change management and culture essay

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

Explore the Levels of Change Management

Culture and Change Management: The Water We Swim In

Updated: March 2, 2024

Published: March 29, 2023

Culture has a huge impact on our change management projects. Our Best Practices in Change Management research reveals that 88% of participants find cultural awareness to be important or very important to a change management initiative. Being culturally aware enables change practitioners to customize their change management approach, apply culturally specific adaptations while avoiding culturally specific obstacles, and create effective communication plans with the culture of the audience in mind.

Impact of Cultural Awareness on Change

Explore the latest change management data and insights, and our new interactive dashboards, in the Best Practices in Change Management - 12th Edition Executive Summary.

Culture and Change Management

"Culture is to humans as water is to fish." This popular saying likely emerged from a story from writer David Foster Wallace, describing how the most important and obvious things can be difficult to see and articulate. A fish lives its entire life swimming through water, without knowing what water is. We humans live our lives moving through a culture, which impacts us myriad ways without always making itself known.

Change management is most effective when practitioners acknowledge and understand the cultural context of impacted employee groups and apply that understanding to their approaches. Prosci's Best Practices in Change Management research offers an in-depth look at this topic, offering helpful benchmarks for challenges and adaptations based on cultural considerations.

Our first challenge in working with our own culture and others is to recognize its impact. For example, different cultures view and interact with work relationships differently. Activities and trainings may need to be adapted to culture-specific standards, and communications might need to be customized for different cultural settings.

Anthropologists, intercultural communication professionals, and cultural scholars have been using "cultural dimensions" to study various cultures for years. In doing so, they created a language and framework to help us describe culture. Our research builds on the works of Hofstede, Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner and others, and works such as the 1980 Culture and Consequences, 2004 Globe Study, and 1997 Riding the Waves of Culture.

Cultural Dimensions and Change

Cultural dimensions are characteristic spectra that exist in a culture. For example, assertiveness is a dimension that describes the degree to which a person is able and expected to advocate for their personal well-being and goals in their relationships with others.

At one end of the spectrum, organizations with low assertiveness communicate in indirect, subtle ways, often practicing passive, face-saving communication with an expectation that subordinates will loyally follow executives’ leads.

At the other end of the spectrum, communication tends to be assertive to the point of being aggressive or confrontational. Communication is direct, delivered in a blunt, unambiguous manner, and subordinates are expected to take initiative during interactions with executives.

These are extremes, but identifying your location on the spectrum of assertiveness helps to highlight potential challenges and adaptations. In a low-assertiveness culture, for example, feedback may be very unreliable as individuals are likely to shy away from difficult, honest messages out of fear of upsetting recipients. This ambiguous communication then forces others to make educated guesses rather than base their adjustments and customizations on accurate feedback. Knowing these challenges in this specific cultural setting, you can take steps to encourage honest, direct feedback that provides important information.

In high-assertiveness cultures, we might see extreme resistance expressed vocally. Individuals who dislike the change initiative might bluntly refuse to adopt the changes and actively encourage others to do the same. Too much feedback may also slow project execution. If you can predict this strong response, you can identify potential sources of resistant behaviors and plan for resistance prevention. Clearly, understanding your position on the cultural assertiveness spectrum is helpful.

Of course, these examples don't represent how every individual in a culture behaves. But they do demonstrate a culture’s expectations and beliefs.

Think of these cultural dimensions as lenses that reveal the inner workings of a culture—information we can then use to enhance and improve the effectiveness of our change management efforts .

Culture and Change Management Work

Prosci's Best Practices in Change Management research identifies the cultural dimensions that have the largest impact on change management: 

• Assertiveness
• Individualism versus collectivism
• Emotional expressiveness
• Power distance
• Performance orientation
• Uncertainty avoidance            

We asked participants to place their organization's culture on each cultural spectra (from extremely low to extremely high). Then we asked them what specific challenges they faced in their change management work due to that placement on each cultural dimension. And finally, we asked what adaptations they would make to address the challenges. You can find this data in our Best Practices research ,  where we list data and scores by region and industry.

To explain how understanding your specific culture can help your change management work, let's explore power distance, or the extent to which people with lower levels of authority accept the unequal distribution of authority in an organization. 

In low power-distance cultures, there is little formal structure or hierarchical separation. Employees have access to higher-level members, expect that all voices will be heard, and expect that company-wide decisions will be made democratically. In this cultural setting, participants identified the challenges they faced and the adaptations they made:

• Extensive access meant communication messages often skipped levels within the organization, causing messages to be repeated multiple times
• Individuals from all levels of the organization felt free to challenge and question the change project
• The increased time required to gain commitment and support led to a decrease in productivity

Adaptations

• Increased the number of meetings, engagement activities and functions designed to ensure alignment with the project
• Created structured communication channels to customize messages and allow for employee feedback
• Placed stakeholders in key positions, established communication guidelines, and clearly defined roles to enhance the overall change management plan

3 Ways to Put Cultural Insights Into Practice

Although gaining insight is a great first step, the real value comes from applying your understanding of culture to achieve positive results in change initiatives. Here’s how to use the research to enhance your work.

1. Understand the landscape you're working in

Consider where the impacted individuals fall on each of the six spectra. If you are managing a change that will impact individuals in different cultures, take time to understand and appreciate each of the cultures that will be impacted, how they differ from one another, and how you can alter your approach for each audience .

2. Evaluate your cultural lens

Understand where your home culture sits on the cultural spectra and how your personal paradigm may differ from the culture in which you are managing change. This will help you to better understand how you can interact with and work with other cultures. We don't want to leave our individual cultures behind, but as global change professionals , we must understand how that lens impacts our work.

3. Adapt your approach

If we do not adapt our approach and take culture into account, we can find ourselves trying to hammer a  square peg into a round hole. Find the most culturally relevant ways to communicate about the change, and then implement the activities that will have the greatest impact with your audience.

Culture and the People Side of Change

Remember, culture is to humans as water is to fish. It is critically important to keep this in mind when our work centers on helping people change. When we begin to understand culture in a meaningful, tangible way, we have a choice. Do we want to remain blind to the cultural forces at work in the organizations we’re trying to impact? Or do we want to harness those forces to improve our change work, our results, and the experiences of those around us?

Founded in 1994, Prosci is a global leader in change management. We enable organizations around the world to achieve change outcomes and grow change capability through change management solutions based on holistic, research-based, easy-to-use tools, methodologies and services.

See all posts from Prosci

You Might Also Like

Enterprise - 5 MINS

Cultural Awareness in Global Change Management: Regional Differences

Building a Global Change Ambassador Network at Matthews International

Subscribe here.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Most Successful Approaches to Leading Organizational Change

• Deborah Rowland,
• Michael Thorley,
• Nicole Brauckmann

A closer look at four distinct ways to drive transformation.

When tasked with implementing large-scale organizational change, leaders often give too much attention to the what of change — such as a new organization strategy, operating model or acquisition integration — not the how — the particular way they will approach such changes. Such inattention to the how comes with the major risk that old routines will be used to get to new places. Any unquestioned, “default” approach to change may lead to a lot of busy action, but not genuine system transformation. Through their practice and research, the authors have identified the optimal ways to conceive, design, and implement successful organizational change.

Management of long-term, complex, large-scale change has a reputation of not delivering the anticipated benefits. A primary reason for this is that leaders generally fail to consider how to approach change in a way that matches their intent.

• Deborah Rowland is the co-author of  Sustaining Change: Leadership That Works , Still Moving: How to Lead Mindful Change , and the Still Moving Field Guide: Change Vitality at Your Fingertips . She has personally led change at Shell, Gucci Group, BBC Worldwide, and PepsiCo and pioneered original research in the field, accepted as a paper at the 2016 Academy of Management and the 2019 European Academy of Management. Thinkers50 Radar named as one of the generation of management thinkers changing the world of business in 2017, and she’s on the 2021 HR Most Influential Thinker list. She is Cambridge University 1st Class Archaeology & Anthropology Graduate.
• Michael Thorley is a qualified accountant, psychotherapist, executive psychological coach, and coach supervisor integrating all modalities to create a unique approach. Combining his extensive experience of running P&L accounts and developing approaches that combine “hard”-edged and “softer”-edged management approaches, he works as a non-executive director and advisor to many different organizations across the world that wish to generate a new perspective on change.
• Nicole Brauckmann focuses on helping organizations and individuals create the conditions for successful emergent change to unfold. As an executive and consultant, she has worked to deliver large-scale complex change across different industries, including energy, engineering, financial services, media, and not-for profit. She holds a PhD at Faculty of Philosophy, Westfaelische Wilhelms University Muenster and spent several years on academic research and teaching at University of San Diego Business School.

Partner Center

The four building blocks of change

Large-scale organizational change has always been difficult, and there’s no shortage of research showing that a majority of transformations continue to fail. Today’s dynamic environment adds an extra level of urgency and complexity. Companies must increasingly react to sudden shifts in the marketplace, to other external shocks, and to the imperatives of new business models. The stakes are higher than ever.

So what’s to be done? In both research and practice, we find that transformations stand the best chance of success when they focus on four key actions to change mind-sets and behavior: fostering understanding and conviction, reinforcing changes through formal mechanisms, developing talent and skills, and role modeling. Collectively labeled the “influence model,” these ideas were introduced more than a dozen years ago in a McKinsey Quarterly article, “ The psychology of change management .” They were based on academic research and practical experience—what we saw worked and what didn’t.

Digital technologies and the changing nature of the workforce have created new opportunities and challenges for the influence model (for more on the relationship between those trends and the model, see this article’s companion, “ Winning hearts and minds in the 21st century ”). But it still works overall, a decade and a half later (exhibit). In a recent McKinsey Global Survey, we examined successful transformations and found that they were nearly eight times more likely to use all four actions as opposed to just one. 1 1. See “ The science of organizational transformations ,” September 2015. Building both on classic and new academic research, the present article supplies a primer on the model and its four building blocks: what they are, how they work, and why they matter.

Fostering understanding and conviction

We know from research that human beings strive for congruence between their beliefs and their actions and experience dissonance when these are misaligned. Believing in the “why” behind a change can therefore inspire people to change their behavior. In practice, however, we find that many transformation leaders falsely assume that the “why” is clear to the broader organization and consequently fail to spend enough time communicating the rationale behind change efforts.

This common pitfall is predictable. Research shows that people frequently overestimate the extent to which others share their own attitudes, beliefs, and opinions—a tendency known as the false-consensus effect. Studies also highlight another contributing phenomenon, the “curse of knowledge”: people find it difficult to imagine that others don’t know something that they themselves do know. To illustrate this tendency, a Stanford study asked participants to tap out the rhythms of well-known songs and predict the likelihood that others would guess what they were. The tappers predicted that the listeners would identify half of the songs correctly; in reality, they did so less than 5 percent of the time. 2 2. Chip Heath and Dan Heath, “The curse of knowledge,” Harvard Business Review , December 2006, Volume 8, Number 6, hbr.org.

Therefore, in times of transformation, we recommend that leaders develop a change story that helps all stakeholders understand where the company is headed, why it is changing, and why this change is important. Building in a feedback loop to sense how the story is being received is also useful. These change stories not only help get out the message but also, recent research finds, serve as an effective influencing tool. Stories are particularly effective in selling brands. 3 3. Harrison Monarth, “The irresistible power of storytelling as a strategic business tool,” Harvard Business Review , March 11, 2014, hbr.org.

Even 15 years ago, at the time of the original article, digital advances were starting to make employees feel involved in transformations, allowing them to participate in shaping the direction of their companies. In 2006, for example, IBM used its intranet to conduct two 72-hour “jam sessions” to engage employees, clients, and other stakeholders in an online debate about business opportunities. No fewer than 150,000 visitors attended from 104 countries and 67 different companies, and there were 46,000 posts. 4 4. Icons of Progress , “A global innovation jam,” ibm.com. As we explain in “Winning hearts and minds in the 21st century,” social and mobile technologies have since created a wide range of new opportunities to build the commitment of employees to change.

Reinforcing with formal mechanisms

Psychologists have long known that behavior often stems from direct association and reinforcement. Back in the 1920s, Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning research showed how the repeated association between two stimuli—the sound of a bell and the delivery of food—eventually led dogs to salivate upon hearing the bell alone. Researchers later extended this work on conditioning to humans, demonstrating how children could learn to fear a rat when it was associated with a loud noise. 5 5. John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner, “Conditioned emotional reactions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1920, Volume 3, Number 1, pp. 1–14. Of course, this conditioning isn’t limited to negative associations or to animals. The perfume industry recognizes how the mere scent of someone you love can induce feelings of love and longing.

Reinforcement can also be conscious, shaped by the expected rewards and punishments associated with specific forms of behavior. B. F. Skinner’s work on operant conditioning showed how pairing positive reinforcements such as food with desired behavior could be used, for example, to teach pigeons to play Ping-Pong. This concept, which isn’t hard to grasp, is deeply embedded in organizations. Many people who have had commissions-based sales jobs will understand the point—being paid more for working harder can sometimes be a strong incentive.

Despite the importance of reinforcement, organizations often fail to use it correctly. In a seminal paper “On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B,” management scholar Steven Kerr described numerous examples of organizational-reward systems that are misaligned with the desired behavior, which is therefore neglected. 6 6. Steven Kerr, “On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B,” Academy of Management Journal , 1975, Volume 18, Number 4, pp. 769–83. Some of the paper’s examples—such as the way university professors are rewarded for their research publications, while society expects them to be good teachers—are still relevant today. We ourselves have witnessed this phenomenon in a global refining organization facing market pressure. By squeezing maintenance expenditures and rewarding employees who cut them, the company in effect treated that part of the budget as a “super KPI.” Yet at the same time, its stated objective was reliable maintenance.

Even when organizations use money as a reinforcement correctly, they often delude themselves into thinking that it alone will suffice. Research examining the relationship between money and experienced happiness—moods and general well-being—suggests a law of diminishing returns. The relationship may disappear altogether after around $75,000, a much lower ceiling than most executives assume. 7 7. Belinda Luscombe, “Do we need $75,000 a year to be happy?” Time , September 6, 2010, time.com.

Would you like to learn more about our People & Organizational Performance Practice ?

Money isn’t the only motivator, of course. Victor Vroom’s classic research on expectancy theory explained how the tendency to behave in certain ways depends on the expectation that the effort will result in the desired kind of performance, that this performance will be rewarded, and that the reward will be desirable. 8 8. Victor Vroom, Work and motivation , New York: John Wiley, 1964. When a Middle Eastern telecommunications company recently examined performance drivers, it found that collaboration and purpose were more important than compensation (see “Ahead of the curve: The future of performance management,” forthcoming on McKinsey.com). The company therefore moved from awarding minor individual bonuses for performance to celebrating how specific teams made a real difference in the lives of their customers. This move increased motivation while also saving the organization millions.

How these reinforcements are delivered also matters. It has long been clear that predictability makes them less effective; intermittent reinforcement provides a more powerful hook, as slot-machine operators have learned to their advantage. Further, people react negatively if they feel that reinforcements aren’t distributed fairly. Research on equity theory describes how employees compare their job inputs and outcomes with reference-comparison targets, such as coworkers who have been promoted ahead of them or their own experiences at past jobs. 9 9. J. S. Adams, “Inequity in social exchanges,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 1965, Volume 2, pp. 267–300. We therefore recommend that organizations neutralize compensation as a source of anxiety and instead focus on what really drives performance—such as collaboration and purpose, in the case of the Middle Eastern telecom company previously mentioned.

Developing talent and skills

Thankfully, you can teach an old dog new tricks. Human brains are not fixed; neuroscience research shows that they remain plastic well into adulthood. Illustrating this concept, scientific investigation has found that the brains of London taxi drivers, who spend years memorizing thousands of streets and local attractions, showed unique gray-matter volume differences in the hippocampus compared with the brains of other people. Research linked these differences to the taxi drivers’ extraordinary special knowledge. 10 10. Eleanor Maguire, Katherine Woollett, and Hugo Spires, “London taxi drivers and bus drivers: A structural MRI and neuropsychological analysis,” Hippocampus , 2006, Volume 16, pp. 1091–1101.

Despite an amazing ability to learn new things, human beings all too often lack insight into what they need to know but don’t. Biases, for example, can lead people to overlook their limitations and be overconfident of their abilities. Highlighting this point, studies have found that over 90 percent of US drivers rate themselves above average, nearly 70 percent of professors consider themselves in the top 25 percent for teaching ability, and 84 percent of Frenchmen believe they are above-average lovers. 11 11. The art of thinking clearly, “The overconfidence effect: Why you systematically overestimate your knowledge and abilities,” blog entry by Rolf Dobelli, June 11, 2013, psychologytoday.com. This self-serving bias can lead to blind spots, making people too confident about some of their abilities and unaware of what they need to learn. In the workplace, the “mum effect”—a proclivity to keep quiet about unpleasant, unfavorable messages—often compounds these self-serving tendencies. 12 12. Eliezer Yariv, “‘Mum effect’: Principals’ reluctance to submit negative feedback,” Journal of Managerial Psychology , 2006, Volume 21, Number 6, pp. 533–46.

Even when people overcome such biases and actually want to improve, they can handicap themselves by doubting their ability to change. Classic psychological research by Martin Seligman and his colleagues explained how animals and people can fall into a state of learned helplessness—passive acceptance and resignation that develops as a result of repeated exposure to negative events perceived as unavoidable. The researchers found that dogs exposed to unavoidable shocks gave up trying to escape and, when later given an opportunity to do so, stayed put and accepted the shocks as inevitable. 13 13. Martin Seligman and Steven Maier, “Failure to escape traumatic shock,” Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1967, Volume 74, Number 1, pp. 1–9. Like animals, people who believe that developing new skills won’t change a situation are more likely to be passive. You see this all around the economy—from employees who stop offering new ideas after earlier ones have been challenged to unemployed job seekers who give up looking for work after multiple rejections.

Instilling a sense of control and competence can promote an active effort to improve. As expectancy theory holds, people are more motivated to achieve their goals when they believe that greater individual effort will increase performance. 14 14. Victor Vroom, Work and motivation , New York: John Wiley, 1964. Fortunately, new technologies now give organizations more creative opportunities than ever to showcase examples of how that can actually happen.

Role modeling

Research tells us that role modeling occurs both unconsciously and consciously. Unconsciously, people often find themselves mimicking the emotions, behavior, speech patterns, expressions, and moods of others without even realizing that they are doing so. They also consciously align their own thinking and behavior with those of other people—to learn, to determine what’s right, and sometimes just to fit in.

While role modeling is commonly associated with high-power leaders such as Abraham Lincoln and Bill Gates, it isn’t limited to people in formal positions of authority. Smart organizations seeking to win their employees’ support for major transformation efforts recognize that key opinion leaders may exert more influence than CEOs. Nor is role modeling limited to individuals. Everyone has the power to model roles, and groups of people may exert the most powerful influence of all. Robert Cialdini, a well-respected professor of psychology and marketing, examined the power of “social proof”—a mental shortcut people use to judge what is correct by determining what others think is correct. No wonder TV shows have been using canned laughter for decades; believing that other people find a show funny makes us more likely to find it funny too.

Today’s increasingly connected digital world provides more opportunities than ever to share information about how others think and behave. Ever found yourself swayed by the number of positive reviews on Yelp? Or perceiving a Twitter user with a million followers as more reputable than one with only a dozen? You’re not imagining this. Users can now “buy followers” to help those users or their brands seem popular or even start trending.

The endurance of the influence model shouldn’t be surprising: powerful forces of human nature underlie it. More surprising, perhaps, is how often leaders still embark on large-scale change efforts without seriously focusing on building conviction or reinforcing it through formal mechanisms, the development of skills, and role modeling. While these priorities sound like common sense, it’s easy to miss one or more of them amid the maelstrom of activity that often accompanies significant changes in organizational direction. Leaders should address these building blocks systematically because, as research and experience demonstrate, all four together make a bigger impact.

Tessa Basford is a consultant in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office; Bill Schaninger is a director in the Philadelphia office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Winning hearts and minds in the 21st century

Changing change management

Digital hives: Creating a surge around change

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events

How to Get Beyond Talk of “Culture Change” and Make It Happen

Experts outline their roadmap for intentionally changing the culture of businesses, social networks, and beyond.

February 20, 2024

Calls for cultural transformation have become ubiquitous in the past few years, encompassing everything from advancing racial justice and questioning gender roles to rethinking the American workplace. Hazel Rose Markus recalls the summer of 2020 as a watershed for those conversations. “Everybody was saying, ‘Oh, the culture has to change,’” says Markus, a professor of psychology at Stanford. “It was just rolling off everybody’s lips in every domain.” Yet no one seemed to know what exactly that might entail or how to get started.

As they followed these discussions, Markus and her colleagues Jennifer Eberhardt and MarYam Hamedani wondered what they could contribute at this moment as experts with years of experience studying how communities and organizations can turn the desire for change into something real. “Culture is all around us, but at the same time, it feels out of reach for a lot of people,” says Eberhardt, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business and of psychology in the School of Humanities and Sciences.

Markus and Eberhardt are the faculty co-directors of Stanford SPARQ , a “do tank” that brings researchers and practitioners together to apply the lessons of behavioral science to combating bias and disparities; Hamedani is its executive director and senior research scientist. Recently, along with associate director of criminal justice partnerships Rebecca Hetey , they published an evidence-based roadmap to intentional cultural change in American Psychologist . They hope, Hamedani says, to illustrate “a path forward and to make the claim that culture change is possible.”

Stanford Business spoke with Eberhardt, Hamedani, and Markus to discuss the complexities of changing a culture and how leaders and readers who are committed to doing things differently can get started.

You start the paper with the “four I’s,” categories you believe can help people map their cultures and see where there might be tensions or mismatches. Using organizational cultures as an example, can you take us through those?

Hazel Rose Markus: There are the ideas , the big ideologies that are foundational for any organization: This is how we do things, what’s good, and what we value. Then the institutional parts, which are the everyday policies and practices that people use to do their work. Often, those have been in place for a long time and people tend to follow them as if they were the natural order of things. Another I is the interactions, which have to do with what’s going on in the office every day, in your relationships with your colleagues, with the people you supervise, with those you answer to. And finally, the fourth part is your own individual attitudes, feelings, and actions.

Is there a way to sum up your roadmap for changing culture?

MarYam Hamedani: The first key idea is because we built it, we can change it. There are many forces out there that are out of our control, but the societies we build and pass on — the organizations, the institutions, the way we live our lives — those are things that are human-made. And so we should feel empowered by that inheritance because that’s the thing that gives us the ability to make change.

The second part is that culture change usually involves a series of power struggles and clashes and divides. You have different groups that feel like they’re winning and losing. There’s a lot at stake for people. It’s important to try to have strategies to deal with that.

Finally, culture change can be unpredictable and have unintended consequences. Yet the dynamics can also follow patterns — for example, backlash happens. Timing matters. So you have to be nimble; you have to realize that cultural change never ends. It’s a sustainable process that you have to stay on top of, and that’s OK.

Markus: Yes, changemakers can’t be discouraged when they see backlash. Also, we want to help people remember that yes, they are individuals, but they are also making culture through their actions. How our everyday actions can contribute to a larger culture and to its change is something I think we are less likely to think about in our individualistic system.

Hamedani: Right. We are individuals and in charge of our own behavior, but then we are powerful as a group.

Markus: With each other, what are we modeling? What are we putting our efforts behind? What’s the impact on the workplace?

Your paper was written with the problem of social inequality in mind. What message does it have for business leaders?

Jennifer Eberhardt: As business leaders, you have both a lot of power and, I think, a lot of obligation to understand the workings of culture. You have the power to pull the levers of change. You dictate what the social environment is like for everyone else. So you have a heavy hand in creating and sustaining the culture that is there — but you can also have a heavy hand in changing that culture for the better.

Markus: When culture change is on the agenda, you often hear leaders — like those in the tech industry — and the first thing they often say is, “OK, I’m going on a listening tour.” But you rarely hear about what they’re going to listen for or what they heard from those who report to them or how they’re going to put that into action.

Listening is valuable because it conveys empathy, but it is useful to listen specifically for what people understand as the important values of our organization, the undergirding ideas. What are we about? What are we trying to be as an organization? And, very importantly, do our policies and practices reflect these ideas and values and our mission? We can say we’re about one thing or another, but how is it materialized? How does it show up in our everyday work? Is there a general alignment across the four I’s of the culture?

You worked with Nextdoor on a project to change its culture. How did that go?

Eberhardt: They reached out to me and other researchers trying to figure out how to curb racial profiling on their platform. In the tech industry, people are focused on building products that are easy to use, products that are intuitive, so that users don’t really have to think too hard. But those are also conditions under which racial bias might thrive. So we encouraged them to slow users down, to increase friction rather than trying to take friction away.

Quote As business leaders, you have both a lot of power and, I think, a lot of obligation to understand the workings of culture. You have the power to pull the levers of change. Attribution Jennifer Eberhardt

They accomplished this by creating a checklist for users to review before posting on a Nextdoor forum. The first thing they ask people to consider is that a person’s race is not an indication of their criminal activity. And also when they describe a person, you don’t just describe their race, you describe their behavior. What are they doing that seems suspicious? Nextdoor found that just simply slowing people down in this way, based on these social psychological principles, they were able to reduce profiling by over 75%.

They were trying to solve for something at the interaction level. What they could change was what the experience was like for users at the institutional level. Just by making these simple tweaks to the platform itself and how they presented information, they changed these negative interactions that were taking place that then could also shape people’s ideas about race.

You also talk in the paper about the example of investment firms struggling to become more diverse.

Markus: Typically this has been the territory of white men with economics degrees from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton. It was a closed and locked world. In studies we did in the investing domain, we found that race can influence professional investors’ financial judgments. Many people in the industry would like to create a culture that is more open and inclusive, but there is a powerful default assumption at work that acts as a barrier. In a lot of these firms, the default is still, “I know in my gut what a successful idea is and who is likely to build a company that can grow. I can see it and feel it, and either you match or you don’t match.”

It seems like a point of tension where the institutional level says it wants change, but at the interaction level, this is still a relationship-driven industry. So what do you do about that?

Hamedani: It depends where in the culture map you want to start. Let’s say you diversify the students coming in and getting MBAs. Then you have to look at how are they’re being mentored and supported through their schooling experience, through the internships and job opportunities that they have. Are you simply assuming that they should assimilate to the default? Are you training a new, exciting, and diverse group of people to act like those that have been there all along? Or are you incorporating their ideas and diverse ways of being that might look or sound different and affording them the same respect and status? Are you teaching them how to do a pitch a certain way because there’s only one right way to do a pitch? Or might they have other styles of communication or ways of selling an idea?

At the GSB, Jennifer has a class, Racial Bias and Structural Inequality , where she brings in all these amazing CEOs who are women and people of color. Most of the students, they’ve never seen it before. And that’s what happens to people in these investment firms: They haven’t seen it before. Even that intervention of seeing, week after week, these leaders coming in and the students get to ask them questions and have a conversation with them — that’s an interaction .

Eberhardt: I had Sarah Friar , MBA ’00, the CEO of Nextdoor, come in. I had the president of Black Entertainment Television, Scott Mills , come in; I had the police chief of San Francisco, William Scott , come in — they are both African American.

And the hope is that these students who will go on to work in the business world will have a broader definition of what is a “culture fit”?

Hamedani: Exactly right. And more specifically, a “leader fit.” And for women and students of color, that they can also see themselves as leaders. But it takes things happening at all levels in the culture map to make that happen. You’re seeding this change and then the levels are reinforcing each other to help it grow.

What would you recommend as a starting place for readers who are thinking that they want to spark intentional cultural change wherever they are?

Markus: It would begin with mapping the culture: What matters to us, what do we value? And then, to the extent that there’s some consensus about our culture, reflecting on whether our ways of doing things reflect this. In so many organizations we’re working with now, there’s really a gap between what leaders feel their values are, what they care about, and what the employees are experiencing. What we see is that it’s important to give the employees chances to get together to talk about this and have some company time, some paid time, to discuss these issues —

Hamedani: — to vision the future. Because there’s that virtue signaling, “OK, we care about that, but really we’re so busy and we have all these things to do. We have to hit our targets for the quarter or for the year.” Of course, those things are important, but are people — employees and leaders alike — participating in visioning that future and laying out the goals and objectives together? Can you make some small or even larger changes such that people feel empowered that they’re part of building that culture together?

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom .

Explore More

Conflict among hospital staff could compromise care, hardwired for hierarchy: our relationship with power, taking a stand with your brand: genderless fashion in africa, editor’s picks.

We Built This Culture (so We Can Change It): Seven Principles for Intentional Culture Change MarYam G. Hamedani Hazel Rose Markus Rebecca C. Hetey Jennifer Eberhardt

May 30, 2023 Will a Police Stop End in Arrest? Listen to Its First 27 Seconds. Researchers have identified a linguistic signature that can predict whether encounters with cops will escalate. Black drivers hear this pattern as well.

August 01, 2023 Follow the Leader: How a CEO’s Personality Is Reflected in Their Company’s Culture There’s no ideal personality type for executives — but businesses need the right one for success.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

Reshaping Organizational Culture: a Comprehensive Approach to Change Management

This essay about the transformative dynamics of organizational culture underscores its pivotal role in shaping the destiny of contemporary enterprises. With a focus on resilience and adaptability, the text navigates through the intricate ballet of cultural change, emphasizing the indispensable commitment of leadership. Effective communication, inclusivity, and collaboration emerge as vital threads, weaving a tapestry that invites employee participation in the metamorphosis. The essay highlights the importance of training, policy alignment, and tangible metrics, presenting them as integral components for cultivating a positive organizational culture. In essence, the text positions cultural transformation as an ongoing process, demanding adaptability and responsiveness for organizations to thrive on the frontier of innovation and unparalleled success.

How it works

In the intricate dance of the contemporary corporate world, the spotlight is increasingly turning towards the central role that organizational culture plays in shaping an enterprise’s destiny. A resilient and adaptive culture is akin to the lifeblood that fuels innovation, sparks employee engagement, and propels overall organizational efficacy. Yet, the endeavor to reshape organizational culture is a formidable challenge, demanding a nuanced and strategic approach to change management.

At its core, the transformation process hinges on the realization that organizational culture is a living entity, constantly morphing under the influences of leadership, employee dynamics, and external forces.

Acknowledging the need for change is merely the opening act; what follows is an intricate ballet requiring deliberate and all-encompassing moves.

Central to this transformative symphony is the unwavering commitment of leadership. Leaders must not merely endorse change; they must embody the very cultural traits they seek to instill. Their actions and decisions serve as the rudder steering the organization towards the desired cultural shores, creating an environment where employees are not just bystanders but active participants in the metamorphosis.

A vital thread in this transformative tapestry is effective communication. Openness and transparency become the conduits through which the reasons for cultural recalibration, anticipated outcomes, and individual roles in the transformation are articulated. Regular updates, town hall meetings, and mechanisms for feedback weave a sense of inclusion and shared purpose, dismantling resistance to the impending cultural shift.

Equally crucial is the democratization of the change process. Cultural transformation is not a hierarchical decree; it thrives when inclusivity and collaboration take center stage. Seeking input from employees becomes a mosaic of insights that not only reflects the current cultural landscape but also becomes the raw material for co-creating the envisioned culture. This collaborative approach fosters a sense of ownership, weaving a collective commitment to the organizational evolution.

The cadence of this transformation is further enriched through investment in training and development initiatives. This goes beyond the conventional skill enhancement paradigm; it embraces a culture of perpetual learning, adaptability, and resilience. Nurturing employee growth and well-being becomes the fertilizer for cultivating a positive organizational culture, reinforcing the notion that individual contributions are integral to the organization’s collective triumph.

In the labyrinth of organizational dynamics, policies and practices emerge as signposts that guide or hinder cultural transformation. An overhaul, if necessary, of existing structures, processes, and performance metrics ensures that the organizational heartbeat resonates with the desired values and behaviors.

Integral to this orchestration is the harmonizing of cultural change with tangible metrics. Key performance indicators (KPIs) become the scorecard against which progress is measured, stumbling blocks are identified, and victories are celebrated. Regular assessments, surveys, and feedback loops provide the sheet music that directs the ongoing refinement of the symphony of change.

In essence, cultural transformation is a perpetual journey rather than a final destination. It necessitates not only adaptability but also a receptiveness to learning from both triumphs and setbacks. Organizations must embody agility and responsiveness, adjusting their strategies as the voyage through unforeseen challenges unfolds.

In conclusion, the endeavor to reshape organizational culture requires a comprehensive, adaptive, and artful approach to change management. Leadership commitment, transparent communication, inclusive collaboration, dynamic training, policy alignment, and continual measurement converge to create a unique composition for cultural transformation. By embracing this intricate strategy, organizations position themselves not only to weather the storms but also to dance on the cutting edge of innovation, with a culture that not only endures but propels them towards unparalleled success.

Cite this page

Reshaping Organizational Culture: A Comprehensive Approach to Change Management. (2024, Mar 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/reshaping-organizational-culture-a-comprehensive-approach-to-change-management/

"Reshaping Organizational Culture: A Comprehensive Approach to Change Management." PapersOwl.com , 12 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/reshaping-organizational-culture-a-comprehensive-approach-to-change-management/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Reshaping Organizational Culture: A Comprehensive Approach to Change Management . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/reshaping-organizational-culture-a-comprehensive-approach-to-change-management/ [Accessed: 14 Apr. 2024]

"Reshaping Organizational Culture: A Comprehensive Approach to Change Management." PapersOwl.com, Mar 12, 2024. Accessed April 14, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/reshaping-organizational-culture-a-comprehensive-approach-to-change-management/

"Reshaping Organizational Culture: A Comprehensive Approach to Change Management," PapersOwl.com , 12-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/reshaping-organizational-culture-a-comprehensive-approach-to-change-management/. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Reshaping Organizational Culture: A Comprehensive Approach to Change Management . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/reshaping-organizational-culture-a-comprehensive-approach-to-change-management/ [Accessed: 14-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• *New* Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

5 Critical Steps in the Change Management Process

• 19 Mar 2020

Businesses must constantly evolve and adapt to meet a variety of challenges—from changes in technology, to the rise of new competitors, to a shift in laws, regulations, or underlying economic trends. Failure to do so could lead to stagnation or, worse, failure.

Approximately 50 percent of all organizational change initiatives are unsuccessful, highlighting why knowing how to plan for, coordinate, and carry out change is a valuable skill for managers and business leaders alike.

Have you been tasked with managing a significant change initiative for your organization? Would you like to demonstrate that you’re capable of spearheading such an initiative the next time one arises? Here’s an overview of what change management is, the key steps in the process, and actions you can take to develop your managerial skills and become more effective in your role.

Access your free e-book today.

What is Change Management?

Organizational change refers broadly to the actions a business takes to change or adjust a significant component of its organization. This may include company culture, internal processes, underlying technology or infrastructure, corporate hierarchy, or another critical aspect.

Organizational change can be either adaptive or transformational:

• Adaptive changes are small, gradual, iterative changes that an organization undertakes to evolve its products, processes, workflows, and strategies over time. Hiring a new team member to address increased demand or implementing a new work-from-home policy to attract more qualified job applicants are both examples of adaptive changes.
• Transformational changes are larger in scale and scope and often signify a dramatic and, occasionally sudden, departure from the status quo. Launching a new product or business division, or deciding to expand internationally, are examples of transformational change.

Change management is the process of guiding organizational change to fruition, from the earliest stages of conception and preparation, through implementation and, finally, to resolution.

As a leader, it’s essential to understand the change management process to ensure your entire organization can navigate transitions smoothly. Doing so can determine the potential impact of any organizational changes and prepare your teams accordingly. When your team is prepared, you can ensure everyone is on the same page, create a safe environment, and engage the entire team toward a common goal.

Change processes have a set of starting conditions (point A) and a functional endpoint (point B). The process in between is dynamic and unfolds in stages. Here’s a summary of the key steps in the change management process.

Check out our video on the change management process below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

5 Steps in the Change Management Process

1. prepare the organization for change.

For an organization to successfully pursue and implement change, it must be prepared both logistically and culturally. Before delving into logistics, cultural preparation must first take place to achieve the best business outcome.

In the preparation phase, the manager is focused on helping employees recognize and understand the need for change. They raise awareness of the various challenges or problems facing the organization that are acting as forces of change and generating dissatisfaction with the status quo. Gaining this initial buy-in from employees who will help implement the change can remove friction and resistance later on.

2. Craft a Vision and Plan for Change

Once the organization is ready to embrace change, managers must develop a thorough, realistic, and strategic plan for bringing it about.

The plan should detail:

• Strategic goals: What goals does this change help the organization work toward?
• Key performance indicators: How will success be measured? What metrics need to be moved? What’s the baseline for how things currently stand?
• Project stakeholders and team: Who will oversee the task of implementing change? Who needs to sign off at each critical stage? Who will be responsible for implementation?
• Project scope: What discrete steps and actions will the project include? What falls outside of the project scope?

While it’s important to have a structured approach, the plan should also account for any unknowns or roadblocks that could arise during the implementation process and would require agility and flexibility to overcome.

3. Implement the Changes

After the plan has been created, all that remains is to follow the steps outlined within it to implement the required change. Whether that involves changes to the company’s structure, strategy, systems, processes, employee behaviors, or other aspects will depend on the specifics of the initiative.

During the implementation process, change managers must be focused on empowering their employees to take the necessary steps to achieve the goals of the initiative and celebrate any short-term wins. They should also do their best to anticipate roadblocks and prevent, remove, or mitigate them once identified. Repeated communication of the organization’s vision is critical throughout the implementation process to remind team members why change is being pursued.

4. Embed Changes Within Company Culture and Practices

Once the change initiative has been completed, change managers must prevent a reversion to the prior state or status quo. This is particularly important for organizational change related to business processes such as workflows, culture, and strategy formulation. Without an adequate plan, employees may backslide into the “old way” of doing things, particularly during the transitory period.

By embedding changes within the company’s culture and practices, it becomes more difficult for backsliding to occur. New organizational structures, controls, and reward systems should all be considered as tools to help change stick.

5. Review Progress and Analyze Results

Just because a change initiative is complete doesn’t mean it was successful. Conducting analysis and review, or a “project post mortem,” can help business leaders understand whether a change initiative was a success, failure, or mixed result. It can also offer valuable insights and lessons that can be leveraged in future change efforts.

Ask yourself questions like: Were project goals met? If yes, can this success be replicated elsewhere? If not, what went wrong?

The Key to Successful Change for Managers

While no two change initiatives are the same, they typically follow a similar process. To effectively manage change, managers and business leaders must thoroughly understand the steps involved.

Some other tips for managing organizational change include asking yourself questions like:

• Do you understand the forces making change necessary? Without this understanding, it can be difficult to effectively address the underlying causes that have necessitated change, hampering your ability to succeed.
• Do you have a plan? Without a detailed plan and defined strategy, it can be difficult to usher a change initiative through to completion.
• How will you communicate? Successful change management requires effective communication with both your team members and key stakeholders. Designing a communication strategy that acknowledges this reality is critical.
• Have you identified potential roadblocks? While it’s impossible to predict everything that might potentially go wrong with a project, taking the time to anticipate potential barriers and devise mitigation strategies before you get started is generally a good idea.

How to Lead Change Management Successfully

If you’ve been asked to lead a change initiative within your organization, or you’d like to position yourself to oversee such projects in the future, it’s critical to begin laying the groundwork for success by developing the skills that can equip you to do the job.

Completing an online management course can be an effective way of developing those skills and lead to several other benefits . When evaluating your options for training, seek a program that aligns with your personal and professional goals; for example, one that emphasizes organizational change.

Do you want to become a more effective leader and manager? Explore Leadership Principles , Management Essentials , and Organizational Leadership —three of our online leadership and management courses —to learn how you can take charge of your professional development and accelerate your career. Not sure which course is the right fit? Download our free flowchart .

This post was updated on August 8, 2023. It was originally published on March 19, 2020.

About the Author

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Change Management: From Theory to Practice

Jeffrey phillips.

1 University Libraries, Florida State University, 116 Honors Way, Tallahassee, FL 32306 USA

James D. Klein

2 Department of Educational Psychology & Learning Systems, College of Education, Florida State University, Stone Building-3205F, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4453 USA

This article presents a set of change management strategies found across several models and frameworks and identifies how frequently change management practitioners implement these strategies in practice. We searched the literature to identify 15 common strategies found in 16 different change management models and frameworks. We also created a questionnaire based on the literature and distributed it to change management practitioners. Findings suggest that strategies related to communication, stakeholder involvement, encouragement, organizational culture, vision, and mission should be used when implementing organizational change.

Organizations must change to survive. There are many approaches to influence change; these differences require change managers to consider various strategies that increase acceptance and reduce barriers. A change manager is responsible for planning, developing, leading, evaluating, assessing, supporting, and sustaining a change implementation. Change management consists of models and strategies to help employees accept new organizational developments.

Change management practitioners and academic researchers view organizational change differently (Hughes, 2007 ; Pollack & Pollack, 2015 ). Saka ( 2003 ) states, “there is a gap between what the rational-linear change management approach prescribes and what change agents do” (p. 483). This disconnect may make it difficult to determine the suitability and appropriateness of using different techniques to promote change (Pollack & Pollack, 2015 ). Hughes ( 2007 ) thinks that practitioners and academics may have trouble communicating because they use different terms. Whereas academics use the terms, models, theories, and concepts, practitioners use tools and techniques. A tool is a stand-alone application, and a technique is an integrated approach (Dale & McQuater, 1998 ). Hughes ( 2007 ) expresses that classifying change management tools and techniques can help academics identify what practitioners do in the field and evaluate the effectiveness of practitioners’ implementations.

There is little empirical evidence that supports a preferred change management model (Hallencreutz & Turner, 2011 ). However, there are many similar strategies found across change management models (Raineri, 2011 ). Bamford and Forrester’s ( 2003 ) case study showed that “[change] managers in a company generally ignored the popular change literature” (p. 560). The authors followed Pettigrew’s ( 1987 ) suggestions that change managers should not use abstract theories; instead, they should relate change theories to the context of the change. Neves’ ( 2009 ) exploratory factor analysis of employees experiencing the implementation of a new performance appraisal system at a public university suggested that (a) change appropriateness (if the employee felt the change was beneficial to the organization) was positively related with affective commitment (how much the employee liked their job), and (b) affective commitment mediated the relationship between change appropriateness and individual change (how much the employee shifted to the new system). It is unlikely that there is a universal change management approach that works in all settings (Saka, 2003 ). Because change is chaotic, one specific model or framework may not be useful in multiple contexts (Buchanan & Boddy, 1992 ; Pettigrew & Whipp, 1991 ). This requires change managers to consider various approaches for different implementations (Pettigrew, 1987 ). Change managers may face uncertainties that cannot be addressed by a planned sequence of steps (Carnall, 2007 ; Pettigrew & Whipp, 1991 ). Different stakeholders within an organization may complete steps at different times (Pollack & Pollack, 2015 ). Although there may not be one perspective change management approach, many models and frameworks consist of similar change management strategies.

Anderson and Ackerman Anderson ( 2001 ) discuss the differences between change frameworks and change process models. They state that a change framework identifies topics that are relevant to the change and explains the procedures that organizations should acknowledge during the change. However, the framework does not provide details about how to accomplish the steps of the change or the sequence in which the change manager should perform the steps. Additionally, Anderson and Ackerman Anderson ( 2001 ) explain that change process models describe what actions are necessary to accomplish the change and the order in which to facilitate the actions. Whereas frameworks may identify variables or theories required to promote change, models focus on the specific processes that lead to change. Based on the literature, we define a change strategy as a process or action from a model or framework. Multiple models and frameworks contain similar strategies. Change managers use models and frameworks contextually; some change management strategies may be used across numerous models and frameworks.

The purpose of this article is to present a common set of change management strategies found across numerous models and frameworks and identify how frequently change management practitioners implement these common strategies in practice. We also compare current practice with models and frameworks from the literature. Some change management models and frameworks have been around for decades and others are more recent. This comparison may assist practitioners and theorists to consider different strategies that fall outside a specific model.

Common Strategies in the Change Management Literature

We examined highly-cited publications ( n  > 1000 citations) from the last 20 years, business websites, and university websites to select organizational change management models and frameworks. First, we searched two indexes—Google Scholar and Web of Science’s Social Science Citation Index. We used the following keywords in both indexes: “change management” OR “organizational change” OR “organizational development” AND (models or frameworks). Additionally, we used the same search terms in a Google search to identify models mentioned on university and business websites. This helped us identify change management models that had less presence in popular research. We only included models and frameworks from our search results that were mentioned on multiple websites. We reached saturation when multiple publications stopped identifying new models and frameworks.

After we identified the models and frameworks, we analyzed the original publications by the authors to identify observable strategies included in the models and frameworks. We coded the strategies by comparing new strategies with our previously coded strategies, and we combined similar strategies or created a new strategy. Our list of strategies was not exhaustive, but we included the most common strategies found in the publications. Finally, we omitted publications that did not provide details about the change management strategies. Although many of these publications were highly cited and identified change implementation processes or phases, the authors did not identify a specific strategy.

Table ​ Table1 1 shows the 16 models and frameworks that we analyzed and the 15 common strategies that we identified from this analysis. Ackerman-Anderson and Anderson ( 2001 ) believe that it is important for process models to consider organizational imperatives as well as human dynamics and needs. Therefore, the list of strategies considers organizational imperatives such as create a vision for the change that aligns with the organization’s mission and strategies regarding human dynamics and needs such as listen to employees’ concerns about the change. We have presented the strategies in order of how frequently the strategies appear in the models and frameworks. Table ​ Table1 1 only includes strategies found in at least six of the models or frameworks.

Common strategies in the change management literature

A = ADKAR (Hiatt, 2006 ); AA = Ackerman Anderson and Anderson ( 2001 ); B = Bridges ( 1991 ); BB = Buchanan and Boddy ( 1992 ); BH = Beckhard and Harris ( 1987 ); C = Carnall ( 2007 ); CW = Cummings and Worley ( 1993 ); FB = French and Bell ( 1999 ); GE = GE CAP model (Neri et al., 2008 ; Polk, 2011 ); K = Kotter ( 2012 ); KSJ = Kanter et al. ( 1992 ); L = Lewin’s Three-step model (Bakari et al., 2017 ; Lewin, 1951 ); LK = Luecke ( 2003 ); M = McKinsey’s 7-S framework (Cox et al., 2019 ; Waterman et al., 1980 ); N = Nadler and Tushman ( 1997 ); PW = Pettigrew and Whipp (1993)

Strategies Used by Change Managers

We developed an online questionnaire to determine how frequently change managers used the strategies identified in our review of the literature. The Qualtrics-hosted survey consisted of 28 questions including sliding-scale, multiple-choice, and Likert-type items. Demographic questions focused on (a) how long the participant had been involved in the practice of change management, (b) how many change projects the participant had led, (c) the types of industries in which the participant led change implementations, (d) what percentage of job responsibilities involved working as a change manager and a project manager, and (e) where the participant learned to conduct change management. Twenty-one Likert-type items asked how often the participant used the strategies identified by our review of common change management models and frameworks. Participants could select never, sometimes, most of the time, and always. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the Likert-scale questions was 0.86.

The procedures for the questionnaire followed the steps suggested by Gall et al. ( 2003 ). The first steps were to define the research objectives, select the sample, and design the questionnaire format. The fourth step was to pretest the questionnaire. We conducted cognitive laboratory interviews by sending the questionnaire and interview questions to one person who was in the field of change management, one person who was in the field of performance improvement, and one person who was in the field of survey development (Fowler, 2014 ). We met with the reviewers through Zoom to evaluate the questionnaire by asking them to read the directions and each item for clarity. Then, reviewers were directed to point out mistakes or areas of confusion. Having multiple people review the survey instruments improved the reliability of the responses (Fowler, 2014 ).

We used purposeful sampling to distribute the online questionnaire throughout the following organizations: the Association for Talent Development (ATD), Change Management Institute (CMI), and the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI). We also launched a call for participation to department chairs of United States universities who had Instructional Systems Design graduate programs with a focus on Performance Improvement. We used snowball sampling to gain participants by requesting that the department chairs forward the questionnaire to practitioners who had led at least one organizational change.

Table ​ Table2 2 provides a summary of the characteristics of the 49 participants who completed the questionnaire. Most had over ten years of experience practicing change management ( n  = 37) and had completed over ten change projects ( n  = 32). The participants learned how to conduct change management on-the-job ( n  = 47), through books ( n  = 31), through academic journal articles ( n  = 22), and from college or university courses ( n  = 20). The participants had worked in 13 different industries.

Characteristics of participants

( n  = 49)

Table ​ Table3 3 shows how frequently participants indicated that they used the change management strategies included on the questionnaire. Forty or more participants said they used the following strategies most often or always: (1) Asked members of senior leadership to support the change; (2) Listened to managers’ concerns about the change; (3) Aligned an intended change with an organization’s mission; (4) Listened to employees’ concerns about the change; (5) Aligned an intended change with an organization’s vision; (6) Created measurable short-term goals; (7) Asked managers for feedback to improve the change, and (8) Focused on organizational culture.

Strategies used by change managers

Table ​ Table4 4 identifies how frequently the strategies appeared in the models and frameworks and the rate at which practitioners indicated they used the strategies most often or always. The strategies found in the top 25% of both ( n  > 36 for practitioner use and n  > 11 in models and frameworks) focused on communication, including senior leadership and the employees in change decisions, aligning the change with the vision and mission of the organization, and focusing on organizational culture. Practitioners used several strategies more commonly than the literature suggested, especially concerning the topic of middle management. Practitioners focused on listening to middle managers’ concerns about the change, asking managers for feedback to improve the change, and ensuring that managers were trained to promote the change. Meanwhile, practitioners did not engage in the following strategies as often as the models and frameworks suggested that they should: provide all members of the organization with clear communication about the change, distinguish the differences between leadership and management, reward new behavior, and include employees in change decisions.

A comparison of the strategies used by practitioners to the strategies found in the literature

Common Strategies Used by Practitioners and Found in the Literature

The purpose of this article was to present a common set of change management strategies found across numerous models and frameworks and to identify how frequently change management practitioners implement these common strategies in practice. The five common change management strategies were the following: communicate about the change, involve stakeholders at all levels of the organization, focus on organizational culture, consider the organization’s mission and vision, and provide encouragement and incentives to change. Below we discuss our findings with an eye toward presenting a few key recommendations for change management.

Communicate About the Change

Communication is an umbrella term that can include messaging, networking, and negotiating (Buchanan & Boddy, 1992 ). Our findings revealed that communication is essential for change management. All the models and frameworks we examined suggested that change managers should provide members of the organization with clear communication about the change. It is interesting that approximately 33% of questionnaire respondents indicated that they sometimes, rather than always or most of the time, notified all members of the organization about the change. This may be the result of change managers communicating through organizational leaders. Instead of communicating directly with everyone in the organization, some participants may have used senior leadership, middle management, or subgroups to communicate the change. Messages sent to employees from leaders can effectively promote change. Regardless of who is responsible for communication, someone in the organization should explain why the change is happening (Connor et al., 2003 ; Doyle & Brady, 2018 ; Hiatt, 2006 ; Kotter, 2012 ) and provide clear communication throughout the entire change implementation (McKinsey & Company, 2008 ; Mento et al., 2002 ).

Involve Stakeholders at All Levels of the Organization

Our results indicate that change managers should involve senior leaders, managers, as well as employees during a change initiative. The items on the questionnaire were based on a review of common change management models and frameworks and many related to some form of stakeholder involvement. Of these strategies, over half were used often by 50% or more respondents. They focused on actions like gaining support from leaders, listening to and getting feedback from managers and employees, and adjusting strategies based on stakeholder input.

Whereas the models and frameworks often identified strategies regarding senior leadership and employees, it is interesting that questionnaire respondents indicated that they often implemented strategies involving middle management in a change implementation. This aligns with Bamford and Forrester’s ( 2003 ) research describing how middle managers are important communicators of change and provide an organization with the direction for the change. However, the participants did not develop managers into leaders as often as the literature proposed. Burnes and By ( 2012 ) expressed that leadership is essential to promote change and mention how the change management field has failed to focus on leadership as much as it should.

Focus on Organizational Culture

All but one of the models and frameworks we analyzed indicated that change managers should focus on changing the culture of an organization and more than 75% of questionnaire respondents revealed that they implemented this strategy always or most of the time. Organizational culture affects the acceptance of change. Changing the organizational culture can prevent employees from returning to the previous status quo (Bullock & Batten, 1985 ; Kotter, 2012 ; Mento et al., 2002 ). Some authors have different views on how to change an organization’s culture. For example, Burnes ( 2000 ) thinks that change managers should focus on employees who were resistant to the change while Hiatt ( 2006 ) suggests that change managers should replicate what strategies they used in the past to change the culture. Change managers require open support and commitment from managers to lead a culture change (Phillips, 2021 ).

In addition, Pless and Maak ( 2004 ) describe the importance of creating a culture of inclusion where diverse viewpoints help an organization reach its organizational objectives. Yet less than half of the participants indicated that they often focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Change managers should consider diverse viewpoints when implementing change, especially for organizations whose vision promotes a diverse and inclusive workforce.

Consider the Organization’s Mission and Vision

Several of the models and frameworks we examined mentioned that change managers should consider the mission and vision of the organization (Cummings & Worley, 1993 ; Hiatt, 2006 ; Kotter, 2012 ; Polk, 2011 ). Furthermore, aligning the change with the organization’s mission and vision were among the strategies most often implemented by participants. This was the second most common strategy both used by participants and found in the models and frameworks. A mission of an organization may include its beliefs, values, priorities, strengths, and desired public image (Cummings & Worley, 1993 ). Leaders are expected to adhere to a company’s values and mission (Strebel, 1996 ).

Provide Encouragement and Incentives to Change

Most of the change management models and frameworks suggested that organizations should reward new behavior, yet most respondents said they did not provide incentives to change. About 75% of participants did indicate that they frequently gave encouragement to employees about the change. The questionnaire may have confused participants by suggesting that they provide incentives before the change occurs. Additionally, respondents may have associated incentives with monetary compensation. Employee training can be considered an incentive, and many participants confirmed that they provided employees and managers with training. More information is needed to determine why the participants did not provide incentives and what the participants defined as rewards.

Future Conversations Between Practitioners and Researchers

Table ​ Table4 4 identified five strategies that practitioners used more often than the models and frameworks suggested and four strategies that were suggested more often by the models and frameworks than used by practitioners. One strategy that showed the largest difference was provided employees with incentives to implement the change. Although 81% of the selected models and frameworks suggested that practitioners should provide employees with incentives, only 25% of the practitioners identified that they provided incentives always and most of the time. Conversations between theorists and practitioners could determine if these differences occur because each group uses different terms (Hughes, 2007 ) or if practitioners just implement change differently than theorists suggest (Saka, 2003 ).

Additionally, conversations between theorists and practitioners may help promote improvements in the field of change management. For example, practitioners were split on how often they promoted DEI, and the selected models and frameworks did not focus on DEI in change implementations. Conversations between the two groups would help theorists understand what practitioners are doing to advance the field of change management. These conversations may encourage theorists to modify their models and frameworks to include modern approaches to change.

Limitations

The models and frameworks included in this systematic review were found through academic research and websites on the topic of change management. We did not include strategies contained on websites from change management organizations. Therefore, the identified strategies could skew towards approaches favored by theorists instead of practitioners. Additionally, we used specific publications to identify the strategies found in the models and frameworks. Any amendments to the cited models or frameworks found in future publications could not be included in this research.

We distributed this questionnaire in August 2020. Several participants mentioned that they were not currently conducting change management implementations because of global lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because it can take years to complete a change management implementation (Phillips, 2021 ), this research does not describe how COVID-19 altered the strategies used by the participants. Furthermore, participants were not provided with definitions of the strategies. Their interpretations of the strategies may differ from the definitions found in the academic literature.

Future Research

Future research should expand upon what strategies the practitioners use to determine (a) how the practitioners use the strategies, and (b) the reasons why practitioners use certain strategies. Participants identified several strategies that they did not use as often as the literature suggested (e.g., provide employees with incentives and adjust the change implementation because of reactions from employees). Future research should investigate why practitioners are not implementing these strategies often.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic may have changed how practitioners implemented change management strategies. Future research should investigate if practitioners have added new strategies or changed the frequency in which they identified using the strategies found in this research.

Our aim was to identify a common set of change management strategies found across several models and frameworks and to identify how frequently change management practitioners implement these strategies in practice. While our findings relate to specific models, frameworks, and strategies, we caution readers to consider the environment and situation where the change will occur. Therefore, strategies should not be selected for implementation based on their inclusion in highly cited models and frameworks. Our study identified strategies found in the literature and used by change managers, but it does not predict that specific strategies are more likely to promote a successful organizational change. Although we have presented several strategies, we do not suggest combining these strategies to create a new framework. Instead, these strategies should be used to promote conversation between practitioners and theorists. Additionally, we do not suggest that one model or framework is superior to others because it contains more strategies currently used by practitioners. Evaluating the effectiveness of a model or framework by how many common strategies it contains gives an advantage to models and frameworks that contain the most strategies. Instead, this research identifies what practitioners are doing in the field to steer change management literature towards the strategies that are most used to promote change.

Declarations

This research does not represent conflicting interests or competing interests. The research was not funded by an outside agency and does not represent the interests of an outside party.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Jeffrey Phillips, Email: ude.usf@spillihpbj .

James D. Klein, Email: ude.usf@nielkj .

• Ackerman-Anderson, L. S., & Anderson, D. (2001). The change leader’s roadmap: How to navigate your organization’s transformation . Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
• Anderson, D., & Ackerman Anderson, L. S. (2001). Beyond change management: Advanced strategies for today’s transformational leaders . Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
• Bakari H, Hunjra AI, Niazi GSK. How does authentic leadership influence planned organizational change? The role of employees’ perceptions: Integration of theory of planned behavior and Lewin’s three step model. Journal of Change Management. 2017; 17 (2):155–187. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2017.1299370. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bamford DR, Forrester PL. Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2003; 23 (5):546–564. doi: 10.1108/01443570310471857. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change (2 nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
• Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change . Perseus Books.
• Buchanan DA, Boddy D. The expertise of the change agent. Prentice Hall; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bullock RJ, Batten D. It's just a phase we're going through: A review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group & Organization Studies. 1985; 10 (4):383–412. doi: 10.1177/105960118501000403. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnes, B. (2000). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics (3 rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Burnes B, By RT. Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics. 2012; 108 (2):239–252. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1088-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnall, C. A. (2007). Managing change in organizations (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Connor, P. E., Lake, L. K., & Stackman, R. W. (2003). Managing organizational change (3 rd ed.). Praeger Publishers.
• Cox AM, Pinfield S, Rutter S. Extending McKinsey’s 7S model to understand strategic alignment in academic libraries. Library Management. 2019; 40 (5):313–326. doi: 10.1108/LM-06-2018-0052. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1993). Organizational development and change (5 th ed.). West Publishing Company.
• Dale, B. & McQuater, R. (1998) Managing business improvement and quality: Implementing key tools and techniques . Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Doyle T, Brady M. Reframing the university as an emergent organisation: Implications for strategic management and leadership in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management. 2018; 40 (4):305–320. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2018.1478608. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2014). Survey research methods: Applied social research methods (5 th ed.). Sage Publications Inc.
• French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. Jr. (1999). Organizational development: Behavioral science interventions for organizational improvement (6 th ed.). Prentice-Hall Inc.
• Gall, M., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7 th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
• Hallencreutz, J., & Turner, D.-M. (2011). Exploring organizational change best practice: Are there any clear-cut models and definitions? International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences , 3 (1), 60–68. 10.1108/17566691111115081 [ CrossRef ]
• Hiatt, J. M. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government, and our community . Prosci Learning Publications.
• Hughes M. The tools and techniques of change management. Journal of Change Management. 2007; 7 (1):37–49. doi: 10.1080/14697010701309435. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change . The Free Press.
• Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change . Harvard Business Review Press.
• Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . Harper & Brothers Publishers.
• Luecke R. Managing change and transition. Harvard Business School Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinsey & Company. (2008). Creating organizational transformations: McKinsey global survey results . McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved August 5, 2020, from http://gsme.sharif.edu/~change/McKinsey%20Global%20Survey%20Results.pdf
• Mento AJ, Jones RM, Dirndorfer W. A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management. 2002; 3 (1):45–59. doi: 10.1080/714042520. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture . Oxford University Press.
• Neri RA, Mason CE, Demko LA. Application of Six Sigma/CAP methodology: Controlling blood-product utilization and costs. Journal of Healthcare Management. 2008; 53 (3):183–196. doi: 10.1097/00115514-200805000-00009. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neves P. Readiness for change: Contributions for employee’s level of individual change and turnover intentions. Journal of Change Management. 2009; 9 (2):215–231. doi: 10.1080/14697010902879178. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettigrew AM. Theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues in studying change: A response to Starkey. Journal of Management Studies. 1987; 24 :420–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettigrew, A., & Whipp, R. (1991). Managing change for competitive success . Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Phillips, J. B. (2021). Change happens: Practitioner use of change management strategies (Publication No. 28769879) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
• Pless N, Maak T. Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics. 2004; 54 (2):129–147. doi: 10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polk, J. D. (2011). Lean Six Sigma, innovation, and the Change Acceleration Process can work together. Physician Executive, 37 (1), 38̫–42. [ PubMed ]
• Pollack J, Pollack R. Using Kotter’s eight stage process to manage an organizational change program: Presentation and practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 2015; 28 :51–66. doi: 10.1007/s11213-014-9317-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raineri AB. Change management practices: Impact on perceived change results. Journal of Business Research. 2011; 64 (3):266–272. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.11.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saka A. Internal change agents’ view of the management of change problem. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2003; 16 (5):480–496. doi: 10.1108/09534810310494892. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strebel P. Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review. 1996; 74 (3):86–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waterman RH, Jr, Peters TJ, Phillips JR. Structure is not organization. Business Horizons. 1980; 23 (3):14–26. doi: 10.1016/0007-6813(80)90027-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay

Annotated Bibliography

• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Change Management, Essay Example

Pages: 3

Words: 909

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

We live in an increasingly competitive world because globalization has increased trade between countries, opened more markets to the market players, and human and capital resources have become more mobile than they were in the past. Thus, it has become even more important to successfully manage change so that organizations continue to learn and evolve in order to remain competitive and maintain profitability. Different change process theories have been proposed over the last few decades such as Lewin’s Change Management Model, ADKAR Model for Change Management (ADKAR), and Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model.

Lewin’s Change Management Model proposes that change be bought in three steps which have been called Unfreeze, Change , and Refreeze in the model. The first step is Unfreeze which means that the organization should challenge the existing culture and work practices and prepare everyone for an impending change. The management also explains why a change has become inevitable and how it will benefit the organization and all the stakeholders involved in order to secure everyone’s support. The second step is Change where the actual steps are taken to implement change and new behaviors and work practices are adopted. The third step and the final step is Refreeze when people have started embracing the changes. Thus, it is time to establish the new changes as the norm (MindTools).

ADKAR is a goal-oriented change management model. ADKAR breaks down the change process into multiple steps and the results are evaluated at the completion of each step to determine whether the stated objectives were achieved or not. The benefit of ADKAR is that it helps to identify specific factors that may be working against the overall change process and address those specific factors. ADKAR model is composed of two dimensions which are Business dimension of change and People dimension of change. Business dimension of change includes elements such as business need or opportunity, project definition, business solution, proposed processes and systems, and implementation of the solution. People dimension of change includes elements such as awareness of the need to change, desire to participate, knowledge of the final form of change, ability to implement the change, and reinforcement to keep the change in place (Prosci).

Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model as the name suggests, consists of 8 steps which are establishing a sense of urgency, creating the guiding coalition, developing a chance vision, communicating the vision for buy-in, empowering broad-based action, generating short term wins, never letting up, and Incorporating changes into the culture(Kotter International). In short, Kotter’s model provides a step by step guidance to implement change and is more specific than other models which is not surprising since it is relatively new. Thus, it has the added benefit of taking into account the challenges being faced by most organizations in their quest to introduce flexibility. The model introduces a step-by-step guidance to successfully pave the way for a flexible culture within the organization.

People usually resist change because it means learning new skills and doing things different from what they are used to. Some fear their performance will be negatively affected. People are also interested in as to how the changes may impact them and behave accordingly. Because change is often adapting to new way of doing things, the fear of unknown also results in resistance (Peter Barron Stark Companies). If the change is expected to make the organization lean, some people would oppose it especially if it means loss of power and authority. The paste experience may also result in opposition especially if the previous experience resulted in disappointing outcomes. Some think that because the organization seems to be doing fine, there is no reason for change. Moreover, change always carries some risk and different people have different attitude towards risk. The people may also resist change if they feel the decisions are being imposed on them without taking into account their concerns and opinions.

The managers/leaders can take several steps in order to secure the support of the subordinates and other stakeholders. First of all, the management should communicate to the stakeholders as to why the change is being implemented. People are more likely to support change if they can see the relationship between the desired change as well as the organizations’ overall objectives. Second, the management should involve subordinates in the discussions and seek their opinions/feedback. When people feel their opinions are being listened to, they will be more willing to cooperate.

The management should communicate how the change will impact/benefit the subordinates in order to ease their concerns as well as make them aware of the benefits that will flow to them from the change. The management may also tie a portion of the employees’ overall compensation plan to the progress in organizational change. This will give the employees an incentive to contribute towards the success of the overall change process. The management should also take efforts to keep the employees informed of the progress because this will help build trust between the management and the subordinates. Some employees may be skeptical of their ability to adapt to change so the management should provide training wherever needed in order to help employees feel comfortable in the new working environment.

Kotter International. (n.d.). The 8-Step Process for Leading Change . Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www.kotterinternational.com/kotterprinciples/changesteps

MindTools. (n.d.). Lewin’s Change Management Model . Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_94.htm

Peter Barron Stark Companies. (n.d.). Why Employees Resist Change . Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www.peterstark.com/why-employees-resist-change/

Prosci. (n.d.). “ADKAR” – a model for change management . Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www.change-management.com/tutorial-adkar-overview.htm

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Decline of Spain Bibliography, Annotated Bibliography Example

Impact of Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Change Management and Organizational Culture Essay Example

• Pages: 11 (2988 words)
• Published: December 1, 2017
• Type: Literature Analysis
• Contents Concept of Culture

What is Organizational Culture

The Internet and Organizational Culture

Cultural Change

The Classical Approach to Cultural Description

New Ways of Describing Culture

Culture as Emergence

Steps in Organizational Culture Change

Managing Organization Cultural Change

Bibliography

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Concept of Culture

The concept of culture is complex and definitions of culture vary.The anthropologist Edward Tylor defined culture in the late 1800s as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and other capabilities acquired by a man as a member of a society” (Hill, 2005). More recently, Hofstede has defined culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group or category of peop

le from another” (Hofstede, 1984).Furthermore, De Long & Fahey (2000) describe culture more generally as a system of values, norms, and practices that are shared among a group of people and that, when taken together, constitute a design for living.

Values are ideas about what a group believes to be good, right and desirable. This is the deepest level of culture since values are often embedded in tacit preferences as well as they are difficult to articulate and change. Norms are derived from values and can be described as social rules and guidelines that prescribe appropriate behavior in particular situations.Therefore, they are more observable as well as easier to identify and change. Practices are the most visible symbols and manifestations of culture.

They are a way of understanding any widely understood set of repetitive behaviors and they also include repeated types of interaction that have identifiable roles and social roles. In other words, values, norms and practices ar

fundamentally interrelated, since values are manifested in norms which in turn shape specific practices. (De Long & Fahey, 2000)

Organizational culture is the characteristic spirit and belief of an organization, demonstrated in the norms and values that are generally held about the way people should behave and treat one another, the nature of the working relationships that should be developed and the attitudes to change (Torrington & Hall, 1991).

Like morale in the military, organizational culture is the great invisible force that decides the difference between success and failure and serves as the key to organizational change, productivity, effectiveness, control, innovation and communication (Feldman, 2002).

The lure of the Internet for many organizations is that it not only presents a low-cost strategy of delivering goods and services to the traditional markets of companies (Peterson, 1997) but also enables every organization to establish both a national and an international presence without the usual costs associated with such ventures (Lee, 2003). However, this technology has also led to a range of dilemmas for organizations especially those that are commonly described as traditional ‘bricks-and mortar’ firms (Kanter, 2001).

Scholars have discussed the difficulties that organizations face in deciding whether to establish their Internet operations as separate businesses with distinct corporate identities or whether these activities should be integrated into existing businesses (Yakhlef, 2001). Furthermore, researchers have alluded to the potential implication that the Internet could have for competitive positioning, strategy making and managerial roles in organizations (Porter, 2001).Although much theoretical and practitioner discussion has been forwarded on various aspects of the Internet phenomenon, there is a surprising lack of research on the implications

of this technology for managing people in general and for organizational culture in particular. However, a limited number of studies have provided some discussion (frequently indirectly) of issues related to organizational culture. Boddy and Boonstra (2000) highlighted the importance of organizational culture in the development of Internet operations.They note that successful implementation of Internet strategy requires an ongoing renewal of the organizational culture (Boddy & Boonstra, 2000).

They draw on the work of Pettigrew (1992) to argue that Internet projects are more likely to be successful in organizations with adaptive and innovative cultural traits (Pettigrew, 1992). They present the cultural typologies of Quinn (1996) to explore the potential dilemmas that organizations can encounter when setting up Internet operations (Quinn, 1996).The theme of innovation in organizations is taken up by Martin and Matlay (2003) who argue that organizational culture can facilitate (and by implication can also stop) the innovative use of the Internet through the development of a supportive intra-organizational environment for organizational learning (Martin & Matlay, 2003). Similarly, studies of the Internet in public sector organizations have also concluded that such innovations present unique opportunities for organizations to transform their cultures and respond effectively to the demands of various stakeholders (McIvor, 2004).

Another recent discussion of the links between the Internet and organizational culture can be found in the work of Kanter (2001). Kanter’s (2001) study of Internet organizations lead her to develop three categories of organizations in the Internet age (including the ‘dot-coms’, the ‘dot-com enablers’ and the ‘wanna dots’). She argues that such organizations are distinguished by cultural values that go beyond the simple physical presence of the technology to beliefs about how Internet-based businesses

should be conducted.Consequently, she concludes that those organizations that were not founded as Internet companies (the ‘wanna dots’) are more likely to encounter continuing cultural opposition to Internet operations. She cites the example of one executive in her study that how different cultural interests within the same organisation were upsetting the development of successful Internet operations.

Thus, Kanter’s (2001) study suggests a link between organizational culture and the Internet in that traditional or conservative organizations are theorized to encounter significant difficulties in making the cultural transition to online operations.Other studies have also reached similar conclusions and have highlighted the pervasive implications of developing Internet operations (Yakhlef, 2001). Overall, while the above studies provide a useful starting point for assessing the cultural impacts of the Internet, none offers a substantive treatment of organizational culture. Given the claims that the Internet is likely to have profound and pervasive implications for work and work organisation (Kanter, 2001; McIvor 2004), studies that examine these issues are clearly required.

Culture and Change Management is a form of organizational transformation that is, at times, a radical and fundamental form of change. It involves the changing of basic values, norms, and beliefs among stakeholders in order to improve organizational performance.

Companies today understand that improved processes can lead to better performance also need to understand cultural barriers that may exist that keep change from taking place. Unless companies identify and repair cultural barriers along with process barriers true organizational transformation cannot take place. Thomas Group inc. )

The conventional approach to culture analysis is summarised by Wilkins & Patterson (1985) as:

• Where are we now as a culture?
• What are the gaps between where we are as a culture and where we should be?
• What is our plan of action to close those gaps? (Wilkins & Patterson, 1985)

This classical OD approach is based on two assumptions. Firstly, those organisations are usually, and preferably, in one state or another.This notion was best expressed in Kurt Lewin’s famous ‘unfreeze—change—freeze’ model (1946); implying that the change process requires us to somehow shake the organisation out of its current equilibrium so that we can change it while it is unstable and then let it settle into a new equilibrium state closer to our ideal (Lewin, 1946).

And here is the second belief—that, somehow, we can make organisations change; that by effective analysis, proper planning and appropriate action we can guarantee an outcome. Yet this conventional wisdom, adopted by so many managers and consultants, needs to be challenged.It seems that the evidence for it is extremely thin—we all know that most change programmes have little lasting radical effect. So perhaps it’s time to look for some alternative perspectives which might offer another approach. (Seel, 2000)

The view has been expressed that a better appreciation of the nature of organisational culture can be found by considering it as an emergent result of the conversations and negotiations between the members of an organisation (Seel, 2000)

According to the anthropologist Mary Douglas, culture is not a static ‘thing’ but something which everyone is constantly creating, affirming and expressing.

She writes about, “…the admonitions, excuses, and moral judgements by which the people mutually coerce one another into conformity”. (Douglas, 1985)

In this view culture is not imposed from outside but exposed from within any programme which attempts to change culture in a planned way is likely to miss the mark. Indeed, as Douglas observes, “…the central issue is not cultural change.The amazing thing that needs to be investigated is cultural stability, whenever and wherever it is found.

” (1985). If culture is being created all the time by everybody how is it that we sense it as reasonably stable? In particular by looking at emergence the working definition of culture contains this as a key word: Organisation culture is the emergent result of the continuing negotiations about values, meanings and proprieties between the members of that organisation and with its environment. (Seel, 2000) In other words, culture is the result of all the daily conversations and negotiations between the members of an organisation.They are continually agreeing (sometimes explicitly, usually tacitly) about the ‘proper’ way to do things and how to make meanings about the events of the world around them.

If you want to change a culture you have to change all these conversations—or at least the majority of them. And changing conversations is not the focus of most change programmes, which tend to concentrate on organisational structures or reward systems or other large-scale interventions. (Seel, 2000)

The three major steps involved in changing an organization's culture. .

Before an organization can change its culture, it must first understand the current culture, or the way things are now.

• Finally, the individuals in the organization must decide to change their behavior to create the desired organizational culture.This is the hardest step in culture change. (Susan M. Heathfield)

Analysis of literature pertaining to organizational culture change finds that existing research into cultural change can be broadly classified into two principal categories: studies of natural change and research into cultural management. Whereas studies into managed change centre on the effects of management action on organizational culture, research into natural change focuses on the evolution of cultures in the organizations (Sathe, 1983).

An example of study which focuses on natural change is that of Sathe (1983), who develops a conceptual model of how an organizational culture perpetuates itself. Sathe (1983) argues that new members of an organization ‘acquire’ culture through a process of socialization which is reinforced as employees interact and therefore any attempts at culture change should focus on the means of perpetuation (such as communication). Similarly Harrison and Carrol (1991) contend that culture has a tendency to evolve due to variables such as socialization and employee turnover.

Harrison & Carrol, 1991) Consistent with Smircich (1983), research into culture management can be classified into three subdivisions:

• studies which argue that culture can be managed;
• research which claims that culture may be manipulated, and;
• theory which argues that culture cannot be consciously changed (although natural change is argued to occur frequently).

The first stream of studies identified above comprises the work of those researchers who believes that culture is an organizational variable and logically assume that

culture may be changed (Smircich, 1983).Hence a significant theme in culture research has been the study of management attempts to direct and control culture. (Dawson, 1994).

The second stream of research centres on culture researchers who reject the view of culture as a directly manageable variable. These researchers frequently argue that culture cannot be viewed as something the organization has but is more appropriately conceptualized as something the organization is _ a view which mirrors Smircich (1983) paradigmatic classification.Hence Martin (1985) contends that changes to an organizational culture cannot be managed but may be manipulated under specific (and rare) contingencies (including the formation of an organization, periods of crises and during leadership turnover).

Finally the extreme stance of this argument rejects both the ‘culture can be managed’ and the ‘culture may be manipulated’ points of view.

Many theorists argue that even as the culture of organizations can and does change, the direction, impact and sustainability of the change cannot be subject to conscious action of management (Anthony, 1990).These views highlight a frequently under explored key issue within the domain of organizational culture theory; that is analysis of culture change appears to yield different results depending on the level of culture which is examined. The excess of literature on the issue of managing culture is clearly premised on the assumption that the performance of organizations is dependent on the alignment of organizational values to the espoused values of company strategy (Ray, 1986).

Hence, a common rationale for cultural management attempts is to exert cultural control in order to accomplish the goals of the organization. Edwards (1979) argues that control systems contain the dimensions of direction specifying desired actions, evaluation facilitating

feedback and discipline allowing reward or punishment for compliance or disobedience (Edwards, 1979). A significant amount of research has been conducted to classify the different strategies and types of organizational control over organizational culture (Child, 1984).

Arguably, Child (1984) presents the most holistic examination of control strategies, asserting that control mechanisms can be divided into four main types:

• personalized control;
• bureaucratic control;
• output control, and;
• cultural control.

Contemporary theorists argue that as organizations and their technologies evolve, a shift in control strategies is occurring: from the inefficient and costly methods of personalized control towards output and cultural control techniques (Willmott, 1993). Indeed Willmott (1993, p. 22) argues that cultural control ‘as a medium of domination, the scope and penetration of management control’ has been considerably extended. Hence populist management texts often exhort organizational members to have ‘a mission as well as a sense of feeling great’ (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

As the popularity of this medium of domination increases, a number of theorist are questioning the ethics of cultural control, often portraying the mechanisms used to achieve this as ‘exploitative’ and ‘emasculative’ (Ray, 1986).The brief review has found variety perspectives on organizational culture change. Extant literature includes studies of natural and managed changed.

Academic opinion pertaining to managing culture indicated three different views that:

• Organizational culture change can be controlled by management activity;
• Cultural change may only occur under particular organizational conditions, and;
• Conscious management of organizational culture is unlikely.

An examination of the literature on organizational control found that the issue of control provided much of the rationable for attempts to alter organizational culture. (Lebas, M. and J. Weigenstein, 1986)

• Anthony, P. D.1990). The Paradox of Management of Culture. Personnel Review , 19 (4), 3-8.
• Boddy, D. , & Boonstra, A. (2000). Doing Business on the Internet: Managing the Organizational Issues. Journal of General Management , 26 (1), 18–35.
• Child, J.(1984). Organization: A Guide To Problems and Practice.
• London: Harper & Row. Dawson, P. (1994).
• Organisational Change: A Processual Approach.
• London: Chapman. De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management. Academy of Management Executive , Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 113-127.
• Douglas, M. (1985). Introduction. In Rayner, L. G.Jonathan, & Steve, Measuring Culture: A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social Organization.
• New York: Columbia University Press.
• Edwards, R. (1979). The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century.
• London: Heinemann. Feldman, S. (2002). Memory as a Moral Decision.
• London: Transaction Publishers.
• Harrison, J. R. , & Carrol, G. R. (1991). Keeping the Faith: A Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 36, 552-582.
• Hill, C. (2005). International Business – Competing in the Global Market Place.
• New York, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Hofstede, G. 1984).
• Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values.
• Sage, USA: Beverly Hills.
• Kanter, R. M. (2001, January). The Ten Deadly Mistakes of Wanna-Dots. Harvard Business Review , 91–100.
• Lee, S. (2003). Business Use of Internet-Based Information Systems: The Case of Korea. European Journal of Information Systems , 12, 168_181.
• Lewin, K. (1946). Research on Minority Problems. The Technology Review , 48 (3).
• Martin, J. (1985). Can Organisational Culture be Managed?
• In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundburg, & J. Martin, Organisational Culture.
• London: Sage.
• Martin, L. M. , & Matlay, H. (2003). Innovative Use of the Internet in Established Small Firms. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal , 6 (1), 18-26.
• McIvor, R. M. (2004). The Potential of Internet Technologies: Insights from the Public Sector. New Technology, Work and Employment , 19 (1), 63-75.
• Peters, T. , & Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence.
• New York: Random House.
• Peterson, R. A. (1997).Exploring the Implications of the Internet for Consumer Marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 25 (4), 329–346.
• Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). Shaping Strategic Change: Making Change in Large.
• Porter, M. (2001, March). Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review , 63–78.
• Quinn, R. E. (1996). Becoming a Master Manager.
• New York: Wiley.
• Ray, C. A. (1986). Corporate Culture: The Last Frontier of Control. Journal of Management Studies , 23 (3), 251-297.
• Richard Seel. (2008, January 12). Culture & Complexity,. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from www. new-paradigm. co. k,: http://www. new-paradigm. co. uk/culture-complex. htm
• Sathe, V.(1983). Implications of Corporate Culture. Organizational Dynamics , 5-23.
• Seel, R. (2000). Culture & Complexity. Organisations & People , 7 (2), 2-9.
• Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organisational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly , 28, 339-358.
• Culture and Change Management. Retrieved May 10,
• Change at Whirlpool: An Analysis Essay Example
• The way forward for Agilent Technologies Ltd Essay Example
• How Has the Internet Changed the Music and Movie Industries Essay Example
• Change Management Assignment Essay Example
• The Impact of Information Technology on the Workforce of the Future Essay Example
• International Alliances and Innovation Performance Essay Example
• What's the Buzz on Smart Grids Essay Example
• Organizational culture, and change management Essay Example
• Change Management and Communication Plan Essay Example
• How Computers Change the Way We Think Essay Example
• Internet - How the Internet has fundamentally changed Essay Example
• Technological Grounding Enrolling Technology Essay Example
• How technology has changed business Essay Example
• Internet Exchange Point And Internet Routing Essay Example
• Introduction to Electronic Banking Essay Example
• Email essays
• Hypertext Transfer Protocol essays
• Marshall Mcluhan essays
• Virtual Learning Environment essays
• Web Search essays
• Etiquette essays
• Mainstream essays
• Vodafone essays
• Web Search Engine essays
• Adaptation essays
• Adventure essays
• Adversity essays
• Aging essays
• Alcohol essays
• Barbie Doll essays
• Beauty essays
• Care essays
• Carpe diem essays
• Change essays
• Chess essays
• Chicken essays
• Choices essays
• Contrast essays
• Crops essays
• Development essays
• Dream essays
• Evil essays
• Experience essays
• Family essays
• Farm essays
• Fire essays
• First Love essays
• Focus essays
• Greed essays
• Hero essays
• Holiday essays
• House essays
• Housing essays
• Humility essays
• Humor essays
• Hypocrisy essays
• Integrity essays
• Law of Life essays
• Life Changing Experience essays
• Life Experience essays
• Lifestyle essays
• Limitations essays
• Love Story essays
• Mother Tongue essays
• Motherhood essays

Haven't found what you were looking for?

Search for samples, answers to your questions and flashcards.

• Enter your topic/question
• Receive an explanation
• Ask one question at a time
• Enter a specific assignment topic
• Aim at least 500 characters
• a topic sentence that states the main or controlling idea
• supporting sentences to explain and develop the point you’re making
• evidence from your reading or an example from the subject area that supports your point
• analysis of the implication/significance/impact of the evidence finished off with a critical conclusion you have drawn from the evidence.

Unfortunately copying the content is not possible

Tell us your email address and we’ll send this sample there..

By continuing, you agree to our Terms and Conditions .

Change Management Definition and Its Principles Essay

Introduction, 3 principles to remember when managing change, techniques to manage change, changing employee mindsets, implementing a workplace culture of open communication, establish goals/purpose driven work, reference list.

In one way or another all organizations whether big or small will eventually undergo some form of change, whether it comes in the form of changes to organizational leadership, changes to processes due to market influences or simply changes in the way the company addresses interoffice communication, the fact remains that in one way or another change is inevitable and as such it is important to establish methods of managing change so as to ensure a smooth transition from one method of doing things to another (Schraeder & Jordan, 2011).

For this particular exercise I chose the following principles of change due to the way in which they reflect my own personal thoughts on what is necessary to manage change effectively:

• To change the individual, change the system
• People fear change it “happens” to them.
• A clearly defined vision of the end result enables all the people to define the most efficient path for accomplishing the results

For me these particular principles speak volumes of what is needed in managing change and as such I will attempt give you the reader a short overview of why I believe this are so and will try to convince you of the accuracy of my choice.

First and foremost the principle of changing the system in order change the individual is derived from my own belief that in one way or another people tend to conform their mannerisms to the way a particular organizational structure works. Though it may not be immediately apparent facets such as work culture and internal company rules and regulations work in a manner in which an individual perceives what he should so and how he should do it.

While such a factor is important in creating consistency and getting exactly what the company requires out of an employee often such systems enforce a certain mindset on individuals resulting in them being maladaptive to sudden changes in the way they used to do things. It is based on this that in order to change the way in which a employee acts, thinks and expresses ideas it is important to first change the system in which he/she operates in order to bring about the desired change needed (Schraeder & Jordan, 2011).

Secondly, the concept of people fearing change is well known psychological concept that is deeply embedded in the fact that humans are essentially creatures of habit. People prefer doing things a certain way, they like having routines and they enjoy a life where they follow the simple logic of “if they do this they get that” (Van der Merwe, 2009). When a certain inexplicable change is introduced into a person’s routine three possible things may occur, either:

• They adapt to this new change
• They resist to the change that is being induced
• They attempt to adapt yet fail at doing so.

For organizations in the midst of change the latter two responses are the most troubling since this may result in several groups of individuals either resisting the change or being unable to adapt properly, both of which would adversely affect the company.

Going back to the first principle mentioned, it is important to take note of the fact that in order to prevent the fear of change what is needed is to gradually change the system in which a person works up to the point that they are able to accept the change as it happens.

The second principle compliments the first in that it addresses the unsaid point that since people fear change it is often hard to change the individual. Thus in order to change a person it is necessary to gradually change the mindset they operate with in order to facilitate effective change with little adverse effects (Van der Merwe, 2009).

The last principle chosen is related to the action of having people know what is needed change and thus having them choose the direction in which the change would be best implemented.

While this paper has so far shown that people fear change, are often resistant to it and that in order to change a person it is necessary to change the system they work in what wasn’t mentioned was the fact that people are often resistant to outside change yet when the change comes from within, in that they see the necessity of change, employees often respond positively towards change and actually work towards it.

In the case of the third principle by a supplying a clearly defined vision of what is needed to change instead of forcing the change, employees actually become more amenable to the necessity of change and become less resistant, more encouraging and actually contribute their own thoughts and views as to what other changes could be accomplished.

There are 3 techniques that I would like to elaborate on that I believe are important in managing change and are consistent with the principles I chose

One of the first techniques necessary in managing change is to change the way in which employees think about the way in which they work. As mentioned in the discussion regarding the 1st principle it is often the case that employees develop a certain mindset regarding work which makes them far less apt to change when the need arises.

It is based on this that what is needed is slowly change internal company policies and workplace culture so as to make it more amenable to the desired change rather than implement it all at once. This conforms with the first principle of change chosen in which a person is changed via a change in the system that they work.

In the second principle chosen it was elaborated that people tend to fear change, while this is true the fact remains that there are actually method of mitigating this. One of them is implementing a workplace culture of open communication, by doing so not only can employee fears be addressed and taking into account when implementing change within the organization but it can be used as way in which to dampen the unforeseen and adverse effects the might happen should change be implemented.

In their study examining employee performance it was discovered by Bishop (2011) that it is often the case that employees work better and adapt to change faster if there is a given goal or rather their work is driven by a specific purpose. Taking the third principle chosen into consideration it can be assumed that by creating a defined vision by which employees can work towards not only would this result in a smooth transition during change but can actually result in improved employee performance as well.

Bishop, M. (2011). Raising the Bar on Performance-Driven Leadership. T+D , 65(7), 38. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

Schraeder, M., & Jordan, M. (2011). Managing Performance. Journal for Quality & Participation , 34(2), 4-10. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

Van der Merwe, S. P. (2009). Determinants of family employee work performance and compensation in family businesses. South African Journal of Business Management , 40(1), 51. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, November 23). Change Management Definition and Its Principles. https://ivypanda.com/essays/managing-change/

"Change Management Definition and Its Principles." IvyPanda , 23 Nov. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/managing-change/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Change Management Definition and Its Principles'. 23 November.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Change Management Definition and Its Principles." November 23, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/managing-change/.

1. IvyPanda . "Change Management Definition and Its Principles." November 23, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/managing-change/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Change Management Definition and Its Principles." November 23, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/managing-change/.

• "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success" by C. Dweck
• Military Mindset and Its Application in Business
• “3 Keys to a Global Marketing Mindset" by Ibrahim
• Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Causes and Prevention
• Entrepreneurial Mindset and Traits
• Combat Bunker to the Corporate Boardroom – Leveraging the Military Mindset
• Mindsets in the Classroom: Definition and Theories
• Entrepreneurial Mindset and Effectiveness in Café Shops
• Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus
• Leveraging the Military Mindset Into Business
• Paulson & Company Value-based Leadership and Strategic Focus
• Stylish Kicks Shoe Crafters Ltd
• Agribusiness in the North America
• German Business: Political Climate, Economic Incentives and Foreign Investments
• H-P's PC Chief Waits for Resolution

• A new global BCG study reveals that during the past two decades, only 26% of corporate transformations successfully created value in both the short and long terms.
• We highlight five truths about corporate transformation—and refute one lie that executives like to tell themselves.

BCG Henderson Institute Newsletter: Insights that are shaping business thinking.

Business Transformation

/ article, five truths (and one lie) about corporate transformation.

By  Martin Reeves ,  Christian Gruß ,  Kristy Ellmer ,  Adam Job ,  Gabe Bouslov , and  Paul Catchlove

Key Takeaways

In an era of technological advancements, geopolitical tensions, and economic turmoil, standing still is akin to moving backward. As the durability of competitive advantage has dwindled , the average tenure of companies on the S&P 500 index has more than halved since the late 1970s. 1 1 S. Patrick Viguerie, Ned Calder, and Brian Hindo, 2021 Corporate Longevity Forecast , May 2021, Innosight website. Notes: 1 S. Patrick Viguerie, Ned Calder, and Brian Hindo, 2021 Corporate Longevity Forecast , May 2021, Innosight website.

But changing with the times is difficult: A new global BCG study reveals that during the past two decades, only 26% of corporate transformations successfully created value in both the short and long terms. (See “ About Our Research .”)

So how can change leaders beat the odds? We use our empirical insights to highlight five truths about corporate transformation —and refute one lie that executives like to tell themselves.

Truth #1: You Can (and Should) Fix Things Before They Break

In transformations, timing matters: Pre-emptive transformations are initiated while total shareholder return (TSR) is in line with or ahead of industry averages. These transformations create significantly more value in the medium and long run (+2.7 percentage point TSR over a three-year horizon) than reactive transformations (initiated after TSR has already dipped below the peer group).

Transforming preemptively—before a performance gap has opened up—means transforming from a position of strength, subject to less pressure and scrutiny: leaders are empowered to focus on identifying options for future advantage , rather than on purely defensive moves, such as divestments.

Consider, for example, Microsoft’s remarkable trajectory over the past decade: After stagnating performance from 2009 to 2012, the company managed to achieve some momentum between 2012 and 2014 (achieving 36% annualized TSR). Not content with this recovery, Microsoft’s then-incoming CEO Satya Nadella made changes to lay the groundwork for future success: He oriented the company toward the new dominance of cloud , even though this trend had not yet damaged the bottom line. This move set Microsoft up to nearly triple its stock price in the first four years of Nadella’s tenure. Nevertheless, he announced yet another restructuring in 2018, setting up an AI division, which was soon bolstered by Microsoft’s early $1 billion investment in OpenAI. 2 2 Don Reisinger, “Microsoft Is About to Undergo a Major Reorganization: Here’s How It Breaks Down,” Fortune website, March 29, 2018. Notes: 2 Don Reisinger, “Microsoft Is About to Undergo a Major Reorganization: Here’s How It Breaks Down,” Fortune website, March 29, 2018. Today, Microsoft is the most valuable company in the world—illustrating how preemptive transformation with heavy investment allows sustaining performance in an evolving competitive environment and amid significant technology changes.

Truth #2: Leadership Will Make or Break Your Transformation

Microsoft’s story also highlights the importance of leadership. The firm’s successful transformations were not only driven by Nadella’s anticipation of future trends, but also his willingness to question and change the mental models and organizational structures that underlay the company’s historic success. For example, since the 2018 restructuring, Microsoft no longer has a division dedicated to its Windows operating system. Contrast this with Blockbuster’s leadership rejecting the opportunity to acquire a fledging Netflix, Swissair continuing to invest in its failing airline, or Kodak not embracing the digital photography technology it pioneered—and the importance of leadership commitment to change becomes crystal clear.

When leaders present an obstacle to change, their removal can improve transformation outcomes.

• Our data shows that a leadership change during a transformation is associated with a 4.1 percentage points higher TSR performance over the five-year time horizon (compared to the previous downturn period).
• The positive TSR impact is even higher (an additional 3.7 percentage points over the five-year period) if the new leadership comes from outside of the company.

However, a change in leadership is not a guaranteed success driver; it is also associated with a high variance in TSR outcomes. As such, this effect is less driven by the leader per se than by their willingness and commitment to making a change—particularly at a time when leadership engagement in transformations is on the decline . Consistent with this, we find that preemptive transformations—in which leaders act to fix things before they break, demonstrating their initiative and commitment—are associated with higher leadership stability than reactive ones (4.7 percentage point lower frequency of CEO change during the transformation period). Moreover, we know from other research that stability in leadership teams can also drive a company’s long-term growth potential.

Truth #3: You Cannot Cut Your Way to Greatness

Our analysis shows that, in the short term, investor expectations are the most significant driver of value creation in a transformation contributing more than two thirds of TSR outperformance over industry peers in the first year after a transformation is initiated. (See Exhibit 1). Efficiency improvements drive 13% of the outperformance, while the remaining factors (revenue growth and margin improvements) play even smaller roles.

As such, it is crucial for companies to craft a compelling transformation plan and narrative at the outset of their journey, and to define a clear communication agenda toward their shareholders. Moreover, firms must signal discipline and momentum by executing on quick wins for cost reductions.

In the long term (five years), value creation drivers are flipped, such that the lion’s share of TSR outperformance is driven by successful cost reductions (32%) and revenue growth (43%), while investor expectations play a smaller role (25%). This indicates that, in the long-term, execution is key, as investors will keep executives to their promises. Moreover, it shows that you cannot cut your way to greatness: differential growth is critical to sustained value creation .

Truth #4: Transformations Require a Long-Term Orientation

Achieving sustainable growth and a future-proof operating model requires entering transformations with a long-term orientation, rather than merely focusing on addressing performance woes or catching up to peers in terms of technology stack or organizational best practices.

Our data shows that having a long-term strategic orientation exhibits a strong positive impact on transformation performance, being associated with a 12.5 percentage points higher TSR impact over a five-year horizon. 3 3 Measured leveraging a proprietary algorithm that quantifies the strategic orientation of companies based on semantic patterns in 10-K filings. Notes: 3 Measured leveraging a proprietary algorithm that quantifies the strategic orientation of companies based on semantic patterns in 10-K filings. A long-term orientation can be achieved by creating an entrepreneurial culture, in which new ideas are constantly developed and leaders are willing to take chances on unproven models. To support a forward-orientation, companies need to complement traditional, backward-looking performance metrics with future-oriented ones. For example, 3M pioneered the New Product Vitality Index (NPVI), a metric that tracks the share of sales from products that didn’t exist five years ago.

Beyond mindset, culture, and metrics, a long-term orientation also means investing in the exploration of new ideas that could be the basis of future advantage: above industry-average R&D spending is associated with a 2.9 percentage point improvement in TSR performance over the course of a transformation.

Above industry-average capital expenditures are also linked to better transformation outcomes—to the tune of 3.7 percentage point TSR over a five-year horizon. This indicates that leaders must find the right balance between identifying new sources of growth and improving their existing model, for example, by upgrading production machinery. It also underlines that operational effectiveness needs to be tied not only to cuts, but also to selective investments.

Truth #5: You Cannot Make Things Up as You Go

Transformations are complex and require simultaneously delivering on several objectives—usually under immense pressure from the outside and inside. As a result, companies cannot make transformation up as they go.

Putting a formal transformation program in place—which we identify based on a combined analysis of corporate announcements and restructuring spend—has a positive impact (5.9 percentage points) on long-run TSR during transformation periods. Moreover, the scale of the program and the willingness to invest in change matter, with our results further showing a strong, positive correlation between above industry-average restructuring spend and TSR outcomes (+5.7 percentage points over five years).

Formalizing the transformation entails defining a clear governance and process—or setting up a dedicated transformation office—for coordinating and tracking progress on change initiatives, as well as regularly communicating it to the executive leadership team so that roadblocks can be addressed promptly. Moreover, it may mean putting in place a chief transformation officer to helm an ambitious change effort, which our prior research shows can improve transformation odds significantly. However, simply having a CTO on staff is not a panacea. The role must be designed appropriately and filled by someone who is persistent, vigilant, and flexible —and who is trained for the job.

A Lie: You Are Special—and These Insights Don’t Apply to You

The empirical patterns of transformation are quite stable: At any point in the past 20 years, roughly 30% of companies significantly underperformed their sector for a period of multiple years, making transformation a necessity for performance reasons. 4 4 Underperformance is identified as an annualized deterioration in TSR, relative to the company’s industry average, of 10 p.p. or more over a two-year period. Notes: 4 Underperformance is identified as an annualized deterioration in TSR, relative to the company’s industry average, of 10 p.p. or more over a two-year period. (See Exhibit 2.) However, successful transformations are the exception, rather than the norm, even when measured on very modest criteria. More than 70% of companies fail to outperform their industry peer group average in both the short (one year) and long term (five years), after a previous performance downturn period. These number are quite similar to the findings in our 2018 report—showing that while the world has changed significantly in the last few years, the challenges of keeping up with that change have remained remarkably persistent.

Just as crucially, these patterns are remarkably universal, with our data showing that no region, sector, or size group is an outlier on transformation need and success rates. The success factors of transformations discussed throughout this article also have directionally similar effects across all subgroups of our sample.

Put briefly: When it comes to transformations, no one is special. Change leaders have no reason to be overconfident, given that only half of the companies we studied employed more than two of the key success factors we identified. Sustainable value creation through transformation remains so rare. 5 5 This includes: above-industry average R&D spending, CapEx investments, or restructuring costs (each scaled by sales); a long-term strategic orientation; setting up a formalized change program; bringing in a new CEO, or even a new external CEO. Notes: 5 This includes: above-industry average R&D spending, CapEx investments, or restructuring costs (each scaled by sales); a long-term strategic orientation; setting up a formalized change program; bringing in a new CEO, or even a new external CEO.

About Our Research

This study is an extension of BCG’s earlier work, “ The Truth About Corporate Transformation ,” published in MIT Sloan Management Review . Here, we broadened the research to a global scope, updated to cover the recent period of enormous turbulence, and deepened the analysis of factors and segments. Our empirical study covers the period 2001 to 2022, with the sample including nearly 2,000 public companies from around the globe that generated at least $10 billion in revenue in 2022 or had a market capitalization of $10 billion at the end of that year. To identify transformations, we assess firms’ total shareholder returns (TSR) relative to their industry peers, as transformations are regularly initiated in reaction to performance downturns. We combine this with a predictive model, which leverages information from corporate announcements and data on restructuring spend to identify whether a formal transformation program has been set up. Depending on data availability across variables in a given analysis, our study covers between 1,000 and 2,000 transformations.

In an increasingly turbulent world, changing with the times is crucial—but the odds of success are slim. To beat them, change leaders must heed these truths about corporate transformations.

The BCG Henderson Institute is Boston Consulting Group’s strategy think tank, dedicated to exploring and developing valuable new insights from business, technology, and science by embracing the powerful technology of ideas. The Institute engages leaders in provocative discussion and experimentation to expand the boundaries of business theory and practice and to translate innovative ideas from within and beyond business. For more ideas and inspiration from the Institute, please visit our website and follow us on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) .

Managing Director & Senior Partner, Chairman of the BCG Henderson Institute

San Francisco - Bay Area

Managing Director & Partner

Strategy Lab Director, BCG Henderson Institute

Senior Director – BCG Transform

ABOUT BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP

Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholders—empowering organizations to grow, build sustainable competitive advantage, and drive positive societal impact.

Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range of perspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutions through leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corporate and digital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm and throughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clients thrive and enabling them to make the world a better place.

© Boston Consulting Group 2024. All rights reserved.

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at [email protected] . To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcg.com . Follow Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) .