What used to be the exception has long become the norm: markets, technologies and expectations are constantly changing.
Companies must continuously adapt – to new business models, ways of working and role concepts. Yet despite the abundance of projects, programs and initiatives, real impact often fails to appear.
This is rarely due to a lack of intention, but to missing coherence.
Change only succeeds when leadership, approach and resources interlock.
This is exactly where the systemic approach Leadership x Approach x Resources = Impact comes in: it brings structure into transformation – and shows how organizations can truly steer change.
“Organizations don’t change through new structures, but through new conversations.”
– Peter Block
What lies behind the approach
LARI stands for Leadership x Approach x Resources = Impact.
The idea behind it: impact does not occur by chance, but through the interplay of these three dimensions.
The model is not a rigid method, but a guiding framework for anyone who wants to understand and shape change.
| Dimension | Question | Typical bottleneck |
|---|---|---|
| Leadership | Who takes responsibility – and why? | Leadership remains abstract or is delegated “downwards” |
| Approach | How do we proceed methodically? | Actionism without direction |
| Resources | Do we have the right structures, people and capacities? | Overload, friction losses, priority conflicts |
| Impact | How do we measure impact? | Success remains vague or is glossed over |
The approach brings together what is often considered separately:
Leadership provides direction. Approach creates movement. Resources ensure implementation. Impact shows whether it works.
- If balance is missing, the system tips.
- Strong leadership without structure creates dependency.
- A method without a goal leads to idle motion.
- Resources without clarity are wasted.
How companies can work with it
The framework is suitable for organizations that want to shape change consciously – not reactively, but reflectively.
It can be applied to any phase: analysis, planning, steering.
1. Analysis – Where do we really stand?
A structured check helps to identify the current situation and tensions:
- How clearly is leadership responsibility distributed – formally and informally?
- Which roles arise outside the org chart – who influences without officially having authority?
- Is there a shared understanding of the approach – or competing narratives?
- Do resources and ambitions match?
- Is impact reviewed regularly – or merely assumed?
Such questions reveal where structure and shadow structure diverge, uncovering patterns that often remain invisible in projects.
The systemic view captures both: official lines – and the informal forces that truly operate. This creates a realistic picture of the starting point – with people as the central factor, not a source of disturbance.
2. Planning – How do measures interlock?
Many transformation programs fail not because of content, but because of inconsistency – often also due to unspoken interests.
Leadership wants empowerment, yet processes remain hierarchical.
Teams are expected to work agilely, yet structures are rigid. And between the lines, old habits, loyalties and power dynamics continue to exert influence.
The approach forces these contradictions to become visible – and to interlink measures with one another.
This creates planning that is not based on wishful thinking, but on systemic logic.
3. Steering – How do we measure impact?
Impact is what remains when the project is over.
It is not only about metrics, but about perception:
- Was clarity created – also in relationships?
- Do teams make better decisions?
- Is energy created – or friction?
- Have patterns in communication and responsibility truly changed?
Why partial optimization doesn't work
The model does not follow an additive logic in which one strength can compensate for a weakness.
Instead, it follows a simple but strict principle: if one dimension is missing or weak, the entire transformation loses impact.
- Strong leadership is useless if the approach remains aimless.
- A smart approach fails if no one takes responsibility.
- And even the best resources fizzle out if both are missing.
Impact only emerges when all three factors work together.
As soon as one of them fails, the entire process stands on shaky ground.
This mindset is uncomfortable, but honest.
It forces us not to polish the strongest dimension, but to look where the real bottleneck sits.
In many organizations, the greatest leverage lies not in expanding methods or tools, but in clarifying leadership and responsibility.
The framework helps reveal exactly that:
Where is there energy in the system – and where does it dissipate because something is missing?
The answer to this question often determines whether change holds or collapses.
Typical symptoms of missing balance
- Leadership talks about strategy, but nobody follows.
- A variety of methods replaces direction.
- Teams are overloaded, but results fail to appear.
- Success is claimed, but not felt.
These symptoms are no coincidence, but indications of systemic imbalances.
A simple question can help identify them:
“In which dimension is the most happening right now – and in which the least?”
The answer is rarely comfortable – but almost always the beginning of clarity.
How to apply the approach in practice
This does not have to be a project.
The framework can be easily integrated into existing routines – and unfold its impact there:
- Strategy workshops: assessing current alignment along the three key dimensions.
- Project kick-offs: clarifying how leadership, method and resources interplay.
- Leadership circles: reflecting on responsibility, decision logic and impact.
- Team reviews: analyzing where energy emerges – and where it is lost.
This structure functions as a shared language.
It helps make differences in perception and priorities productive – without new tools, just through better questions.
Conclusion: Structure is not a dogma, but a mindset
Transformation requires direction, courage and clarity – but not dogmas.
The framework described here provides structure without becoming rigid.
It is not a tool for consultants, but a mindset for organizations that want to understand impact before creating it.
Those who work this way recognize more quickly where leadership, method and resources block each other – and where they reinforce one another.
This creates balance. And from balance, impact emerges.
Change succeeds not through actionism, but through alignment.
FAQ
Is this a theoretical model or a method?
Neither. It is a frame of thinking that provides orientation in change processes. It offers questions, not recipes – and that makes it adaptable to any organization.
Can impact be measured?
Yes, but differently than usual. Impact becomes visible where responsibility is clear, processes fit together and collaboration improves. It shows through feedback and resonance – also, but not only, through metrics.
For which organizations is this approach suitable?
For all that understand change as an ongoing task – whether medium-sized family businesses, public institutions or educational organizations. Wherever people and systems interact, it has impact.
How can we start?
Very simply: write the three terms – Leadership, Approach, Resources – on a flipchart and reflect together. Where are we strong? Where are we missing answers? This is often the most important first step.
Takeaway
Transformation succeeds when leadership, approach and resources are aligned – not when they merely coexist.
This systemic perspective provides the structure for that.
And where structure emerges, it enables impact.