5 Pieces of Invisible Work That Make Change Stick

At the beginning of a new year, a lot of organizations are working with a sense of a clean slate. New priorities. New initiatives. Maybe a renewed commitment to “doing things differently this time.” Sounds familiar, huh?

I’ve been part of many change efforts over the years -- sometimes leading them, sometimes supporting them, sometimes stepping in after momentum stalled. More than once, I found myself being the person quietly tracking what we said we’d do – because if no one did, it might just drift.

And one pattern shows up again and again, especially in small and mid-sized organizations: The decision gets a lot of attention. But, the work that actually makes that decision stick quietly gets skipped.

Not because people don’t care, of course – but because teams are busy, roles are stretched, and capacity constraints are real. When everything feels urgent, the quieter work is usually the first to go.

Here are five pieces of commonly invisible work that often determine whether change takes hold…or quietly fades.

1. Clear ownership -- especially after the kickoff

In smaller organizations, ownership usually does exist; it’s just overloaded.

One person is wearing too many hats. Or, a founder or executive director is the “owner” in theory, but can’t realistically stay close to the work day to day. And candidly, sometimes ownership stays fuzzy because no one wants to add pressure to someone who already has too much on their plate.

So a change gets kicked off, everyone agrees it’s important, and then weeks later questions start surfacing:

• Who really decides this?

• Who’s tracking progress?

• Who’s following up?

In small teams, naming an owner can feel political or unnecessary because people care about staying collaborative and flat. But, when ownership lives in a meeting instead of with a person, momentum erodes quickly.

Clear ownership isn’t about control. It’s about protecting teams from confusion, rework, and stalled decisions…especially when people are already juggling a lot.

2. Communication that continues after the announcement

Especially in small and medium businesses (SMBs) and nonprofits, I often see leaders assume:

“We’re small -- word will spread.”

And often, that assumption comes from a good place. Leaders don’t want to over-communicate, overcomplicate, or add noise for teams who already feel stretched. After an announcement is made, there’s often a quiet sense of relief…like one big box has finally been checked.

But informal communication has limits, especially during change.

An announcement is made. A meeting happens. Slack or Teams messages fly. And then…silence. That silence often gets mistaken for understanding or acceptance -- when in reality, people are trying to make sense of what the change means for their work (e.g., “what’s in it for me?”).

In smaller organizations, that sense-making often happens privately, between meetings or after hours, because there’s no formal space to talk it through together.

Communication isn’t just about sharing information once. It’s about helping people understand what’s changing, why it matters, and what to expect as things evolve.

That work rarely makes the project plan explicitly, but it always shows up in outcomes.

3. Time for sense-making (not just “working sessions”)

This one shows up constantly. I mean, I really see this across a variety of businesses all…the…time.

Calendars are packed. Virtual meetings are stacked back-to-back. People accept meetings quickly because saying no feels harder than figuring it out later. There’s little time to prepare -- so meetings turn into working sessions by default.

Agendas don’t get shared in advance. Pre-work gets skipped. Not because it doesn’t matter, but because everyone is moving from one meeting straight into the next. Everyone shows up, but leaves with slightly different interpretations and varying readiness for thoughtful discussion.

In smaller teams, this isn’t a discipline issue -- it’s a capacity issue. When roles are broad and responsibilities overlap, the calendar becomes the place where work gets sorted out in real time.

When people don’t have protected recurring calendar time to prepare or reflect, meetings absorb work they weren’t designed to do. The cost shows up later as misalignment, rework, or quiet frustration.

Space for sense-making isn’t a luxury. It’s part of how change becomes shared understanding instead of private interpretation that people carry on their own.

4. Follow-through after attention shifts elsewhere

Change rarely fails at the start. More often, its potential for positive impact fades when attention shifts elsewhere.

In small to mid-sized organizations especially, it doesn’t take much. A new urgent issue. A grant deadline. A client escalation. One key person getting overloaded. Survival mode has a way of taking over…even when everyone still believes in the change.

Early wins can create a sense of completion -- not because people disengage, but because the work has shifted from visible action to quieter follow-through. When that shift isn’t named or supported, the ongoing work of adoption can lose shared attention.

Without intentional follow-through as the work moves toward later milestones, teams quietly create workarounds, old habits resurface, and leaders are surprised when the change “didn’t stick.”

The messy middle is where change actually lives and it needs care, not just momentum.

5. Adjusting systems instead of blaming people

This is one of the most important (and most overlooked) pieces.

In smaller organizations, people often compensate heroically for systems that don’t quite work. They track things manually. They add extra check-ins. They smooth rough edges for others. They quietly carry the emotional labor of making things “just work.”

Most of the time, this doesn’t come from dysfunction. It comes from care. People step in because they’re committed, because they don’t want others to struggle, or because they take pride in keeping things moving.

I’ve been that person: the one consistently preparing agendas, attaching them to meeting invites, following up to set expectations, and making sure tasks actually got updated and marked complete. Over time, that invisible work starts to feel normal…even expected.

But when capable people are struggling in large numbers, it’s usually a systems signal and not a performance problem.

People-centered change means being willing to adjust the system instead of continuing to ask people to absorb friction on its behalf.

A closing reflection

If the start of the year offers a clean slate, it’s not just a chance to set new goals. It’s a chance to change how we approach change itself.

Many teams don’t struggle because they lack good ideas or commitment. They struggle because the invisible work gets pushed onto individuals instead of being named, shared, and supported by the system around them.

If you’re leading change this year, it might be worth asking:

What invisible work have we been asking people to carry on their own?

Naming that work and making space for it is often what turns good intentions into change that actually sticks.

Where do you see invisible work quietly showing up on your team right now?

More People-Centered Ops Topics, Delivered Monthly

If you like thinking about the human side of systems — and the systems side of being human — you might enjoy my monthly Systems + Humanity email newsletter. It’s where I share stories, frameworks, and practical ops wisdom for teams who want their work to feel a little clearer and a lot more sustainable.