What the two most popular change methods are missing

If you’re anything like me, one of the first things that you did as a change leader or change manager was find out what is the best way to implement change.  My journey with change started with my first course in Organizational Design in business school, and after that, I was hooked! Now I had an understanding of why I was so interested and motivated by this field of change.  I bet you’ve been on this quest too!  You’ve probably read, researched, taken a few courses and maybe even completed a Change Management certification.

Here's the challenge.  After working in change for several years, all of a sudden, I shifted from talking about change and planning it (when I was working in strategy consulting) to actually implementing change.  When you’re an outside consultant looking in, you’re a catalyst just by being there. But when you enter an organization and try to lead change from within, it gets much more complex.  

  • I found that the tools I had relied upon for a very long time, were no longer working. 

  • I found that leading successful change through implementation was much harder than I thought.

  • I experienced change failure, and trying to revive failed change.

  • Change resistance was everywhere, even though the people I was working with were awesome and wanted the change!

Here’s the thing. Despite the best laid plans, and working with the leading practice methods, I was still running into trouble. This is when I started to get curious and looked further into what makes change successful.

The first issue? The tools I was using. 

Change management is a relatively new field. It’s been around for the better part of 70-ish years.  It came of age in the 80s and 90s when management theory was at its peak, and has incrementally evolved since then.  The two main theories and methodologies that address changing organizations are Kotter’s 8 step model, and Prosci’s ADKAR.  

Kotter’s 8-step model

If you’re not familiar with this one, in summary its about guiding coalitions and burning platforms. I won’t go into detail, but the key thing here to remember is, Kotter’s model aligns with how organizations have run historically, and traditional organizational models. This method is all about authoritative (or high in the organizational hierarchy) leaders leading their organization through change. It focuses on the top of the power structure. Great, but if you’ve ever been leading change inside an organization, you’re likely doing it as a project lead or change manager. You’re not the CEO, and honestly, your ability to get this amount of time and dedication from a high level sponsor is ludicrous. Furthermore, change is just one of many things happening in an organization. I always felt that with Kotter’s model, we had to drop everything and just focus on change. That’s impossible by today’s standards and within today’s organizational models. Not only that, but I’d have one leader who loved it, but the rest of the organization?  They didn’t respond to it. They didn’t see themselves as active participants in the change.  This is true, because beyond the leader and members of the guiding coalition, the role of others is just to listen, and to do.  There is no agency if you’re at the bottom of the pyramid in this approach.

Prosci’s change methodology (ADKAR)

If you’re not familiar with ADKAR and Prosci, take a deep dive on the internet and you can learn everything you need to know!  This method talks a lot about the people side of change, and is a great model for individual change. I’ve found it helpful for things like technology implementations, and especially when you’re trying to link Change Management with project management. There is a lot here about the link between understanding what’s changing and having the skills to implement the change through training or other means, but this simply isn’t applicable to big organizational changes that don’t have skills differences but do have change in behaviour patterns or process.  What ADKAR and Kotter have in common is that they are both top-down models for change. ADKAR relies on sponsorship as much as Kotter relies on a guiding coalition. The limitation of seeing individuals as part of the change means that you see everything through that lens.  Many of my change programs have started with building off ADKAR. While people see themselves more in this approach, they still see it as a choice between two options, either you’re with the change, or you’re not.  And resistance?  It’s the people against the change! Its an individual focus that aims to be repeatable at a broader scale and convince the resistant to get on board.

The Power of Context

When I realised that my tools were broken, I started getting curious about how we could improve change especially when I heard things like:

  • That’s not how things work around here.

  • We’re missing a big important point that is going to cause us to stumble or fail!

  • Why are these decisions being made without us?

  • Management doesn’t understand our circumstances (from people)

  • People just don’t want to change (from leadership)

Both models above classify the above as resistance.  They would rather work on convincing people of the merit of change, or simply force change through authority. But here’s where it gets interesting. When you dig deeper on the questions, the context of the organization comes to light. The organizational systems, how things get done.  Group dynamics among the various people and teams in the organization. The Culture of the organization, governing how people interact and how work happens.  These things are what you’re implementing change WITHIN.  It’s like both Kotter and ADKAR completely forgot that you’re implementing change in an organization, in a specific place at a specific time! These things are more relevant and impactful to making change successful and sustainable and its what prompted the creation of Connected Change ™.  Making change happen is about how your approach is relevant to the context and the system that you’re working in, and by taking our change tools to the next level, we can start to make the organizational context work for us as we implement transformation and change successfully.

If you liked this post, you’ll find more from us in our monthly Navigator Newsletter.  We share exclusive content and free resources with our subscribers. Don’t miss out, sign up today!

We also have a weekly podcast - Listen to the Change Course podcast on your favourite podcast app!

Previous
Previous

If change is all about people, why are we missing the obvious?

Next
Next

Why big bang change is set up to fail