Fixing the Model Without Setting the Foundation

When organizations encounter problems, the instinctive response is often to introduce a new model. A new framework. A new process. A transformation program promising better collaboration, higher productivity or a more efficient way of working.

If you have spent some time inside organizations you have probably seen this more than once.

A new way of doing things is introduced. The presentation is carefully crafted. The language is encouraging. Buzzwords appear on screen.

People listen. Some are genuinely hopeful. Others are quietly skeptical but curious enough to give it a chance.

For a while the energy rises. Training sessions are scheduled. Concepts are vetted and clarified. Teams learn new terminology and adopt new rituals. They try the new practices and experiment with how they might work in their daily routines.

Someone presents graphs showing improvement according to agreed performance indicators. And for a while it appears to work.

Eventually meetings grow inefficient. Decisions take longer than expected. Issues remain unspoken until they become difficult to ignore. People continue using the terminology of the new model, but the everyday experience of the work begins to feel familiar.

And if you look closely, the underlying problems are often remarkably similar to the ones that existed before the transformation.

At some point a conversation usually happens somewhere outside the official forums. Perhaps in a corridor. Perhaps over coffee.

"Didn't we try something like this before?"

"Yes… but we expected slightly different results this time."

These conversations rarely make it back into the formal narrative of the transformation. Officially the model has been adopted. The framework is in place. The metrics might look encouraging.

Still, the experience of the people doing the work often tells a slightly different story. Something has changed — but perhaps not the thing that mattered most.

What many organizations overlook is simple: new or updated models rarely fix underlying problems. Often the instinct to introduce a new model is simply an instinct to act — to fix something visible — even when the real issue lies deeper in how people interact and make decisions. A model typically describes how work should happen. It defines roles, meetings, decision points and responsibilities. It provides a structure that people can follow in order to coordinate their efforts.

In that sense models are useful. They help people organize complex work and establish shared expectations.

But a model cannot determine how people actually behave. That is shaped by the environment.

The environment determines whether people speak openly or remain cautious. Whether they raise concerns early or wait until problems become unavoidable. Whether they feel trusted to act or prefer to wait for approval.

Still, organizations often try to solve behavioral problems with structural solutions. When conversations are difficult, a new meeting format is introduced.

When priorities are unclear, a new planning model appears.

When ownership is weak, roles are redefined or ownership moves.

Each of these changes may have value. But they rarely address the deeper issue. The model changes, but the environment remains the same.

Which leads to an uncomfortable realization.

Many transformations struggle not because the model itself was wrong, but because the organization was solving a different problem than the one it thought it had.

Models describe how work should happen. They define roles, meetings and responsibilities. They provide a structure that people can follow — but they cannot determine how people actually interact when the work begins.

And that interaction determines whether the model works.

When people speak openly, challenge assumptions and take responsibility for the work, many different models can function surprisingly well.

When those behaviors are missing, organizations often repeat the same pattern: introducing a new structure while the underlying behavior stays the same.

Which is why the conversation in the corridor tends to return.

"Didn't we try something like this before?"

Read next: Groupthink vs Thinking Together