AGENT SKILL

change-management

Framework for rolling out organizational changes without chaos. Covers the ADKAR model adapted for startups, communication templates, resistance patterns, and change fatigue management. Handles process changes, org restructures, strategy pivots, and culture changes. Use when announcing a reorg, switching tools, pivoting strategy, killing a product, changing leadership, or when user mentions change management, change rollout, managing resistance, org change, reorg, or pivot communication.

License 许可
MIT
最近更新
2026-10-10
Stars
★ 0
Forks
0

01 前言 Front Matter

name
change-management
license
MIT
metadata
{ "author": "Alireza Rezvani", "domain": "change-management", "updated": 1772668800000, "version": "1.0.0", "category": "c-level", "frameworks": "change-playbook" }
description
Framework for rolling out organizational changes without chaos. Covers the ADKAR model adapted for startups, communication templates, resistance patterns, and change fatigue management. Handles process changes, org restructures, strategy pivots, and culture changes. Use when announcing a reorg, switching tools, pivoting strategy, killing a product, changing leadership, or when user mentions change management, change rollout, managing resistance, org change, reorg, or pivot communication.

02 资源文件 1

03 SKILL.md 正文

Change Management Playbook

Most changes fail at implementation, not design. The ADKAR model tells you why and how to fix it.

Keywords

change management, ADKAR, organizational change, reorg, process change, tool migration, strategy pivot, change resistance, change fatigue, change communication, stakeholder management, adoption, compliance, change rollout, transition

Core Model: ADKAR Adapted for Startups

ADKAR is a change management model by Prosci. Original version is for enterprises. This is the startup-speed adaptation.

A — Awareness

What it is: People understand WHY the change is happening — the business reason, not just the announcement.

The mistake: Communicating the WHAT before the WHY. "We're moving to a new CRM" before "here's why our current process is killing us."

What people need to hear:

  • What is the problem we're solving? (Be honest. If it's "we need to cut costs," say that.)
  • Why now? What would happen if we didn't change?
  • Who made this decision and how?

Startup shortcut: A 5-minute video from the CEO or decision-maker explaining the "why" in plain language beats a formal change announcement document every time.


D — Desire

What it is: People want to make the change happen — or at least don't actively resist it.

The mistake: Assuming communication creates desire. Awareness ≠ desire. People can understand a change and still hate it.

What creates desire:

  • "What's in it for me?" — answer this for each stakeholder group, honestly
  • Involving people in the "how" even if the "what" is decided
  • Addressing fears directly: "Some people are worried this means their role is changing. Here's the truth: [honest answer]"

What destroys desire:

  • Pretending the change is better for everyone than it is
  • Ignoring the legitimate losses people will experience
  • Making announcements without any consultation

Startup shortcut: Run a short "concerns and questions" session within 48 hours of announcement. Not to reverse the decision — to address the fears and show you're listening.


K — Knowledge

What it is: People know HOW to operate in the new world — the specific skills, behaviors, and processes.

The mistake: Announcing the change and assuming people will figure it out.

What people need:

  • Step-by-step documentation of new processes
  • Training or practice sessions before go-live
  • Clear answers to "what do I do when [common scenario]?"
  • Who to ask when they're stuck

Types of knowledge transfer:

Method Best for When
Live training Skill-based changes, complex tools Before go-live
Documentation Process changes, reference material Always
Video walkthroughs Tool migrations Available 24/7, self-paced
Shadowing / peer learning Behavior changes Weeks 2–4 after launch
Office hours Any change with many edge cases First 4–6 weeks

A — Ability

What it is: People have the time, tools, and support to actually do things differently.

The mistake: "We've trained everyone" ≠ "everyone can now do it." Training is knowledge. Ability is practice.

What creates ability:

  • Time to practice before being evaluated
  • A safe environment to make mistakes (no public shaming for early struggles)
  • Reduced load during transition (if you're asking people to learn new skills, don't simultaneously pile on new work)
  • Access to help (a Slack channel, a point person, documentation)

Signs of ability gap:

  • People revert to old behavior under pressure
  • Workarounds emerge (people invent their own way around the new system)
  • Training scores are high but actual behavior hasn't changed

R — Reinforcement

What it is: The change sticks. The new behavior becomes the default.

The mistake: Declaring victory at go-live. Changes fail because they're never reinforced.

What creates reinforcement:

  • Visible measurement (are we tracking adoption?)
  • Recognition of early adopters ("Sarah fully migrated to the new workflow in week 2 — ask her how")
  • Leader modeling (if the CEO uses the old way, everyone will)
  • Removing the old option (when possible — eliminate the path of least resistance)
  • Consequences for non-adoption (stated clearly, applied consistently)

Adoption vs. compliance:

  • Compliance: People do it when watched, revert when not
  • Adoption: People do it because they believe it's better

Only reinforcement creates adoption. Compliance is the result of enforcement. Aim for adoption.


Change Types and ADKAR Application

Process Change (new tools, new workflows)

Timeline: 4–8 weeks for full adoption Hardest phase: Ability (people know what to do but haven't built the habit) Critical reinforcement: Remove or deprecate the old tool/process

Communication sequence:

  1. Week -2: Announce the why + go-live date
  2. Week -1: Training sessions available
  3. Week 0 (go-live): Launch + point person available
  4. Week 2: Adoption check-in (who's using it? Who isn't?)
  5. Week 4: Feedback collection + public wins
  6. Week 8: Old system deprecated

Org Change (reorg, new leader, team splits/merges)

Timeline: 3–6 months for full stabilization Hardest phase: Desire (people fear for their roles and relationships) Critical reinforcement: Consistent behavior from new leadership

Communication sequence:

  1. Day 0: Announce the change with the "why" — in person or synchronous video
  2. Day 1: 1:1s with most affected team members by their manager
  3. Week 1: FAQ published with honest answers to the 10 most common concerns
  4. Week 2–4: New structure is operating (don't delay implementation)
  5. Month 2: First retrospective — what's working, what needs adjustment
  6. Month 3–6: Regular check-ins on team health and morale

What to say when a leader is leaving or being replaced: Be honest about what you can share. Never: "We can't share the reasons." Always: either a truthful explanation or "we're not able to share the specifics, but I can tell you [what this means for you]."


Strategy Pivot (new direction, killed products)

Timeline: 3–12 months for full alignment Hardest phase: Awareness (people don't believe the pivot is real) Critical reinforcement: Resource reallocation that visibly proves the pivot is happening

Communication sequence:

  1. Internal first, always. Employees should never hear about a pivot from a press release.
  2. All-hands with full context: what changed in the market, what you're doing, what it means for teams
  3. Each team leader runs a "what does this mean for us?" conversation with their team
  4. Resource reallocation announced within 2 weeks (if the money doesn't move, people won't believe the pivot)
  5. First milestone of the new direction celebrated publicly

What kills pivots: Announcing a new direction while still funding the old one at the same level.


Culture Change (values refresh, behavior expectations)

Timeline: 12–24 months for genuine behavior change Hardest phase: Reinforcement (behavior doesn't change just because values were announced) Critical reinforcement: Visible decisions that reflect the new values

Communication sequence:

  1. Build with input: involve a representative sample of the company in defining the change
  2. Announce with story: "Here's what we observed, here's what we're changing and why"
  3. Behavior anchors: for each culture change, state the specific behavior in observable terms
  4. Leader behavior: leadership team must visibly model the new behavior first
  5. Performance integration: new expected behaviors appear in reviews within one cycle
  6. Celebrate the right behaviors: when someone exemplifies the new culture, name it publicly

Resistance Patterns

Resistance is information, not defiance. Diagnose before responding.

Resistance pattern What it signals Response
"This won't work" Awareness gap or credibility gap Explain the evidence base for the change
"Why now?" Awareness gap Explain urgency — what happens if we don't change
"I wasn't consulted" Desire gap Acknowledge the gap; involve them in the "how" now
"I don't have time for this" Ability gap Reduce their load or push the timeline
"We tried this before" Trust gap Acknowledge what's different this time. Be specific.
Silent non-compliance Could be any gap 1:1 conversation to diagnose

The worst response to resistance: Dismissing it. "Some people are resistant to change" as if resistance is a personality flaw rather than a signal.


Change Fatigue

When organizations change too fast, people stop believing any change will stick.

Signals

  • Eye-rolls during change announcements ("here we go again")
  • Low attendance at change-related sessions
  • Fast compliance on paper, slow adoption in practice
  • "Last month we were doing X, now we're doing Y" comments

Prevention

  • Finish what you start. Don't announce a new change while the last one is still being absorbed.
  • Space changes. One significant change at a time. Give 2–3 months of stability between major changes.
  • Announce what's NOT changing. People in change-fatigue need to know what's stable.
  • Show results. Publish what the previous change achieved before launching the next.

When you're already in change fatigue

  • Pause non-critical changes
  • Run a "change inventory": how many changes are in progress simultaneously?
  • Prioritize ruthlessly: which changes are essential now? Which can wait?
  • Communicate stability: "Here's what is NOT changing this quarter"

Key Questions for Change Management

  • "Who are the most skeptical people about this change? Have we talked to them directly?"
  • "Do people understand why we're doing this, or just what we're doing?"
  • "Have we given people time to practice before we measure performance on the new way?"
  • "Is the old way still available? If so, people will use it."
  • "Are leaders modeling the new behavior themselves?"
  • "How many changes are we running simultaneously right now?"

Red Flags

  • Change announced on Friday afternoon (people stew over the weekend)
  • "This is final, questions are not welcome" framing
  • No published FAQ or way to ask questions safely
  • Old system/process still running 6 weeks after "go-live"
  • Leaders exempted from the change they're asking everyone else to make
  • No measurement of adoption — assuming go-live = success

Detailed References

  • references/change-playbook.md — ADKAR deep dive, resistance counter-strategies, communication templates, change fatigue management

04 同仓库更多 Skills

azhri1990
azhri1990/jarvis-mega-repo

syllabus

Generates a curated supplementary reading list from any course syllabus using Consensus academic search. Grill-me intake (syllabus input format + course audience + year range) plus a grouping forcing-options checkpoint before any search runs — so the reading list matches the course's level and recency need. Parses the syllabus to extract topics and learning outcomes, searches Consensus for recent peer-reviewed papers per topic, and produces a professionally formatted .docx with clickable Consensus links, plain-language summaries calibrated to audience level, and Bloom-higher-order discussion questions tied to course learning goals. Use when the user uploads a syllabus, course outline, or curriculum document and wants supplementary readings (e.g., 'create a reading list from this syllabus', 'find recent papers for my course') — even casual mentions with a syllabus attached should trigger this skill.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/jarvis-mega-repo

pulse

Multi-source recency research skill that takes the pulse of any topic across Reddit, Hacker News, the open web, and optionally X/Twitter within a configurable recent window (default 30 days). Forcing intake clarifies topic specificity, angle (trend/sentiment/problems/opportunities/comparison), time window, and platform scope before searching. Returns a synthesized briefing with citations, engagement metrics, and cross-platform pattern analysis. Use when the user requests multi-source recency intelligence on a topic (e.g., 'pulse on [topic]', 'what's happening with [topic]', 'what are people saying about [topic]', 'current conversation about [topic]', 'take the pulse of [topic]', 'trending: [topic]', 'find me info on [topic]'), and for competitor research, trend discovery, tool comparisons, and audience sentiment analysis.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/jarvis-mega-repo

patent

Patent prior-art and landscape intelligence skill — not generic patent help. Commits to one of five sub-use-cases via forcing intake (novelty search / freedom-to-operate / competitive landscape / acquisition diligence / litigation prior-art) before any search runs. Searches Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO, and optionally Lens.org for citation-graph signals. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict, ranked closest art (claim-text extracted), CPC-class-aware landscape, family-resolved hits, geographic coverage, FTO flags where applicable, strategy recommendations, and full audit log. Use when the user asks for patent searching or analysis (e.g., 'prior art search for [invention]', 'freedom to operate analysis for [product]'). Produces search signal, not legal advice — always recommends consulting a patent attorney before filing or licensing decisions. Trademark, copyright, and trade-secret questions are out of scope.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/jarvis-mega-repo

notebooklm

Browser automation skill for controlling Google's NotebookLM. Use when the user wants anything done in NotebookLM (e.g., 'open NotebookLM', 'check my [name] notebook', 'ask my notebook about X', 'add [source] to NotebookLM', 'generate a Video Overview from my notebook', 'use NotebookLM Studio'). Handles reading and querying notebooks, adding sources (URLs, text, files, YouTube links, synthesized content), generating Studio outputs (Audio/Video Overviews, Mind Maps, Reports incl. Briefing Doc/Study Guide/FAQ, Flashcards, Quiz, slide decks, infographics — discover the exact set from the live Studio panel; the UI evolves fast), and creating new notebooks. Requires browser automation environment — fails gracefully when unavailable.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/jarvis-mega-repo

litreview

Academic literature orientation skill that searches papers via free keyless APIs (PubMed E-utilities + OpenAlex) by default — with the Consensus MCP as an optional enhancement lane when connected — builds a strategic search plan using PICO (default) or SPIDER / Decomposition / hybrid as fallbacks, and synthesizes findings into a formatted Word (.docx) research guide. Grill-me intake (research question specificity + framework hint + tentative depth) before the recon search; a second forcing checkpoint after Phase 2 confirms framework + sub-areas + depth before searches consume budget. Configurable depth (5/10/20 queries) controls coverage vs. speed. Output is a 'launching pad' — an orientation guide that lets a researcher dive in confidently, not a finished review. Use when the user starts literature-oriented research (e.g., 'litreview on [topic]', 'literature review on [topic]', 'I'm starting a literature review on X', 'I'm writing a paper on X', 'help me research X', 'I'm doing research on X', 'can you help me research X'). Do NOT use for single one-off paper searches wanting a quick list — that's a plain PubMed/OpenAlex (or Consensus) query.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/jarvis-mega-repo

grants

NIH grant research skill for clinical researchers. Grill-me intake (research idea + career stage + preliminary data + environment + submission posture + known institute targets) locks down the funding strategy before any search runs. Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis (with draft Significance/Innovation language), maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget/scope-aware mechanism recommendations, submission timelines, and a mandatory program officer recommendation. Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request (e.g., 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research'). NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake.

★ 0