There are currently over 50 different change management models that have been developed to help companies plan, organize and deliver change.
By “models” I mean the structured processes (and tools) used to manage change.
For example, models range from a series of steps (Lewin’s “Unfreeze – Change – Re-freeze,” or Kotter’s 8 Stages ) to systems-based approaches (McKensey’s 7S), and bottom-up approaches like ADKAR or Nudge — and beyond. (Here’s an article by Ben Mulholland that breaks down 8 of the best with some helpful visuals.)
Despite the fact that there are many approaches and this is not a brand-new field (Lewin’s model dates back nearly 60 years), studies from 2008-14 the widely estimated failure rates in change initiatives at 70%*.
Take that number with a grain of salt given lack of a consistent definition of “failure” across case studies, but even so, it’s fair to draw this conclusion…
Having a model is not a predictor of success.
In the above referenced meta-study, some projects using change management models succeeded and some failed using the same model.
Failure factors included not following the model; other factors included time, coordination, competing demand, inadequate training, skills competence and uncontrollable factors.
We don’t know who evaluated success or failure and by what criteria. Perhaps failure would depend on who you ask.
But no matter how you slice it, change is dynamic and complex. The list of complicating elements for any project of this type is long: enterprise maturity, culture, readiness, change exhaustion.
So many factors influence outcomes that the complexity alone would lead anyone to reach for models that might help organize the chaos.
I think models are good. They’re just not the end of the story.
It takes careful inquiry, analysis, transparency, openness, discussion, partnership and a fair dose of courage to make change –no matter what change management model you use.
I suggest it takes something more, too.
The Hole in Our Change Management Models…
Whatever model you chose, I believe nearly all are missing something important.
In a VUCA** world where employees work continuously out of their comfort zone, psychological flexibility is the crucial element that needs to be developed. We are missing a change management coaching model that focuses Emotional Agility & Resilience.
Martin Bless
Consultant & Founder at Agilience Sàrl. President of EMCC Switzerland (European Mentoring and Coaching Council)
Martin said it well. A few years ago I’d have agreed too, but also been left wondering what to do to develop this resilience and agility.
It wasn’t until I found insight principles that I understood how build resiliency in a business change context.
Insight principles provide a practical understanding of how the human mind works that supports change management models by providing the missing piece — the engagement upon which the entire change initiative is predicated.
Resiliency is the cornerstone of engagement. It allows people to face change knowing they can meet it, move with it and thrive.
“Resilience is simply the personal capacity to return to natural balance and clarity when you lose it.”
Invisible Power, Insight Principles at Work
Ken Manning, et.al.
Simply put, all human beings have an innate capacity to adapt to new realities. We all have a constant capacity for new thinking, which shapes how we see things, including how we perceive change.
Knowing this builds our resiliency muscles.
When people learn that insight is a natural function of the human mind, in all individuals, they understand that resilience is built-in. And this is what is missing from our change management models.
About the author.
Elese Coit is a Large-Scale Change Consultant who helps organizations succeed at technical, system and process transformation. Elese Coit & Associates partners with companies undergoing change to build engagement and overcome resistance .
*taken from Jones et. al. qualitative meta-analysis (2019) Univ. of Wolverhamption
**VUCA is a term used by the American Military and stands for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous. Interestingly, this term was birthed after the collapse of the USSR as a response to lack of a single, identifiable enemy in the post-cold-war world. Similar to the post-cold war era, there’s no going back to a time when change was simple, easily identifiable and linear (if that ever existed!).
