The Cost of Poor Coordination During Change
- Alexandra Grant
- May 30
- 3 min read
Most change communication plans look fine on paper, until you realize no one’s actually on the same page.
HR is drafting an FAQ.
Legal is editing the talking points.
Leaders are going rogue in skip-levels.
And Comms? Caught in the middle trying to keep everyone aligned.
The problem isn’t always the message, it’s the mismatch of timing, tone, and ownership across functions.
When companies go through a major change—like a restructure, an acquisition, or a shift in strategic priorities—they often underestimate how much behind-the-scenes coordination it takes to land the message well.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Execs want to move fast, but Legal needs time to review
HR is worried about morale, while Finance is focused on optics
Managers are left waiting… and then forced to improvise
Comms ends up playing referee, not strategist.
Coordination ≠ Communication
Change comms isn’t just about what you say.
It’s about syncing the mechanics behind the message.
That means working across functions to:
Align on priorities. What’s the goal of this change? What’s the real story behind it? Every stakeholder will have a different lens—Finance sees risk, HR sees morale, Ops sees timelines. Someone has to reconcile that into one coherent message.
Negotiate timing. Execs want to move fast. Legal needs review time. HR has rollout fatigue from the last announcement. Someone needs to create a timeline that holds all these needs—and prevents last-minute scrambling.
Clarify roles. Who owns the all-hands? Who answers questions in 1:1s? What do managers need to reinforce? Without this clarity, messages contradict, confidence erodes, and credibility takes a hit.
This is where most internal teams stall out, not because they aren’t smart or capable, but because they’re in it. They're juggling delivery, politics, and execution all at once.
What it looks like when a consultant steps in
When change is on the table, your internal team doesn't need more slide decks—they need someone to own the orchestration.
Here’s what that looks like with the right partner:
Every audience and internal owner is mapped across HR, Legal, Finance, Ops, and Leadership
A shared comms workback plan outlines who owns what, by when, with clear dependencies
Weekly syncs or targeted 1:1s keep all stakeholders aligned—no one is left guessing
Gaps, tone shifts, and sequencing issues are flagged early—before they create confusion or mistrust
Tailored toolkits equip each layer of the organization—execs, managers, and ICs—with the right messages and timing
The result? Your team stays focused on business continuity, and the communication engine keeps moving on message, on time, and with credibility.
Why it matters: Companies with effective change and communication strategies are 3.5x more likely to outperform peers financially.
(Source: Towers Watson Change and Communication ROI Study)
A real example:
In a recent change initiative where 40% of the operations team was offshored, I led the stakeholder orchestration behind the scenes:
Mapped every audience and owner across six workstreams
Set a shared timeline with dependencies across HR, Legal, Ops, and Execs
Developed leader toolkits and real-time feedback loops to adjust mid-rollout
The result was 100% adoption of the new model, clear, consistent messaging across every touchpoint, and friction dropped after the announcement, not escalated
If your change communication plan doesn’t include stakeholder coordination, it’s incomplete.
Poor coordination during change doesn’t just cause confusion. It tanks morale, erodes trust, delays execution, and increases the likelihood that employees will hear about changes in the worst possible way: through rumors, Slack DMs, or LinkedIn.
And when that happens, you’ve already lost.
If your team is planning a major change and internal comms feels like a side task, you’re not set up to succeed.
Let’s fix that.
