When it comes to business transformation, resilience is often the invisible thread that holds long-haul programmes together.

Over months and years, shifting priorities, stretched resources, and the weight of global complexity can test even the most seasoned delivery teams. In speaking with a programme manager who led a three-year global payroll transformation across 18 countries, it became clear that resilience was not just a useful trait — it was the defining factor that sustained momentum, secured stakeholder confidence, and ultimately carried the programme to success. Read this interview for more about her experience and the lessons learned during this payroll transformation programme.

Can you describe the scale and scope of the payroll transformation project you led?

Payroll touches every single employee, so any change shines a very bright spotlight on a transformation. This programme wasn’t simply about swapping one system for another; it was about designing a new, unified way of working across 18 different countries over three years. We weren’t just introducing technology — we were creating a new target operating model. That meant bringing together fragmented teams, each with their own established practices, and aligning them while respecting cultural nuances, employment laws, and deeply rooted ways of working. It was a transformation of people, processes, and platforms all at once.

What were the most complex aspects of delivering a programme spanning multiple time zones and regions?

At the start, there was no global view of payroll performance — no shared metrics, no central escalation routes, no collective best practices. Every country was operating in its own bubble. The challenge was to deliver consistency without losing the richness of local expertise. A “one-size-fits-all” payroll template simply didn’t work.

We also had to manage up- and downstream dependencies — everything from benefits systems to regulatory frameworks — and those varied wildly across regions. Resources were stretched thin, with multiple initiatives running at once. We had to plan meticulously, sitting down with country leads to map out their change landscapes, making sure they knew what was coming and that their experts had the capacity to participate. It was a constant balancing act: respecting local priorities while steering the organisation towards the end goal of a seamless global payroll.

Over a three-year programme, how did you maintain momentum and prevent fatigue across the team?

We avoided the risk of burnout by structuring the programme in phases. Country teams typically worked with us for 9 to 12 months, which gave them a clear beginning and end, while the global workstreams ran continuously across the three years. For those long-term teams, we deliberately varied responsibilities. In one phase they were knee-deep in implementation, while in the next they shifted to embedding lessons learned and improving delivery — faster, smarter, better.

This variety prevented the “cookie-cutter” effect and kept people engaged. Towards the end, some team members took on dual roles across countries, while others moved into fresh streams of work. We also built in opportunities for people to rotate roles, stretch themselves, and bring in new perspectives. That constant renewal of energy was key.

Resource planning was another lifeline. We looked carefully at how people were being utilised and stepped in to relieve pressure points, even backfilling BAU tasks when other initiatives landed suddenly. Securing senior stakeholder commitment for SME time upfront was vital — and we treated it as a privilege when we had that expertise embedded in the programme.

What role did resilience play in keeping the programme on track when priorities shifted or progress slowed?

Resilience was the backbone of delivery. There were countries where we knew we could move quickly, but shifting business strategies slowed us down. The key was transparency — being upfront about what was happening and helping the team see these changes not as setbacks, but as natural disruptors in a transformation journey. We framed them as opportunities to flex, adapt, and prove we could still deliver. That mindset shift — from frustration to curiosity — made all the difference.

Were there moments where resilience made the difference between losing stakeholder confidence and securing continued support?

Absolutely. One defining moment was when, after nine months of preparation, the team was ready for go-live — only for the business to halt the implementation at the very last minute. It was a tough blow after so much hard work. Naturally, we vented in our safe space, but within a week we were back on our feet, replanning and showing the sponsors we supported their decision.

That resilience, coupled with transparency and professionalism, meant we didn’t lose their trust. Instead, we secured their ongoing support — proof that resilience isn’t just about pushing forward, but also about managing disappointment with maturity.

Looking back, what were the pivotal moments that tested resilience most?

New stakeholders joining midway through and challenging our approach felt disruptive at first. It can be unsettling when someone new pokes holes in your work. But, in hindsight, it was like a quality check. Rather than taking it as criticism, we learnt to see it as validation — proof we were on the right track, or an opportunity to improve. That shift in perspective strengthened us, so the next time it happened, we were ready.

Another testing moment came when some changes within the business impacted a previously implemented payroll, and naturally, attention turned to the programme for answers. It was a challenging period, with questions raised around governance and readiness. However, our strong foundations — thorough reviews, clear documentation, and well-established controls — stood up to scrutiny. In the end, that rigour not only protected the programme but strengthened confidence in its overall integrity.

Of course, there were also personal tests — seeing colleagues face redundancy or pressure — but the bonds built over three years meant we supported one another through it. That solidarity was a quiet but powerful form of resilience.

What lessons would you highlight for other programme managers leading complex, multi-year transformations?

The biggest lesson? Plan properly. Structure the programme with care, resource it realistically, and secure the right budget. Those foundations are non-negotiable. Resilience doesn’t come from firefighting alone — it comes from building a programme strong enough to withstand the inevitable storms.

How has this project shaped your own view of what resilience means in transformation programmes?

For me, resilience has become less about pushing through difficulty and more about how people work together. It’s about navigating ambiguity, supporting each other, and trusting that professionalism and teamwork will see you through.

Leadership plays a vital role too. Having trusted decision-makers to lean on at pivotal points was critical. At its heart, resilience in transformation isn’t about toughness — it’s about adaptability, collaboration, and the confidence that comes from a strong, united team.

About the author – Kerryn Harding-Jones:

Kerryn has over 15 years of experience in business change, specialising in leading global digital transformation and culture change programmes across multiple industries.

She began her career in the commercial investment division of a major financial services company, later transitioning to large-scale transformations.

Interests: Outside of work, Kerryn enjoys hands-on renovation projects, and with her family’s support, she is currently refurbishing a 250-year-old fisherman’s cottage near the sea.