Change was long regarded as an orderly ritual: thaw, change, freeze. Lewin’s three-phase model suited more stable markets, slower technologies and manageable change projects. But this world is evaporating. Today, programs run in parallel, overlap and occasionally contradict each other. While one team is still introducing a new format, the next is already being revised – and a third is up for discussion. The effect:
The need for orientation is growing faster than organizations can produce orientation.
When change loses its project character
Digital initiatives, efficiency programs, the introduction of AI, cultural work, new working models – they rarely happen one after the other, but almost always at the same time. It is precisely this simultaneity that causes excessive demands: it is not the change that is stressful, but its timing.
Business loves clear lines and unambiguous responsibilities. But the reality resembles a snowstorm: everything is in flux, nothing remains stable for long and employees expect answers while strategies are still being negotiated. The “permanent slush” is the new normal.
HR and internal communication feel it earlier than others: overburdened teams, diffuse priorities, misunderstandings – and sometimes silent refusal. Where programs overlap, clarity disappears first. Not because there is too little communication – but because there is a lack of coherence.
Leadership as an interpretative authority
In this situation, managers take on a new role: they become interpreters and sorters. Their task is not so much to provide perfect answers, but to provide provisional orientation. They frame events, make contradictions visible, identify priorities and explain what remains stable – even if not everything has been decided.
Today, meaning is no longer created by the authority of the sender, but through social negotiation: language, context, repetition. The following questions provide a core of orientation:
- What conflicting goals characterize our situation?
- What criteria do we use to prioritize?
- What is structurally unsafe – and what is deliberately chosen?
- What guard rails apply, even if details are still open?
In practice, this work is often condensed into a narrative core question:
- What is actually connected – even if it is organizationally separate?
- Which story helps us to understand this simultaneity?
- What is the overarching logic behind the many initiatives?
- And what can – or should – I say about this as a manager?
This type of orientation is demanding – and it also changes the role of communication.
Send less, sort more
Communication is not effective where it is created, but where it is interpreted: in everyday life, in teams, in prioritization rounds. The best message is of little use if it cannot be categorized. Today, effectiveness is not created through new channels or additional formats, but through how leadership creates linguistic stability.
Middle management plays an underestimated role here. It translates, adjusts, makes specifications suitable for everyday use – and thus plays a decisive role in determining whether orientation reaches the team or falls flat. In many companies, it is precisely this area that is overloaded and at the same time receives the least support.
What this means for organizations in concrete terms
The bottleneck rarely lies in a lack of measures. It lies in the lack of a common link between management, HR and communication. As long as these three functions operate side by side, many well-intentioned initiatives will emerge – but not a sustainable overall picture.
Typical starting points therefore lie less in “more” and more in “different”:
in a closer integration of HR and communication logics, in the targeted empowerment of middle management for interpretation and narrative work, and in the conscious reduction of formats in favor of clear classification.
The slush remains – the quality of the leadership decides
The permanent state of “in-between” will not disappear. It is an expression of an economy that learns faster than it stabilizes. But companies have room for maneuver: they can shape simultaneity by strengthening leadership, clarifying communication spaces and making classification a joint task.
Structures alone no longer support transformation. The quality of leadership – in terms of language, interpretation and prioritization – increasingly determines whether change is successful.