Why is Organizational Change so Hard ?
Last Updated on 9 May 2025 at 19:29
Change is perceived as the lifeblood of innovation and the kryptonite of established norms. So why does this five-letter word hold so much interest, power, and paradox ?
Organizations are in a perpetual quest for growth, which is essentially an euphemism for change. However, while companies are structured to optimize, scale, and evolve, they are often the most resistant to the change they seek. Why ? Because organizations are not monolithic entities, they are conglomerates of human beings. And humans are complicated entities.
The Fluid Change
In practice, a business organization is not a monolithic entity but a complex web of human relationships, ambitions, and fears. A management consultant can have the most meticulously crafted change management plan, with beautiful Gantt charts and risk assessments. Still, a change plan is set up for failure if it underestimates the human element and the complexity of the internal and external environment.
Business change is hard because it’s fundamentally a human issue.
People have an innate resistance to change because it disrupts their sense of stability and predictability. It’s not just about having a new workplace, learning new software or adapting to a new organizational structure — it’s about the anxiety of the unknown and the fear of losing control.
So, while the corporate ethos may be rooted in logic and rationality, the human elements are about emotions and irrationalities. The dissonance between the two creates a fertile ground for resistance.
Quite often, there are some other misguided motivations behind the change. Sometimes, the rationale for change is rather a capricious decision influenced by many factors — be it a misguided cost-saving initiative or a vanity project designed to inflate executive egos. The Socratic method of questioning the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ is often a missing piece.
In other situations, the problem is not change per se, but rather the lack of a coherent strategy behind it.
There is a school of thought championed by the likes of Nassim Nicholas Taleb that argues for embracing volatility and randomness as incentives for innovation. In this view, the meticulously planned, top-down approach to change management is an illusion of control — which is often an issue, as I document in one of my publications about strategy. While this perspective has its merits, it’s neither a ‘carte blanche’ for recklessness nor anarchic chaos.
Based on my extensive experience in turnaround and crisis management, I advocate for what I call a ‘dynamic equilibrium’ approach to change — a fascinating process I discovered during my chemistry classes. In a business setting, this idea involves continuously assessing the internal and external environment and adjusting the degree of centralization, decentralization, innovation or standardization as the situation demands.
In other words, it’s not about pivoting from one extreme to the other but finding the right balance that allows stability and agility.
Take Kodak, a company that resisted change and became history. Contrast with the example of IBM’s transition from a hardware-centric business to a services and software powerhouse. Undoubtedly, the change was hard, but it was necessary and well-executed.
The Basic Change Approach
- Diagnosis: The first step is to audit in detail the existing systems, processes, and culture. This action usually involves a SWOT analysis, but the main focus is identifying potential bottlenecks, friction points, and risks that could interfere with the change process.
- Risk Assessment: Financial solvency, operational bottlenecks, and reputational fallout often dominate the immediate landscape. However, regulatory compliance and human capital attrition present latent threats that can exacerbate an already unstable situation.
- Planning: Once the diagnosis is complete, the next step is to formulate a strategic plan. This work involves setting clear objectives, timelines, KPIs, and contingency plans. I published a book about the Key elements of designing a continuity plan during crisis management programs: Operations Management and Actions for the First 50 Days of a Crisis.
- Execution: This is where things become delicate. Implement the plan in incremental stages, each with measurable outcomes, to allow course corrections without jeopardizing the entire initiative. Use constant monitoring and feedback loops.
- Evaluation: Conduct a rigorous post-implementation evaluation to assess the efficacy of the change, both in terms of the initial objectives and any emergent outcomes — especially against the set objectives and KPIs.
- Optimization: Use the insights from the evaluation to refine and optimize the process for future change initiatives and iterations.
The Myth of Perfect Change
In conclusion, change isn’t a one-off event but an ongoing process.
Besides, the narrative around change is overwhelmingly orientated towards the positive. But change is a “neutral” entity. Degeneration and atrophy through economic layoffs and strong acquisitions of a bad reputation are as much a part of the change spectrum as innovation and growth.
The key is discernment. If streamlined processes or strategies are efficient and sales are increasing, why disrupt for the sake of disruption ? As such, organizations need to adopt a fluid approach and be ready to pivot when circumstances dictate. This approach requires a robust framework for decision-making that incorporates pragmatism, technology, data analytics, and human psychology.
Elena Debbaut is a strategic execution expert to boards and executive teams. She leads and advises on complex transformations when governance barriers, internal politics, or structural fragmentation prevent organizations from executing critical decisions.
Specialities:
• governance-constrained transformation
• operational restructuring
• strategic recovery & execution