Beyond the Numbers: Why Financial Change Needs a Human Narrative
Financial drivers can be a powerful catalyst for change.
They’re clear, measurable, and often non-negotiable. When budgets tighten, costs rise, or deductions increase, organisations are forced to look hard at what’s sustainable and what isn’t.
But here’s the truth I’ve seen again and again:
Financials might start the change… but they rarely finish it.
If we treat change as a numbers-only exercise, we risk building something technically “right” that people don’t understand, don’t trust, or can’t deliver in the real world. And that’s where even the best business case can quietly unravel.
The danger of a single-lens change programme
Financial metrics are compelling because they feel objective. They can be tracked, reported, and benchmarked. They give leaders confidence that progress is being made.
But when financials become the only lens, a few predictable things happen:
People start hearing the message as “you’re a cost to reduce”, even when that isn’t the intent.
Teams become focused on compliance, not commitment.
The change feels like something that’s being done to people, rather than built with them.
Resistance increases, not because people “hate change”, but because they don’t trust what it means for them.
Because you can’t spreadsheet your way out of uncertainty.
A real example: when the numbers weren’t enough
I was working on a programme where deductions within a commercial agreement were a major concern.
On paper, the case felt straightforward. The deductions were creating financial pressure, and the change we were proposing would help reduce that exposure. In a world driven by targets and deadlines, it would have been easy to lead with the numbers and push for agreement based on the commercial logic alone.
So that’s what I initially tried.
I spent time shaping the message around the contract, the impact, the risk, the rationale. I focused on “getting the point across” and aligning the contract team to the urgency of the situation.
But I quickly learnt something important:
Spinning the financial case with the contract team wasn’t having the desired impact.
Not because they didn’t understand the numbers.
Not because they didn’t care about the commercial reality.
But because the numbers weren’t the whole story.
What I was treating as a financial problem was also a human one.
And until I acknowledged that, I was essentially speaking one language while they were hearing another.
The moment the approach had to change
The shift came when I stopped trying to persuade and started trying to understand.
Instead of pushing harder on the commercial logic, I leaned into a more holistic approach, one that was more people-focused and grounded in active listening.
I started asking different questions:
“What feels most risky about this change from your perspective?”
“What’s happened before that makes this difficult to land?”
“What do you need to see to feel confident backing this?”
“Where are the pressure points in your world right now?”
“If we get this wrong, what’s the impact for you and your team?”
And the answers mattered.
Because what surfaced wasn’t resistance for the sake of resistance. It was context. It was workload. It was competing priorities. It was the reality of managing relationships, obligations, and risk in a space where precision matters.
It wasn’t that the contract team didn’t want progress.
It was that they needed the change to be credible, safe, and deliverable.
The programme didn’t need a louder argument.
It needed a better conversation.
What active listening unlocked
Once I shifted the focus, a few things changed almost immediately:
1) Trust increased
Not because we removed the financial drivers, but because we acknowledged the human realities alongside them.
2) The narrative improved
We moved away from “here’s what we need you to do” and toward “here’s what we’re solving together”.
3) The change became more practical
Listening created space to adapt the approach, spot risks earlier, and make decisions with more clarity.
4) Stakeholders became collaborators
When people feel heard, they’re more likely to engage. When they feel pushed, they’re more likely to protect.
It was a reminder that in change, influence isn’t always about having the best case.
Often it’s about creating the conditions where people can step into the change without feeling like they’re losing control, credibility, or safety.
Why this matters: different teams hold different truths
This experience reinforced something I now look for in every programme:
A change initiative is rarely one-dimensional.
Even when the driver is financial, the success factors are broader.
Different groups are holding different “truths” at the same time:
Finance sees exposure, targets, performance, and urgency
Contract teams see obligations, risk, precision, and reputational impact
Operational teams see feasibility and day-to-day realities
Leaders see outcomes, momentum, and strategic alignment
Change teams see adoption, engagement, and long-term sustainability
None of these perspectives are wrong. But if one dominates the conversation, the programme becomes unbalanced.
And unbalanced change rarely sticks.
The holistic view: where financial outcomes meet human outcomes
The most effective change programmes I’ve seen are the ones that can hold two truths at the same time:
The financial drivers matter.
The human experience determines whether we succeed.
It’s not “people over numbers”.
It’s recognising that people are how the numbers get delivered.
You can have a perfect business case and still fail through poor engagement.
You can have the right solution and still lose momentum through misalignment.
You can have the best intentions and still create resistance if the narrative feels transactional.
What I take forward from that experience
That programme taught me that when financial pressure is high, it’s tempting to narrow the focus and drive harder.
But often, the best results come from widening the lens.
From slowing down long enough to listen.
From understanding the “why” behind the hesitation.
From shaping a narrative that connects the commercial reality with the human impact.
Because change isn’t just about fixing what’s on the balance sheet.
It’s about building something people can stand behind, deliver confidently, and sustain long after the programme closes.