't change]Could be any phase1:1 conversation to diagnose
Malicious compliance[Does it technically but undermines]Deep desire gapDirect conversation about real concern

Resistance Response Decision Tree

START: Resistance detected
  |
  v
[Is it vocal or silent?]
  |
  +-- VOCAL --> Good. They care enough to push back.
  |              |
  |              v
  |            [Is the concern valid?]
  |              |
  |              +-- YES --> Modify the change. Resistance is information.
  |              +-- NO  --> Address with data and empathy. Do not dismiss.
  |
  +-- SILENT --> Dangerous. Could be any ADKAR phase.
                 |
                 v
               [1:1 conversation with specific questions]
                 "What concerns you about this change?"
                 "What would need to be true for this to work for you?"
                 "What support would help?"

The Worst Response to Resistance

"Some people are just resistant to change."

This treats resistance as a personality flaw rather than a signal. Every resistance pattern is information about which ADKAR phase is broken. Diagnose before responding.


Change Communication Framework

Communication Sequencing

AudienceOrderChannelContent
Leadership team1stIn-person/video meetingFull context + their role in rollout
Directly affected employees2ndManager 1:1 or small groupPersonal impact + support available
All employees3rdAll-hands or written + Q&AWHY + WHAT + timeline + FAQ
External stakeholders4th (if applicable)Appropriate channelNeed-to-know only

Communication Template (CEO/Leader Announcement)

Structure:
  1. What is changing (1-2 sentences, direct)
  2. Why it is changing (the business reason -- honest)
  3. What this means for you (practical impact)
  4. What is NOT changing (stability anchor)
  5. Timeline (specific dates)
  6. How to ask questions (channel, person, office hours)
  7. What happens next (first concrete step)

Communication Cadence by Change Type

Change TypePre-announcementLaunch DayWeek 1Month 1Month 3
ProcessHeads-up to leadsAll-hands emailFAQ publishedAdoption checkOld way removed
Org1:1s with affectedSynchronous meetingFAQ + manager 1:1sRetroHealth check
StrategyLeadership alignmentAll-hands with Q&ATeam-level "what does this mean"Resource proofFirst milestone
CultureInput gatheringStory-based announcementBehavior anchorsReviews reflect itOngoing

Change Fatigue

Fatigue Detection

SignalSeverityResponse
Eye-rolls during announcementsEarlyAcknowledge the pace, show results of previous changes
Low attendance at change sessionsModerateMake attendance optional but results visible
Fast paper compliance, slow real adoptionSignificantPause non-critical changes
"Here we go again" commentsSignificantAudit change inventory, communicate stability
Complete disengagementCriticalFreeze changes, rebuild trust

Fatigue Prevention Rules

RuleImplementation
Finish what you startDo not launch new change while previous is absorbing
One major change at a timeSpace 2-3 months between significant changes
Announce stabilityExplicitly state what is NOT changing
Show resultsPublish what previous change achieved before launching next
Change budgetTreat organizational attention as a finite resource

Change Inventory

Before launching any new change, inventory all active changes:

ChangePhaseStart DateAbsorption %Can It Pause?
New CRM rolloutAbility2 weeks ago60%No
Engineering reorgDesire1 month ago40%Yes
Values refreshReinforcement3 months ago75%No

Rule: If 3+ changes are active and < 70% absorbed, do not add another.


Playbook 1: Process Change

Timeline: 4-8 weeks | Hardest Phase: Ability

WeekActivityOwner
-2Announce WHY + go-live dateChange sponsor
-1Training sessions availableChange team
0Go-live + support person availableChange team
2Adoption check: who is using it, who is notChange team
4Feedback collection + public winsChange sponsor
8Old system deprecatedIT + Change team

Playbook 2: Org Change

Timeline: 3-6 months | Hardest Phase: Desire

TimingActivityOwner
Day 0Announce with WHY -- synchronous, in-person preferredCEO/leader
Day 11:1s with most affected by their managerManagers
Week 1FAQ published with honest answersHR + Change team
Week 2-4New structure operating (do not delay)All leaders
Month 2First retrospectiveChange team
Month 3-6Regular health check-insHR

What to say about a leader departure: Be honest about what you can share. Never say "we can't share the reasons" without offering what you CAN say about what it means for the team.


Playbook 3: Strategy Pivot

Timeline: 3-12 months | Hardest Phase: Awareness

TimingActivityOwner
Pre-announcementLeadership alignment (everyone must be on same page)CEO
Day 0Internal announcement first (employees BEFORE press)CEO
Week 1Team-level "what does this mean for us" conversationsTeam leads
Week 2Resource reallocation announcedCFO + COO
Month 1First milestone of new direction visibleRelevant leader
OngoingRegular updates on new direction progressCEO

What kills pivots: Announcing a new direction while still funding the old one at the same level. Move the resources or the pivot is not real.


Playbook 4: Culture Change

Timeline: 12-24 months | Hardest Phase: Reinforcement

PhaseActivityTimeline
InputInvolve representative sample in defining the changeMonth 1-2
AnnounceStory-based announcement with observed behaviorsMonth 2
AnchorDefine observable behaviors for each culture changeMonth 2-3
ModelLeadership team visibly models new behavior firstMonth 3+
IntegrateNew behaviors appear in performance reviewsNext review cycle
CelebratePublicly recognize new behavior when observedOngoing

Adoption Measurement

Adoption vs. Compliance

DimensionComplianceAdoption
BehaviorDoes it when watchedDoes it because it is better
DurationReverts when enforcement relaxesSustained without enforcement
AttitudeReluctantWilling or enthusiastic
SourceExternal pressureInternal belief

Only reinforcement creates adoption. Compliance is the result of enforcement. Aim for adoption.

Adoption Metrics

MetricHow to MeasureTarget
Usage rate% of people actively using new process/tool> 80% by week 8
Reversion rate% reverting to old way< 10%
SatisfactionSurvey: "Is the new way better?"> 60% agree
SpeedTime to complete task old way vs. new wayNew way faster by week 4
Support requestsVolume of help requestsDeclining week over week

Red Flags

  • Change announced on Friday afternoon -- people stew over the weekend
  • "This is final, questions are not welcome" framing -- creates underground resistance
  • No published FAQ or way to ask questions safely -- concerns go unaddressed
  • Old system still running 6 weeks after go-live -- change is not real
  • Leaders exempt from the change they are asking everyone to make -- destroys credibility
  • No measurement of adoption -- assuming go-live equals success
  • Multiple major changes running simultaneously -- change fatigue guaranteed
  • No post-change retrospective -- missing the feedback loop
  • Change announced without a named owner -- nobody is accountable for success

Integration with C-Suite

When...Change Management Works With...To...
Process changeCOO (
coo-advisor
)
Design new process before announcing
Org restructureCHRO + CEOPeople impact assessment, communication
Strategy pivotCEO (
ceo-advisor
)
Alignment and narrative
Culture changeCulture Architect (
culture-architect
)
Values-to-behaviors translation
Tool migrationCTO (
cto-advisor
)
Technical rollout plan
Operating system changeCompany OS (
company-os
)
New rhythms and cadences
Alignment after changeStrategic Alignment (
strategic-alignment
)
Verify cascade post-change

Output Artifacts

RequestDeliverable
"Plan a change rollout"ADKAR-based change plan with timeline and owners
"We're doing a reorg"Org change playbook with communication plan
"Manage resistance to [change]"Resistance diagnosis + targeted responses
"Are we in change fatigue?"Change inventory + fatigue assessment + recommendations
"Communication plan for [change]"Sequenced communication with templates
"Measure adoption of [change]"Adoption metrics dashboard with targets

Tool Reference

change_readiness_assessor.py

Assesses organizational readiness using ADKAR model, identifies resistance patterns, measures change fatigue, and generates intervention plans.

# Run with demo data
python scripts/change_readiness_assessor.py

# Specify change type
python scripts/change_readiness_assessor.py --type org

# From JSON assessment data
python scripts/change_readiness_assessor.py --input assessment.json

# JSON output
python scripts/change_readiness_assessor.py --json

adoption_tracker.py

Tracks usage rates, reversion rates, satisfaction, and support requests to distinguish real adoption from surface compliance.

# Run with demo data
python scripts/adoption_tracker.py

# From JSON with weekly data
python scripts/adoption_tracker.py --input adoption_data.json

# JSON output
python scripts/adoption_tracker.py --json

communication_planner.py

Generates audience-sequenced communication plans with templates, channel recommendations, and timing.

# Generate for process change
python scripts/communication_planner.py --type process --name "New CRM Rollout" --date 2026-04-15

# Generate for org change
python scripts/communication_planner.py --type org --name "Engineering Restructure"

# From JSON
python scripts/communication_planner.py --input comm_plan.json

# JSON output
python scripts/communication_planner.py --type strategy --json

Troubleshooting

ProblemLikely CauseFix
Usage rate high but satisfaction lowCompliance without adoption -- people use it because forced toInvestigate satisfaction drivers; don't rely on enforcement alone; improve the tool/process itself
Adoption plateaus at 60-70%Remaining 30% have unaddressed ADKAR gaps (often Ability)Segment non-adopters; run 1:1 diagnostics; provide targeted support
Change reverts within weeks of go-liveReinforcement phase skipped; old system still accessibleRemove old system access; measure and recognize new behavior; embed in performance reviews
Leaders exempt themselves from the change"Do as I say, not as I do" patternLeaders must go first and visibly. No exceptions. This is the #1 credibility destroyer
Multiple changes running and all strugglingChange fatigue -- organizational attention exhaustedInventory active changes; pause non-critical ones; space major changes 2-3 months apart
Communication plan exists but concerns persistCommunication was broadcast-only with no feedback channelAdd Q&A sessions, named contact person, anonymous feedback channel

Success Criteria

  • ADKAR readiness score above 70/100 before go-live (measured via change_readiness_assessor.py)
  • Adoption rate exceeds 80% within 8 weeks of go-live (usage, not just compliance)
  • Reversion rate below 10% by week 8 (measured by system usage data)
  • Satisfaction survey shows 60%+ agreement that "the new way is better" by week 8
  • Support requests decline week-over-week after week 2 (ability phase resolving)
  • No change announced on Friday afternoon (measured by communication log timestamps)
  • Post-change retrospective conducted within 90 days with documented lessons learned

Scope & Limitations

In Scope: ADKAR-based readiness assessment, resistance diagnosis and response, change fatigue measurement, communication planning and sequencing, adoption tracking, playbooks for process/org/strategy/culture changes.

Out of Scope: Specific tool migration execution (CRM, ERP configuration), legal compliance for workforce reductions, union negotiation, employment law, individual coaching or therapy.

Limitations: ADKAR scores are based on assessment inputs -- they reflect perception, not objective measurement. Adoption tracker requires manual data collection for most metrics. Communication planner provides templates but cannot account for company-specific political dynamics. Change fatigue assessment is directional; actual organizational capacity varies by company culture.


Integration Points

SkillIntegration
coo-advisor
Process change design before announcing; operational readiness
chro-advisor
People impact assessment; communication sequencing for reorgs
ceo-advisor
Strategy pivot narrative alignment; CEO as primary communicator
culture-architect
Culture change playbook; values-to-behaviors translation
company-os
New OS rollout follows ADKAR model; meeting rhythm changes
chief-of-staff
Routes change management questions; orchestrates cross-functional alignment
strategic-alignment
Verifies goal cascade post-change; validates new direction is reflected in OKRs