In recent years, the transformations undergone by the global competitive environment have generated a landscape in which organizational change can no longer be approached as an episodic and discrete event.
From making discontinuity choices with respect to organizational models, ways of working or technological solutions to be used with a view to greater productivity and efficiency, change has now taken the form of a structural condition, necessary not only to aim for continuous improvement, but for the very survival of organizations.
Without wishing to be exhaustive, it is possible to identify some key factors that have contributed more than others to this evolution:
First and foremost is technological advancement, which is characterized by increasingly rapid innovation cycles: new technologies are emerging at an unprecedented rate, forcing companies to continuously adapt and innovate in order to survive and remain competitive.
Of course, the increasing volatility of the economic and geopolitical scenario plays an equally important role: events such as recessions, pandemics and constant international instability have demonstrated the fragility of traditional business models and the need for greater flexibility and resilience on the part of organizations.
Finally, for B2C organizations, the evolution in the expectations of the end customer, who demands a highly personalized experience at every touchpoint with the organization, and whose desires now completely escape the rigid logic of homo economicus, but are influenced by emotions, values and social factors that make decision making much more complex and less predictable.
The literature refers to this as the maintenance phase.
In short, we find ourselves in a scenario perfectly described by the acronym BANI, coined by the American futurist and researcher Jamais Cascio to indicate the fragility of modern political and social systems (Brittle), the growing collective anxiety brought about by uncertainty (Anxious), combined with the nonlinearity (Non Linear) and difficulty of understanding (Incomprehensible) of the reality in which we live.
The change “is changing”?
Therefore, not without reason those involved in change management tend to emphasize how the lenses through which to interpret change have evolved, following 4 main directions:
- From an idea of change as a moment of organizational discontinuity to a perspective of continuous and iterative change, which proceeds by experimentation and validation of hypotheses: from sporadic and isolated process to permanent organizational condition, from exception to rule
- From a view of change as a linear, planned path from a current state (as is) to a desired state (to be), to an idea of change as a continuous process of adaptation and learning, in which the organization constantly evolves in response to new conditions and opportunities, without a definitive end point
- From a predominantly top-down process idea, to one of co-creation and co-design with all stakeholders involved, to promote collective ownership and accelerate organizational learning about change, transforming it from an imposed event to a shared, participatory process
- From a focus on the ability to design change to “stay the course” charted by the organization (or radically change it), to a focus on the ability to prepare the organization for continuous change.
Ultimately, there has been a shift from a perspective of organizational change as a moment of more or less radical discontinuity, to a new view of change, to be conceived increasingly as a source of sustainable competitive advantage.
In this context of continuous change, the change management challenge therefore takes on a new identity: it is no longer about managing single change events, but about creating and sustaining a corporate culture that embraces change as an integral part of its organizational DNA.
Rather than resisting change or viewing it as a sporadic event, this approach focuses on the ability to adapt quickly to new challenges, market demands and technological innovations, promoting a flexible and continuous improvement-oriented corporate culture to increase one’s change attitude and antifragility.
A fundamental question emerges at this point: can the change management models developed in the organizational literature and in the consulting field still be said to be equipped to accompany organizations to deal with change in its new guise, guaranteeing the tools useful for dealing with continuous change?
In this regard, it is useful to analyze two of the most established and widespread change management models in the literature to assess their effectiveness in meeting the challenges of the new continuous change environment: the Lean Change Management model and Prosci’s ADKAR model.
The Lean change management model
The roots of Lean Change Management lie in the Toyota Production System (TPS), developed in Japan after World War II. The central philosophy of this model lies in its iterative, adaptive, feedback-based process, which distinguishes it from traditional change management models.
Unlike the latter, the Lean approach in fact values collaboration and recursive improvement to effectively manage change.
Rather than implementing large-scale changes in a single solution, Lean Change Management promotes smaller-scale, iterative changes.
This allows organizations to test changes, learn from them and make necessary corrections more efficiently.
In American consultant Jason Little‘s recent formulation, the model consists of three main stages: Insight, Options and Experiments.
In detail:
- Insight: this is a phase dedicated to understanding the context and current state of the organization, which is useful in identifying any obstacles and critical aspects that may limit the organization’s agility and ability to pursue the desired change. To this end, there are several tools or practices that can be used, including Information Radiators (such as the Kanban Board), Force Field Analysis tools, and assessments tools such as the OCAI Cultural Assessment
- Options: this is a generative phase: several options are identified for each insight to address the critical issues highlighted in the previous phase. Among the generated options, the solutions deemed most effective are prioritized, using the change canvas as supporting tools. In addition, options are screened according to potential benefits and ease-difficulty of organizational implementation
- Experiments: After several possible solutions have been generated, project teams work together to create small-group-pilot experiments to test their effectiveness. The underlying principle is to monitor the results of the experiments, learning from those outcomes to determine next steps.
Finally, based on the outcomes, a decision must be made whether to adopt or abandon the change being experimented with. Adoption involves integrating the change into business processes, and using ongoing training and support to encourage widespread adoption.
Prosci’s ADKAR model
Prosci’s ADKAR model is an influential and widely recognized change management model in the literature that emphasizes the importance of individual change within the organizational change process. Developed by Prosci, a leading change management solutions company, the ADKAR model provides a structured framework to help individuals successfully manage change, through 5 steps:
- Awareness, involves creating an awareness of the need for change and the reasons behind it.
- Desire (Desire), which aims to solicit in individuals a personal commitment and positive attitude toward change.
- The third element is Knowledge, which focuses on equipping individuals with the information and skills needed to cope with change.
- The fourth element, Ability, emphasizes the development of practical skills needed to implement change effectively. This step involves direct support through coaching and the opportunity to put the change into practice.
- The last element is Reinforcement, which aims to consolidate change through ongoing support. This includes recognizing and valuing the efforts of individuals to date, celebrating successes, and using ongoing refresher programs.
Lean and ADKAR to the test of continuous change: what limits?
Although both models described so far provide valuable conceptual tools for change management, their ability to represent a benchmark for organizations in constructing a new approach to organizational change is challenged by three fundamental limitations, which it is worth analyzing in detail:
1) Lack of consideration of context as a determinant of change design
2) Limited sustainability of change in the long run
3) Simplification of the human, psychological and social factors of change.
Lack of context
A significant limitation of traditional change management models is their tendency to overlook the importance of the organizational context in which they are applied.
Of course, when we talk about organizational context, we are referring first and foremost to the analysis of corporate culture, failure to take this into account in the preliminary stages of change management can greatly undermine the effectiveness of the entire initiative.
It, in fact, acts as a lens through which every change initiative is viewed and evaluated by members of the organization.
Compared to this limitation, Lean Change Management models and the ADKAR model are no exceptions. The latter, in particular, tends to focus exclusively on the individual dimension, oversimplifying and not fully considering the influence of the organizational context, corporate culture and power dynamics on the change process and the individual’s own transition path.
The effectiveness of the Lean Change Management model may also be strongly affected by the variable organizational context. Indeed, fruitful application of this model for a change management process requires a significant mindset change oriented toward flexibility, adaptability and continuous improvement, which may be difficult to achieve in organizations with rigid structures or characterized by a managerial or strongly hierarchical management style.
For example, a company with a top-down management approach may find it difficult to embrace the collaborative and iterative nature of Lean Change Management, encountering resistance or implementing the model ineffectively.
The paramount importance of aligning change management practices with organizational culture also emerges from Prosci’s 2023 Best Practices in Change Management survey conducted annually, which involved some 2,700 participants from more than 38 business sectors. In fact, 59 percent of respondents placed the highest importance on organizational culture awareness when designing a change initiative.
Importance of cultural awareness in defining the itinerary for change
(Prosci. 2023. Best Practices in Change Management: 12th Edition Executive Summary. See also https://www.prosci.com/blog/why-change-management-fails)
Limited sustainability of change over the long term
Another major limitation of traditional models of organizational change is their tendency to focus on the implementation phase of change, with little attention paid to its sustainability and entrenchment over the long term.
The literature refers to this as the maintenance phase: its goal is to ensure that important transformations are adopted and utilized, become the accepted way of operating within the organization, and become ingrained in the corporate culture.
Even when it is actually provided for in change management models, the maintenance phase provides generic or abstract accouterments that merely argue for the need to reinforce the changes introduced, without adequately questioning the proper ways in which such reinforcement must occur in order to function effectively in a complex social system such as an organization.
This is the case, for example, with the ADKAR model analyzed above, whose last stage (devoted to sustaining change) merely prescribes the recognition of milestones achieved and the possible introduction of timely corrective measures for difficulties encountered by change recipients, without suggesting the need for long-term monitoring related to levels of change adoption.
With respect to the Lean Change Management model, on the other hand, it seems clear that its iterative process can lead change recipients and stakeholders to develop forms of “change fatigue,” reducing involvement in the initiative and making the long-term sustainability of change more complicated.
In general, the proper conduct of a retention phase is made more arduous by the tendency of organizational leaders acting as sponsors of change to shift their attention to new initiatives before retention efforts can yield their results.
Being absorbed by new strategic priorities, they may not give due centrality and importance to the maintenance phase, assuming that consolidation occurs spontaneously or is unnecessary. However, the data prove otherwise.
In fact, Prosci’s same 2023 research on Best Practices in Change Management shows that 81 percent of organizations that said they planned for a change maintenance and reinforcement phase met or exceeded their change project goals, while only 15 percent of those who did not plan for such a phase achieved the same results.
Impact of maintenance phase planning on the achievement of change management objectives.
(In Prosci. 2023. Best Practices in Change Management: 12th Edition Executive Summary.. See also https://www.prosci.com/blog/sustainment-in-change-management)
Simplifying the human, psychological and social factors of change
It should be recognized how several of the traditional models of organizational change take into consideration the influence of human and psychological factors on the outcome of organizational change.
Almost all of them, however, have a fundamental limitation: in fact, they tend to conceive of the individual as isolated and separate from the system-organization of which he or she is a part, with the result of excluding from the conceptual framework all the dynamics that act on the individual as part of a social group, far from being a mere sum of isolated individuals, as an organization is.
In fact, many solutions merely follow the path taken by models such as ADKAR or Bridges’ transition model, which introduce accouterments within the process that ensure greater consideration of the human and psychological aspects associated with change, and in particular resistance to change, but do not include more in-depth reflection on the typical dynamics of social groups and their impact on change management.
With respect to these expedients, the discipline of reference is organizational psychology, which can help explain why people resist change by incorporating into change management models strategies to build trust and transparency, address any anxieties and concerns related to change, or foster employee engagement with customized training and support initiatives.
What to do. New disciplines for a new approach to change
Given these limitations, it seems difficult to be able to assign to these change management models the license of suitability for continuous change management. However, the solution we are looking for may not lie in the total abandonment of traditional models, but rather in the grafting within them of conceptual tools from other disciplines that can help bridge the three fundamental limitations we have analyzed, making these models better equipped to deal with the current dynamics of organizational change.
In this sense, the organizational psychology mentioned above is just one among several disciplines that can lend their contribution to this work of adapting contemporary change management models.
Another discipline that can perhaps ensure greater effectiveness in addressing and overcoming the limitations of the change management models highlighted above is undoubtedly Behavioural Economics.
Behavioral economics, in fact, can provide valuable tools for change management because of its ability to anchor change strategies in empirical research on human behavior, offering essential tools for the purposeful (and evidence-based) transformation of our behavior.
By understanding how cognitive biases, emotions, and social pressures influence decisions, this discipline provides a conceptual framework that is more closely aligned with the reality of organizations, which is critical for designing more effective change initiatives.
With respect to the first limitation highlighted, the lack of consideration of context, the conceptual apparatus of Behavioural Economics can help to gain a more nuanced and granular understanding of the organizational context by analyzing corporate culture, group dynamics within the organization and individual motivations, recognizing that every choice related to change is profoundly affected by the environment in which it takes place.
To do this, it uses codified techniques and tools, such as informal network analysis ( Organizational Network Analysis ), BIAS analysis such as the Status Quo BIAS, or the use of the COM Model.(capability/opportunity/motivation)
Instead, the ability to maintain and reinforce change over the long term is achieved primarily through a focus on consciously aligning change with the values of the corporate culture.
Such attention makes it possible to change the perception of change from an imposition to a collective aspiration through a direct link to the organization’s core values, which also goes on to guide the choice of activities to be undertaken, i.e., the very content of the project phases.
In addition, the values serve as a guide even after the project ends, and amplify a sense of organizational cohesion and identity. This ensures the sustainability of change over time even after the formal conclusion of the change management project.
The conceptual apparatus of behavioral economics has within it several tools that can facilitate the permanence of change over the long term: these certainly include the so-called Goal Gradient Effect, incentive and reciprocity mechanisms, and so-called commitment devices.
Finally, it becomes apparent that, unlike the change management models we have illustrated, which tend to eradicate the individual from the relevant organizational context by considering him or her in isolation, behavioral economics ensures a richer consideration of group pressures and dynamics as dimensions capable of profoundly influencing individual behavior: when viewed through the lenses of behavioral economics, individuals never make decisions in isolation, but are influenced by interactions with others, group norms and the social context in which they find themselves.
Conclusions
Organizational change has now become a structural condition of organizational life: no longer a goal to be achieved, but a permanent condition to be navigated. In this scenario, to support organizations in building a genuine change attitude, the tools available to them must necessarily evolve, integrating existing models with approaches from new disciplines.
Among these, Behavioural Economics proves particularly effective, offering a scientific evidence-based approach to human behavior.
As it turns out, the contribution of this discipline makes it possible to overcome the main limitations of classical change management models, reflecting more closely the complexities of the organizational environment.
In particular, the latter provides more realistic keys to understanding its internal dynamics, and enables more incisive action on key behaviors, accelerating and consolidating change over the long term.
This impact is made possible by recognizing the influence of context on the outcome of the change process, by valuing the role of cognitive biases and social norms, and by promoting strategies that anchor change in people’s deep values and motivations.
Ultimately, adopting such a perspective does not mean abandoning existing models of organizational change, but rather enhancing them with tools capable of embracing the magnitude of the challenge that organizations face, to come to conceive of countinous change in a different light: from being merely an obstacle to be addressed to a strategic lever for organizations’ competitive advantage.