The trouble with Change Management

3 November 2025 Reading Time: 4 minutes

Barbara Jacobs:

We sympathize with those heading up change in organizations.

Why?

Because the numbers are against them.

Plus there’s no universal agreement on frameworks, outcomes, and root causes.

A multiplicity of frameworks

Though ProSci appears to be the preferred architecture, another 63 are fighting for that top nomenclature (a tip of the hat to Will.Bachman@umbrex.com who compiled the Field Guide to Change Management Frameworks this year).

Started in the 1950s with Kurt Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze methodology, followed by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ five stages of grief, today’s change techniques span anywhere from four to nine stages – from establishing a business case to sustaining the transition.

Most, to be honest, copy each other in their phases. Four or five phases dominate (think ADKAR at its most basic).

Other distinctions among the 64:

• Named after their creators (Bridges, Burke-Litwin, Schein).
• Identify desired attributes – such as transparency, flexibility, collaboration.
• And/or incorporate company icons, stories, symbols, rituals, routines, and the like.

Tools and templates, too, remain relatively the same. Which may be part of the issue.

Another contributing factor: Surveys pointing to not-so-lasting results from any kind of transformation. Especially considering when the average organization undergoes five significant changes every three years (CEB Corporate Leadership Council) – and no doubt more in this age of AI adoption.

Fail or succeed?

Speaking of statistics:

• McKinsey says 70 percent fail (2015).
• So does John Kotter.
• Bain, in a ten-year gap survey (2013 to 2023), claims only 12 percent produce lasting results.
• CEB’s Corporate Leadership Council insists (in 2016) only 34 percent succeed.

The statistics definitely favor the lack of success.

So the question becomes: Why do we continue the same-old same-old if it’s not destined to reach our goals?

Digging into root causes

Of course, every author and expert worth his/her credentials and years of experience pinpoints a reason or two for failure.  Among the list:

• Better definitions of roles and responsibilities
• Change fatigue
• Employee resistance
• Lack of management support
• No defined strategy
• Treated as a management exercise
• Non-aligned compensation
• Not driven from the middle out (which might be an issue these days since that layer is rapidly decreasing)
• Not enough dedicated resources (people and budget)
• One-off mindset, instead of continuous improvement
• Treated as a management exercise
• And more.

There’s no one cause that stands out, though three are repeated constantly: employee resistance, management support, resources.

What are the one/two common threads in the causes?  People and communications.

The next-next in Change Management

What is most interesting in the discussions about why change works (or doesn’t) is usually buried in the hundreds of articles diagnosing issues and next steps.

For one, McKinsey in 2015 says in an off-handed manner “communication  contributes most to transformation’s success.”

A 2021 Harvard Business Review piece notes: “Companies have a better chance of success if they focus on their people during transformation.”

EQ guru Dan Goleman admits that “what makes change particularly messy are people.”

In other words, people and communications.

All 64 frameworks acknowledge the role of people and to a lesser extent communications. It’s also a given that change communications and training need plans, ways to celebrate success, milestones, sponsors and advocates, KPIs.

Yet nothing in detail.  Little emphasis on the importance of people and communications bespoked-ness.

Still. It’s very possible to rescue change initiatives from the pit of failure. How? Here are three learnings from our change work:

• Customize beyond broad stakeholder groups. For a medical device company, we created a fun cartoon-like meme (yes, it was brand compliant) to help employees remember to update their Workday data – thus avoiding paycheck misses, technology un-matches, and the like. Though definitely not a major transition, the change worked – with plenty of bespoke communications (AOW, senior management, supervisors, IT workers, etc.) to get people to understand the whys and the ease of keeping up with data. Each function and each business unit were targeted with step-by-step illustrated directions, specific actionable messages, sent by site leaders, HR business partners, and influencers, to meet KPIs. It worked, with 94 percent compliance among 28,000 employees.
• Test, test, test the universe … with employees. Leadership, for sure, acts as approver and resourcer. Yet how much more powerful to get buy-in from an influencer posse about the initiative’s actual changes (and possible push-backs), rewards, angle/s, intended outcomes, impacts, and the like – before executive conversations. For one global client, we used a combination of HR business partners and employee influencers, helping us shape the right kind of messages and campaign.
• Emphasize before and after. We admit, it can be difficult to wean the specifics from general statements of change. Even when you’re in the middle of it. That, however, is what makes the difference between a so-so result and success. People want to  know exactly what will change and what they need to do (or not).

A U.S. utility needed to transform its IT system – extremely complicated since more than a dozen different business functions had to be schooled on completely different ways of working. What we did:

• Picked the brains of the developers.
• Sat with them to look at before and after (in the sand box).
• Used a mixed group of savvy/not IT users to review the sketches and tell us what made sense, what didn’t.
• Compile everything before and after in a print ‘flip’ book that they could touch, take in with their training, mark up, and question
• Which helped: leaders, trainers, change mavens, communicators then ‘got it.’ Like: 100% ‘got it.’

True, customization and segmentation take time, much more than regular templates and standard messaging.

It’s worth it.

Change then works in all its not-so-mysterious ways once a targeted focus on people and communications is baked into planning and implementation … and rigorously followed.

+++

Barbara Jacobs is an experienced change pragmatist, working across marcom disciplines, change frameworks, and tools to drive the kinds of customized results customers deserve.

Written by: Editor