The Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said: "There is nothing permanent except change."

The internet attributes a similar saying to him: "The only thing that is constant is change."

Which has, in turn, evolved to: "The only thing that is constant in life is change."

And, in workplaces around America: "The only thing that is constant here is things are always changing."

Since we're so used to changes occurring around us, why do organizational change efforts have such a hard time being successful?  ATD Orange County staff writer L'Oreal Battistelli explores this question in the below post.

WSA (Work Systems Affiliates) President Paul Plotczyk writes that “Most large-scale organizational change initiatives fail” in “Why Change Efforts Fail.” At a minimum, most organizations (that launch large scale initiatives) meet “only a fraction” of their projected goals because: 1. Organizations naturally resist change 2. Organizations give up too soon Co-author and developer of both the Drucker EMBA and Executive Development Programs that are now offered in China, The Druker Files contributing author Dr. Robert W. Swaim opines contrarily: employees don’t always resist change within an organization (contrary to popular belief) but rather they respond negatively to the way organizations launch them i.e. “Eight Reasons Change Efforts Fail.”

Please read: Part I: Nine Reasons Organizations Need Change Part II: Why People Aren't As Afraid of Change As You Might Think

Swaim says: “There are several common mistakes that companies often make when implementing change...”

“Change should also be accompanied with continuity.”

In Part II, Swaim writes that people don’t resist change, exactly, contrarily, they resist “what is perceived loss or what people think they will lose as a result of the change effort…”

One of the “perceived losses” is one of a perceived “uncertainty about the causes and effects of the change,” (see a few examples provided by Swaim below):

• People avoid uncertainty (risk); established procedures are well known and predictable.
• Lack of trust – Distrust of any changes instituted from above.

Another “perceived loss” is “unwillingness to give up existing benefits,” (see the below additional examples):

• Unwillingness to give up tasks and relationships - The massive restructuring of the U.S. healthcare industry through the passage of “ObamaCare” is highly resisted as many feel they will lose the relationship they have with their present physician.

A third “perceived loss” is an “awareness of a weakness in changes being proposed,” i.e.

• Potential problems overlooked by initiators of the change (“We tried this before and it didn’t work.”)
• Plan to introduce the change considered to be too complicated, costly, and too time consuming. May also disrupt current operations.

However, Swaim quotes Drucker as saying that when an organization does decide to launch an initiative, there are things that should remain constant; the “human-behavioral” needs present within the working framework of every organization:

• The Need for Recognition
• The Need for Respect
• The Need for Trust
• The Need to Feel Productive
• The Need to Grow

Swaim also writes about educating employees, and opening lines of communication (as a strategy for success) between the hierarchal levels within the organization to increase the likelihood of a change initiative’s success.

According to Swaim, communicating what will be changed, and “what will be preserved” will also be key; communicating “how the organizations missions, values and visions” intersect will provide the organizations’ envisioned transformation.

Plotczyk says that organizations are collectives of people, and their natural response to change is going to be to push back when they

• “Are not involved in creating it
• Don't understand the reasons for it
• Don't understand the change itself
• Are afraid of the unknown”

Plotczyk says that resistance to change (even at the most human level) should be anticipated, and expected. He identifies the natural opposition as “inertia,” and he also touches on “homeostasis” as the “biological” push-back component (that organically occurs) when people are challenged with any type of modification to their organization’s status quo.

Plotczyk says: "the more radical, systemic, permanent or difficult the change, the deeper the resistance.”

Anticipating opposition and integrating strategies to overcome it when designing even the smallest initiatives can take change effort failures, and make them successes.

Plotczyk says the second main reason change efforts fail i.e. “Organizations give up too soon” in combination with the first, doom a change effort from its start.

He says it’s natural to anticipate the ripple of a change in a large organization would take longer to make it way through a Company, than one pushing itself outward to all employees in a small business. It’s the time period during that wave (when resources are dwindling and during which the impact of a change isn’t being seen, and when employees are “front loaded” (i.e. understandably taxed with new, additional and unfamiliar protocols) when organizations give up.

Plotczyk says it’s during THAT time when “those who resist change are most vocal” (because they aren’t seeing an immediate return on their investment) when it’s tempting to surrender and return to familiar processes and protocols (in spite of their ineffectiveness) that leaders can take a potential change initiative “win” and turn it into a “change initiative loss” for the Company.

Ploytczyk says that as a change leader, it is “essential” that leaders of a change initiative “resist this temptation.”

Understanding the “upsurge” timeframe (when launching a change initiation), accepting the integration (application) time period, and waiting out the time it takes to determine the initiative’s ROI (return on investment) ensures an change initiative is implemented with the systematic framework (and time necessary) needed to succeed.

Persisting in a change initiative with continuity ensures the results of organizations’ change efforts will prevail.

Managing change efforts is a complicated topic, and ATD Orange County is thrilled to have Peter Block join us in a discussion on "Why Many Change Efforts Fail."

Topic Summary: 

Most “efforts for change” are nothing more than sophisticated marketing strategies: They originate in companies’ upper echelons; they are commonly “rolled out” hastily, and focused on analytics. Completion reporting confirms or refutes their value: “High” completion reports substantiate success; “low” completion reports measure failure. This type of “colonial” strategy has long been accepted (and defended) as a business standard of practice in the training industry over time.

“High impact” change (the kind company leaders seek in today’s initiatives) occurs via engagement; it requires individual “buy in”, and its adoption within companies occurs organically at its own pace.

Peter Block provides examples of these kinds of “change efforts" that have altered companies completely, and forever impacted leaders and their employees’ perceptions about change.

This is a "hybrid" learning event: while we will still meet in our regular location, you can also join us online. 

Register for the in-person meeting here, or register for the webinar!