Why Does the Reason for the Change Keep Changing?
Three months into a change initiative, someone asks: "Wait, I thought we were doing this because of X. Now you're saying it's because of Y. What's actually going on?"
What's going on is that you've been answering different questions for different audiences at different times, and now those answers are colliding.
The Multiple Messages Problem
Most changes have multiple valid rationales:
Strategic rationale (why the organization is doing this)
Operational rationale (what problem this solves)
Individual rationale (why this matters to specific roles)
Timeline rationale (why now)
Different audiences need different rationales emphasized.
Executives need strategic context. Middle managers need operational clarity. Frontline staff need individual impact.
The problem emerges when these different emphases look like different stories, or worse, when they actually are different stories because no one designed a coherent narrative structure.
The Evolution Problem
Change rationales evolve.
What starts as "we need to improve efficiency" becomes "we need to reduce costs" becomes "we need to stay competitive" becomes "we need to survive."
Sometimes this evolution reflects changing circumstances. Sometimes it reflects learning what messages land. Sometimes it reflects organizational politics.
Regardless of cause, when rationales shift without explanation, people notice. And they start questioning whether the real reason was ever disclosed.
The Translation Problem
"Improve customer experience" means one thing in the boardroom and something completely different on the implementation team.
Boardroom: Strategic positioning and market differentiation Implementation team: Specific process changes and system requirements
When these translations happen informally, or when they contradict each other, the message fragments.
What Consistency Actually Requires
Message consistency doesn't mean everyone gets the same script.
Instead:
The core rationale stays stable even as emphasis shifts
Different audiences get appropriate detail levels without contradiction
Changes to messaging are acknowledged, not papered over
The connection between strategic intent and operational reality is explicit
This requires designing the message architecture upfront, not managing message drift after the fact.
The Credibility Cost
Every unexplained message shift burns credibility.
"I thought we were doing this for X" followed by "actually it's for Y" reads as dishonesty...even when it's just poor message design.
Once people stop trusting the stated rationale, they start constructing their own. And those constructed narratives are usually worse than the truth.
The Design Question
Before launching change communication, answer:
"What's the single core rationale that stays stable across all audiences, and how do we emphasize different aspects of it without creating contradiction?"
If you can't answer that, you don't have a message problem. You have a strategy problem.
Fix that first.
References & Related Reading:
1) DiFonzo and Bordia, "Rumor, Gossip and Urban Legends" (Diogenes, 2007): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0392192107073433
2) Bartlett, "Remembering", the serial reproduction studies (1932): https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121021936
If you're running a rollout and want a plan for each stage, The DANCE System gives you 29 tools across five phases, from defining the change to keeping it in place after launch.
Related Blog Posts:
Why does a message change as it passes through managers?
What do I say when the team asks 'Why now?'
