The 100% Dead Dog: A Lesson in Change Leadership, Empathy and Percentages
I’ve worked in change for 25 + years.
Not all of those years were in formal change roles. Before consulting, before
teaching, before writing books, I once worked on the customer service hotline for one of the world’s largest providers of flea and tick control.
Yes. Parasitology.
Most of the calls were predictable:
“Can I use this on my children for head lice?”
(No.)
“My dog is 55kg — do I need two ampoules?”
(Yes. Australia and our large dogs confuse global pharmaceutical design.)
“My cat goes crazy after I apply it — is that normal?”
(Yes. It’s how the product spreads through the oil glands.)
And then one day, I got the call.
Her: I used your product and my dog died.
Me: I’m sorry to hear that. What was the cause of death?
Her: Paralysis tick. We live in the Gold Coast Hinterland.
Me: What breed?
Her: Rottweiler.
Me: And the size?
Her: 50kg.
Me: Did you use two ampoules?
Her: Yes.
And then I said the sentence that still makes me wince.
“Well, our product has the highest efficacy on the market. It’s 97% effective against
tick paralysis.”
There was a pause.
Then she said:
“My dog is 100% dead.”
And she started sobbing.
The Day I Learned the Limits of Data in Change Leadership and Empathy
Technically, I wasn’t wrong. 97% efficacy is strong performance in pharmaceutical terms. But in that moment, statistics were irrelevant.
She wasn’t experiencing 97%.
She was experiencing 100%.
That call has stayed with me through every change program I’ve ever worked on.
Because organisations do this all the time.
“80% of the workforce won’t need to relocate.” That means 20% will be 100% disrupted.
“Most people will be fine.” For some, the loss will be deep and personal.
“73% of our customers won’t be impacted.” And the 27%? 100% annoyed.
When we present change in percentages, we risk minimising lived experience.
Where Are the 100% Dead Dogs in Your Change Program?
I don’t believe it’s realistic to aim for 100% efficacy in change.
There will always be friction. There will always be discomfort.
But I do believe it’s possible — and necessary — to identify and mitigate the
concentrated impacts.
To ask:
- Who is fully affected?
- Where will the loss feel absolute?
- Who carries the heaviest cost of this decision?
- Have we acknowledged it?
Data-informed decision making is essential. I advocate for it constantly.
But data without empathy creates distance.
And distance erodes trust.
The Balance That Matters
Over the years, I’ve learned this:
Percentages inform strategy.
Presence builds trust.
You need both.
If you lead with numbers when people are grieving — literally or metaphorically —
you’ll lose them. If you ignore the numbers entirely, you’ll make poor decisions.
The art of change leadership is knowing which to lead with, and when.
So the next time you’re presenting “only 20% impacted,” pause.
Ask yourself:
Where are the 100% dead dogs in this change?
And what are we doing to care for them?
