Lotte Hart (SeederDeBoer): ‘The human side is crucial’

SeederDeBoer has a solid foundation in the public sector, healthcare, and the financial world, with clients such as Rabobank, ABN AMRO, Nationale Nederlanden, university medical centers, the Princess Máxima Center, various housing associations, NS (Dutch Railways), ProRail, ANWB, Stedin, and Alliander. Is your people-centered approach seen as too soft by the large commercial parties?
‘It just grew this way, because we have our largest network and the most knowledge and experience in those sectors. I do not see any real difference between public and private in the issues at stake, and I certainly would not call our approach soft. Even in a more profit-driven organization, people have to carry the change, and for us, it is always about how to get people on board with changes within an organization. With this approach, we want to become the leading agency for complex change processes for large organizations and companies in the Netherlands. In doing so, we are in principle focused on the Dutch market. That is already the case, and we will continue to do so.

How do you want to differentiate yourself from, for example, the ‘big four’?
‘First of all, we spend an above-average amount of time identifying the real problem behind the initial question, because there is often a problem behind the problem and a question behind the question. Some clients find it very annoying when this is pointed out to them. They already know exactly what they want and expect us to just execute. But we are stubborn on this – even if it sometimes means we do not get the job. We are convinced that the time we take at the beginning to clarify with each other what the client really wants to achieve pays off enormously, because it prevents a lot of hassle and disappointment during the process. Secondly, we guide change processes from start to finish and only leave when that change has been implemented throughout the organization. We translate theory into practice, because a model may look great on paper, but during implementation, adjustments are sometimes necessary.’

How do you invest in your own development?
‘Our junior consultants have a huge number of training days in the first two years, but it does not stop there.
We have a SeederdeBoer University with standard training courses for each rank, including for the partners. These include hard elements such as lean management, business process management, data governance, and architecture, but they also focus on self-knowledge: who are you and what do you bring to the table? The more you know about yourself, the better you can use that knowledge during change processes. In addition, we learn as much as possible about management and change methods, from agile to waterfall and Theory U. Because we do not work with a standard model but always align ourselves with an organization's working methods, we need to be familiar with all these methodologies.’

Within the partner group, you are responsible for data and AI. Many organizations are uncertain about this topic. Where do you see things going wrong?
‘To put it very simply, people tend to assume that everything will work out just fine if only you have the technology. If only we had a new system ..., or, if only we had an AI solution ... It would have been great if that were the case, but in practice, it never is. If you do not think carefully about the goal you want to achieve with a new tool, you simply transfer all your existing problems to that new system. There is currently a sense of urgency surrounding AI, as if you will fall hopelessly behind if you do not invest in it. Maybe that is true, maybe not. That is precisely why it is good to look at it realistically. We are often the intermediary who helps clarify the goal and assess whether this specific tool is the right solution for your problem.’

Can you give an example of a mismatch between goal and tool?
‘Many sectors have only a limited number of system providers. We often encounter situations where organizations require a significant level of customization within such a system, as their processes are unique and different. However, that is almost never a good idea, if only because everything then needs to be adjusted with every update and therefore the organization does not benefit from the advantages of such a large system and such a large provider. Organizations must therefore think carefully about whether their processes are really that distinctive and ask themselves what will hurt more in the long run: sticking to customization or adapting a number of business processes to the larger system.’

And once the appropriate tool has been chosen... why do some change processes still fail?
‘You will inevitably be disappointed if you do not also pay attention to the human and organizational aspects. This applies to any change, but specifically with data and AI, you see that governance is often forgotten. Who ‘owns’ this new tool? Who is responsible if things go wrong? What does the lifecycle management look like? Who will be working with it? How do you train those people and how do you guide them in the transition to a different way of working? These may be the less exciting aspects of all the promising technology, but they are crucial for successful implementation.’

How do you use AI within your own organization?
‘We try to be critical about when and where we use it. In conversations with clients, for example, we deliberately do not use it because I want to find out what is not being said, what is happening in the underlying context. AI cannot do that. Moreover, clients do not hire us to operate an AI tool, but because of our expertise in the human side of change processes.
Internally, we do experiment with it, of course. For example, we are currently busy rolling out Microsoft Copilot. But here too, we are cautious because of the disadvantages associated with it. Many organizations claim to achieve efficiency gains with generative AI, while in practice, that is not really the case.
In any case, we do not yet see this for the organization as a whole. It does, however, give some colleagues the feeling of being faster at certain tasks. For example, with the help of generative AI, you can quickly write an eighty percent suitable cover letter for tenders. But are you really faster if you factor in the time it takes to get to a hundred percent version? The honest answer is that we do not know, and I think this applies to many organizations. I think we need to talk more about these disadvantages. For example, we now receive hundreds of cover letters from people who all have a ‘deep-rooted passion for the consulting profession.’ This means that the entire cover letter thing has become a farce. What are we actually doing when we write automated cover letters and then assess them automatically?
We should also talk more about what we are losing with AI, because it is not free. One major risk, for example, is that junior colleagues will no longer learn the profession, because what they did and do can be done faster with AI. But if we skip that phase of training, where will the senior colleagues be to assess the quality of what AI produces? Or the people who can turn an eighty percent version into a hundred percent version?’

What are you doing to mitigate this risk?
‘We still hire junior consultants because we do consider their training important. But we pay scrupulous attention to the correct use of AI. Trainees need to realize that it is their job to learn the profession, and that they will never improve significantly if they constantly use AI. Those who do so will ultimately pay the price. Sometimes I can immediately see that something has been created by AI and I send it straight back. We also work with assignment managers who assess the quality of assignments, but we do not micromanage. Ultimately, you want people to be intrinsically eager to learn. I feel sorry for IT departments that try to block or control AI tools these days. It is completely pointless, because something new becomes available almost every day, often for free. It is far more effective to teach people to use them responsibly.’

You joined SeederDeBoer as a junior and, like two other partners, you have worked your way up internally. What makes SeederDeBoer an attractive employer, apart from the training opportunities?
‘Entrepreneurship. From day one, I felt like it was my company too, and that I could help shape it further. As in any organization, things do not always go perfectly here, but there is a genuine open invitation to work together to make things better. Even as a trainee, you are taken seriously from the start.
When I wanted to make data my area of expertise, not all of my colleagues were immediately enthusiastic. They wondered if the subject was not too far removed from our specialty: the human side of change. René Seeder said: ‘Fantastic, go for it.’ I did, and now digitization issues are actually part of all change processes. Because you are given the space to be entrepreneurial, we continue to develop as an office. That is important, because the world is not static.’

You have been teaching your field at SIOO, the Interuniversity Centre for Organizational and Change Management, for years and have continued to do so after becoming a partner in 2024. Why that combination?
‘Tech people enjoy inventing the most complicated terminology for what they invent. That creates distance. My personal mission is to reduce that distance and make tech down-to-earth again. After all, if people do not understand it properly, they cannot use it effectively for their organization. In my workshops, I let them get to work with the tools so they can see how it works in practice. I also translate literally by explaining what certain terms actually mean. And I try to keep it fun and lighthearted, because the subject matter is complex enough. I often start with the conceptual framework. What do you mean by AI, for example? Because even though people say it is self-evident, in practice everyone has a different understanding of what it means. And we need a common language to be able to have a good conversation about it.

Want to respond? Email us at redactie@scopebusinessmedia.nl

This interview was published in Management Scope 03 2026.