What is going on with organizational change management (OCM)?

What is going on with organizational change management (OCM) as a practice?

It is well-documented that 70-75% of organizational change efforts fail, and have done so consistently, for at least the past 30 years.

In my professional experience, my graduate studies, and my review of methodologies used by consulting firms and individual OCM practitioners, the methodologies used are all appear quite similar and designed almost exclusively around:

1. A curve depicting emotional reactions originally created by the researcher Kubler-Ross (1969) as part of her research on personal grief, and thus intended to depict the so-called stages of grief among which individuals go through when experiencing intense personal grief, such as the death of a family member. Many OCM methodologies have adapted this curve to represent the emotional stages experienced by recipients of change in an organizational setting. While seemingly a logical extrapolation given there is support for the concept of resistance and the presence of fear among individuals experiencing an organizational change, I have not been able to find any evidence supporting the translation of Kubler-Ross' work into an organizational setting nor its translation to emotions experienced by people experiencing an organizational change. Additionally, more recent social science research has begun to reject the overall idea of stage, or phase, models because human behavior has not been found to occur in a simple linear fashion.
2. A model specific to organizational change research depicting three phases which an organization must go through when implementing an organizational change. These three phases are usually a combination of Bridges' classic work from the 1930s and Lewin's foundational work from the 1940s, and describe an initial phase where the status quo is disrupted, a second phase of uncertainty and ambiguity, and a final phase where the new way of doing things is solidified. These are often described as making a distinction between an organizational change and a personal transition, but are also descriptions of what one can expect to observe at a high level among the people experiencing the organizational change. (Also see above note on stage, or phase, models of behavior.)
3. The eight stages involved in leading change developed by Kotter (1995, 1996, and more). Kotter is well known and widely perceived to be one of the world's experts on OCM, and his work lays the groundwork for providing research that can more easily be applied in real world settings, but his work is also specific to leading change. Change leadership is a portion of a comprehensive OCM intervention, and while Kotter's work continues to provide some of the best understanding and conceptualization of organizational change, a case can be easily made that his most well-known work, the eight stages, is specific to leading change and has erroneously been translated by OCM practitioners into a more general and comprehensive model for organizational change. (Also see above note on stage, or phase, models of behavior.)

Given these similarities across change methodologies, the interpretation of specific work into more general settings for which they were not intended, and the dismal success rates of change efforts over the past 30 years, I believe this begs the question of what exactly makes an OCM practitioner or an OCM approach effective?

The above does not lead to the conclusion that all OCM efforts and designed interventions miss the mark completely, nor that some of the foundational work done in this space is no longer relevant, but does lead to the conclusion that, simply, there appears room for improvement and opportunity for updating approaches to improve success rates.

OCM is behavioral at its core, but is also highly multidisciplinary, requiring knowledge and understanding across a variety of functional areas such as business strategy, management practices, organizational design, organizational culture, organizational effectiveness, communications, learning and training, individual behavior, social behavior, team effectiveness and group behavior, leadership and ledership development, executive coaching, business process improvement, research methodologies, and data analytics, among others.

What is assumed?

While assumptions are a core aspect of all human behavior, and in most cases our assumptions work effectively, it has also been shown that the most effective leaders, managers, and communicators are aware of the assumptions they make and can articulate these assumptions.

In my professional experience, my graduate studies, and my review of various methodologies used by consulting firms and individual OCM practitioners, there also appears to be a common set of assumptions:

• It is often assumed that foundational research and findings developed during the 20th century around human behavior and organizational change are sufficient for designing effective OCM interventions, while the success rates appear to contradict this assumption and the social sciences provide a plethora of new knowledge and findings that expand upon the foundational research.
• It is often assumed that since OCM deals with people it is thus relegated to the world of so-called soft skills, making it difficult to measure and monitor, while the social sciences provide knowledge and evidence that challenges this assumption.
• It is often assumed that OCM practice has a shared set of vocabulary, terminology, or jargon, while I have found individual practitioners have very different meanings for different terms, deliverable descriptions, and more. This causes significant confusion that begins with the OCM practitioners themselves and decreases credibility among clients, project team members, and clients.
• It is often assumed that some level of attention paid to OCM efforts, even if simply a few communications and planned training, is better than no structured effort at all, while trust and credibility are tenuous constructs among individual perceptions and judgments, leading to a conclusion that, in fact, a disorganized and inconsistent effort can cause more harm that it helps.
• It is often assumed that an OCM intervention specific to an IT system implementation operates within the same restricted context as the implementation project itself, while OCM's impact on the larger organizational context, and the dependencies created from this relationship, make an argument for an expanded OCM scope despite shared set of objectives with the IT system implementation, and the IT implementation providing the immediate need for an OCM intervention.
• It is often assumed that following a prescribed methodology in all client settings is the best approach to OCM interventions, despite a plethora of evidence and wide acceptance that each client setting is unique in certain ways, such as organizational culture, management practices, organizational structure, preferred communication channels, etc. This assumption appears to arise based on the desire to apply standardization to OCM based on the universal factors related to an IT implementation itself, but also seems to overlook unique qualities found in each client setting.
• It is often assumed that a basic awareness of some of the more well-known findings from the behaviorist movement in psychology (which emerged in the early 20th century and focuses entirely on an association between the environment and observable behavior), such as positive reinforcement as a portion of operant conditioning, is sufficient for addressing the behavioral nature of OCM, while this fails to address both a deeper level of understanding around behaviorist theories as well as dismisses the value of other psychological disciplines (and more recent understanding and findings around human behavior).
• It is often assumed when collecting organizational data for the purpose of analyzing this data to inform decision making, at least in my experience within the context of OCM interventions, that universally documented and accepted concepts of sound research methodology and data analysis do not apply, or in other words, are perceived to be unique to the world of academic publishing. Yet basic concepts, rules for analysis, strengths and weaknesses inherent to various methodological designs and collection methods, sources of distortion, and more are applicable in any and all settings. The level of rigor and consideration given to these factors certainly increases in more demanding settings such as academia, but the basic, lowest level of consideration requirements remain.
• It is often assumed that approaching OCM as a loss, or involving a certain level of personal grief, as described above in terms of a Kubler-Ross' stages of grief translated into a "commitment" or "change" curve, while this appears to fail in its consideration for workplace expectations around treating others as adults and professionals that deserve a certain level respect. Not only can it be jarring and confusing, and arguably patronizing, to make explicit assumptions that an experienced professional is certain to feel personal grief and loss due to an organizational change (with an exception for layoffs and job loss), this fails to consider the strength of impact that context or setting has on a person's emotions and behavioral reactions.

What is missing?

The most significant challenges in increasing success rates of OCM interventions appear to be (a) finding the fine line between standardization and customization that is unique for each client and each client setting, and (b) truly integrating behavioral knowledge and findings from the social sciences with best practices from the related functional areas.

Based on the above, it is my assertion that what is missing among the 70-75% of change efforts that consistently fail is addressed by the assumptions on which most OCM interventions appear to be based:

• Given that OCM efforts have the potential to cause more harm than do good around an organizational change, I recommend that any individuals involved with selling or scoping a project that involves organizational change be well versed in what is needed to be successful and the risks involved with a disorganized and inconsistent OCM intervention.
• Given that OCM as a practice does not have a well-established and widely accepted set of best practices nor terminology, and even appears to be more a result of the experience and exposure of individual practitioners, I recommend a commitment from practitioners to clearly and explicitly define all terminology and jargon (and even avoided where possible). For example, are stakeholders all individuals potentially impacted by an organizational change or a set of system end users? Is a communication plan a list of planned communications with detail such as date and target audience or a document that defines how communication objectives are to be met by the overall OCM intervention?
• Given the impact and dependence of an OCM intervention upon the larger organization that goes beyond the natural boundaries of a specific project (in many cases an IT implementation), although the project is likely the catalyst for needing an OCM intervention and the two have shared objectives, I recommend that OCM is included in the initial scoping and project parameter definition for any project sold to a client and that the OCM scope is expanded to include a discovery phase which allows unique qualities of a specific client environment to be assessed. For example, there are a plethora of workplace assessment tools available (some in the public domain and others with licensing costs) that are also well support by the research, and can measure individual attitudes and beliefs specific to an organizational change, organizational culture, leadership characteristics, and more. For example, an organization that is highly compatible with the future state is likely to require a different OCM effort than one that is not as compatible.
• Given that a methodology is prescriptive by its very nature, and considering the intent of a methodology to leverage the benefits of standardization, I recommend following a framework approach as opposed to a methodology approach. A framework provides a comprehensive toolkit, complete with decision making rationale and direction for further exploration, that can be assessed and matched to a particular client's needs but is more flexible than a prescribed set of actions. A comprehensive framework can guide decision making based on specific attributes and characteristics shown to be related to an OCM intervention, while also providing the benefits of standardization through tools and guides (but note also still relies on a certain amount of functional competence and experience).
• Given the lack of measurement and monitoring currently performed to support OCM interventions during my professional experience, I recommend utilizing research procedures supported by the literature for performing stakeholder interviews to gain critical insight and identify risks, as well as survey tools supported by the research to measure and monitor attitudes and beliefs related to successful OCM outcomes.
• Given the poor quality of data collection and analysis practices, I recommend a minimal level of methodological knowledge, both quantitative and qualitative, and a minimal level of statistical analysis knowledge for all OCM practitioners. Also, Given the common use of surveys as a data collection tool, I especially recommend a strong level of knowledge around universally established practices for survey data collection and analysis, and a minimal competence established for survey and assessment administration.
• Given the multidisciplinary nature of OCM interventions, I recommend that where an established and supported best practices exist among the various disciplines related to OCM are incorporated into a comprehensive OCM framework. For example, a set of practices can be culled from the publishing industry (e.g., journalism, book publishing, magazine publishing, etc.) to improve OCM communication efforts, such as an emphasis on copywriting quality, planning publication schedules based on project milestones, consistency of publication look and style, use of various contributing authors, and use of professional visual communication techniques.
• Where an established and supported set of practices are either less clear or do not exist, I recommend an evidence-based approach drawn from both the academic literature and professional experience be devised with the understanding that these will need to be updated as new knowledge becomes available.
• Specifically, given the plethora of new knowledge and findings among the social sciences during the past 20 years that have increased our understanding of human behavior, I recommend applying this understanding to all OCM efforts and interventions. Some of the most compelling examples include psychological and sociological disciplines such as cognitive psychology, social cognitive neuroscience, social psychology, effective group practices (especially related to geographically dispersed teams), and more.

Specific areas of knowledge with compelling potential for application include:

• Automated behaviors and habitual behaviors, how they are formed and can shift
• Human motivation, and the factors the impact motivation
• Attitudes and beliefs, and how they are formed and shift
• The interdependence of individual experience and context
• The role perception plays on making judgment, drawing conclusions, and evaluating specific situations and individuals
• The role theoretical orientation plays in development of theories of human behavior (especially widely used theoretical constructs based on outdated views of human behavior, such as the dialectic progression from viewing the person as a machine to person as a scientist)
• The importance of perceived justice, autonomy, consistency, and choice in behavior and perception
• Leadership findings on attributes found to directly correlate to leadership outcomes, and how leadership and management are related but distinct constructs