Decode The Science Of Change

Effecting behaviour shifts demands much more than diligently following a change management model.

- Shweta Handagupta

In 1946, Kurt Lewin (theorist, researcher, and practitioner) proposed the planned approach to organisational change. By the early ‘90s, a number of scholars and experts strongly advised a focus on change management with a growing emphasis on visible sponsorship, communication, as well as the emergence of a number of techniques to manage resistance.

In my experiences with organisational change a couple of decades ago, I observed a complianceled approach. It was believed that if people knew what they had to do, they would do it. When I took over as a change expert in a consulting organisation in the Fortune 50 list 12+ years ago, the project management approach to change was very popular with a strong emphasis on communication.

While the importance of these elements and structures cannot be denied, change success rates have not fared very well. The earliest available measures identify organisational change success rates at <30 per cent. A study in 1995 by John Kotter found it to be 30 per cent. A 2008 McKinsey study again found change success rate to be at 30 per cent. We have lived with a 70 per cent failure rate of change interventions while the amount of change being faced by organisations increases multi-fold every year. More recent figures observe a modest 9 per cent improvement with change success rates at 39 per cent according to a recent study by The Standish Group. Clearly, change remains difficult.

I am sure many have heard popular change management (CM) modules emphasising the importance of talking about the benefits when trying to drive change. I would be rich if I had a dollar every time I heard the line, ‘people just need to know what’s in it for me. If people understand the benefits of the change, they will align with it, right? Sounds logically appealing too.