When Toxic Culture Hijacks Effective Agency-Driven Change Management

Greg Mullen
18 hours ago
4 min read

Greg Mullen’s Trailblazing Change model marries the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of change with Motivational Interviewing (MI) to foster agency-based, self-directed growth.

Trailblazing Change combines the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) and Motivational Interviewing (MI) to move schools and workplaces toward self-directed, intrinsically motivated improvement. Used as designed, the model nurtures autonomy, psychological safety, and continuous learning. In a command-and-control environment, however, leaders often bolt the language of “stages” and “open questions” onto their existing top-down playbook. The result is not faster adoption but deeper cynicism, stronger resistance, and cultural harm. This article dissects how that hijack happens, what damage follows, and the guardrails that keep agency at the center of change.

I encourage you to watch the 10 minutes of videos in the Trailblazing Change program overview on my website. Click on this button to go there now --

Visit Program Page

This article warns education and workplace leaders that the Trailblazing Change model, rooted in the Transtheoretical Model and Motivational Interviewing, only succeeds when autonomy, transparency, and psychological safety are genuine, not performative. It shows how concepts like “stage-washing,” scripted MI, and data-driven surveillance can hijack the model, producing harder resistance and moral injury that can cause long-term negative impact on an organization's goals for transformational change. It also offers red-flag symptoms of toxic co-opting of the model, practical safeguards, and a cautionary mini-case to illustrate the stakes at risk.

The warning is clear: detoxify coercive leadership norms first, or risk turning an agency-driven change tool into proof that change initiatives cannot be trusted.

3 Ways to Misuse Stage-Based Agency-Driven Change Models

When leaders graft the language of “stages” and “open questions” onto an unchanged command-and-control playbook, the intent of the Trailblazing Change model flips from empowering to coercive. The three misuse patterns in the table below share a root flaw: they borrow agency-friendly terminology while preserving top-down timelines, directives, and surveillance. Staff quickly perceive the mismatch between rhetoric and reality, which erodes credibility and stalls genuine movement through the stages of change.

Misuse Pattern	What It Looks Like in Practice	Why It Backfires
Stage-washing	Leadership slaps “Precontemplation → Maintenance” labels on a rollout timeline but still imposes deadlines (“All staff will adopt the new AI dashboard by May 1”).	Staff recognize the “stages” are a veneer; forced deadlines violate self-pacing, breeding learned helplessness and passive aggression.
MI as scripted persuasion	Managers receive a hand-out of “open questions,” then use them to steer staff toward pre-decided outcomes (“What do you like about this mandate?”).	Employees hear the manipulation; “reflections” ring hollow, triggering reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981).
Token autonomy, real surveillance	A school installs an AI chat tool “to give students choice,” but data dashboards quietly feed high-stakes evaluations.	The gap between stated agency and actual monitoring destroys psychological safety (Edmondson, 2019).

Predictable Damage to Culture

Once employees realize the “new” approach is merely old control tactics in fresh new packaging, the psychological cost compounds. Resistance transforms from a temporary objection into a core part of professional identity, “moral injury” sets in as people feel forced to violate their values, and every subsequent initiative is greeted with pre-loaded cynicism. These outcomes are not isolated glitches but foreseeable consequences of mixing agency-based language with authoritarian change management practices.

Resistance hardens into identity. Staff bond over a shared narrative of “management double-speak,” entrenching perspectives rooted in Precontemplation.
Moral injury (Dean et al., 2019). Teachers asked to “coach autonomy” while being micromanaged feel they are betraying professional ethics and relationships.
Change fatigue amplifies: Future initiatives—good or bad—meet cynicism because Trailblazing Change is remembered as bait-and-switch.

Red Flags That Agency-Based Change Is Being Co-Opted

The warning signs listed in the table below function like a diagnostic checklist. Each flag, whether it’s usage-only metrics or blame-shifting rhetoric, shows leadership’s failure to respect the three core elements of the Trailblazing Change model--autonomy, transparency, and psychological safety. Spotting even two or three of these indicators early is a cue to pause the rollout and realign with true MI and TTM principles before deeper damage occurs.

Red Flag	What to Listen / Look For	Concrete Example
Stage-washing	Slides show “Precontemplation → Maintenance,” but calendars or budgets ignore staff pacing.	District roadmap labels staff as "Contemplation" or “Preparation,” yet e-mail says: “Full implementation by May 1—no exceptions.”
Coercive Use of M.I.	Leaders ask an open question, then pivot to a mandate.	Principal: “What excites you about this tool? … Great—remember it’s mandatory Monday.”
Usage-only metrics	Success equals log-in counts, not self-efficacy or reflection quality.	Weekly dashboard celebrates “97 % teacher log-ins,” while student metacognitive journal scores remain at zero.
Token coaching capacity	One coach is assigned an unmanageable caseload.	“Instructional coach” booked for 70 teachers—offers five-minute hallway check-ins instead of 30-minute MI sessions.
Opaque data pipelines	Readiness scores appear, but staff can’t inspect or correct the data behind them.	Teachers see a red “2/10 readiness” badge but are told the algorithm is “proprietary and non-negotiable.”
PD without choice	“Optional” workshops are wedged into mandatory meetings.	PLC agenda: “Optional AI PD—attendance taken for payroll compliance.”
Punitive feedback loops	“Formative-only” data later affect high-stakes reviews.	Chatbot transcripts promised for coaching are uploaded to HR folders for teacher evaluations.
Value-free incentives	Extrinsic rewards replace value-driven dialogue.	First 20 adopters get Amazon cards; no discussion about how AI supports autonomy or creativity.
One-way communication	Surveys solicit feedback, but actions never reflect it.	Staff suggestion box closes; follow-up e-mail simply says, “Thanks for your input—rollout proceeds as planned.”
Blame-shifting rhetoric	Leadership labels resistance as personality flaw, not systemic issue.	Superintendent memo: “Adoption delays stem from teacher negativity, not implementation gaps.”

Safeguards to Preserve Agency

The safeguard guidelines translate Trailblazing Change’s philosophy into operational guardrails. Autonomy is protected by letting staff set their own trial dates; transparency is enforced by publishing data-use rules; coaching integrity is maintained through regular peer-reviewed MI practice. Together, these measures ensure that tools and timelines flex to human readiness rather than forcing humans to conform to pre-baked schedules.

Principle	Concrete Safeguard
Autonomy first	No deadlines on stage transitions; staff set their own trial dates (may require coaching on metacognitive capacities which may not yet exist and need support).
Transparency	Publish how data will—and will not—be used. Invite staff to co-design analytics and rubrics for determining proficient use of tools as well as oversight measures.
Coach the coaches	Require supervisors to log a 15-minute MI practice session with peer feedback every month to ensure adherence to the core principles of the practice.
Separate formative from punitive data	Dashboards for self-reflection must never feed summative evaluations. Leadership must adhere to coaching that promotes formative growth towards proficiency which is measured collectively rather than by a single metric.
Stage-appropriate resources	Budget time and materials proportional to where staff actually are, not where leadership hopes they’ll be by arbitrary deadlines; transformational change must not be tied to autocratic or transactional leadership approaches -- focus more on democratic or delegative approaches.

A “What-Not-to-Do” Mini-Case

The following Mini-Case illustrates misapplication in action.

Imagine A district wants teachers to adopt an AI standards navigator app using the Trailblazing Change model by declaring everyone to be in “Preparation” and schedules mandatory tool use the following week. Due to budget constraints, the "training" involves a one-hour webinar with mandated completion prior to next week's scheduled adoption. As a result, teachers open the app once to comply with the minimum requirements for participation, then revert to prior teaching practices without the provided AI tools. Soon after, hallway chatter among staff frames the tool as “another failed fad.”

A Trailblazing Change Approach Leaders are coached on real stage mapping to identify which teachers are genuinely resistant and which are contemplating or preparing the change, host opt-in demos, and create peer-led sandboxes for a slow roll-out. With this approach, adoption rises slowly over a longer timeframe but succeeds with authentic staff testimonials and encouraging promise for more engagement the following school year.

The Bottom Line

The Trailblazing Change model thrives in cultures committed to autonomy, transparency, and psychological safety. Strip away those pillars and the model becomes a coercive façade that amplifies resistance and corrodes trust.

Leaders who wish to leverage the TTM + MI frameworks in the Trailblazing Change model must first examine and often detoxify their own norms around control, surveillance and the focus on rewards and punishment as the only motivating tools for progress. Only then can processes such as Consciousness Raising, Self-Reevaluation and Reinforcement Management blossom into durable, self-directed growth and development for both staff and students alike.

Click Here to Learn More about Trailblazing Change.

Greg Mullen

May 22, 2025

General Consult

Book Now