Why Organizational Change Fails: How a quest turned into a book
Our book, Why Organizational Changer Fails,¹ is now finished. It is a result we are proud of. But perhaps we are even prouder of the process that we went through in order to arrive at this book: a quest for something that exists but appears as if it does not; the description of a phenomenon for which there are no words yet. It has provided us with insight, and it has changed us as organizational professionals and change agents. It was an interesting process, part of which we would like to share on this site.
The fact that there is value in change, is something understood. That organizations change is undeniable. This is what we have found and continue to find. They change by themselves or in response to a change process. This is something we saw as well. In all cases, however, they change only partially.
In recent years, we both became increasingly puzzled by this phenomenon. While we have both always had a positive attitude towards change (the world is imperfect and could be so much better), we have increasingly come to see how changes fail, how they are overtaken by the next desire for change or by the implementation of yet another measure through which management will really be able to take control. We also developed growing sympathy with all of those employees who react with dismay or apathy and for the outsiders who regard the great changes that have been put in place as largely tragic or comical. Gradually, we became aware of the fact that organizations have a habit of protecting themselves from such change interventions; of developing an immunity as it were. Was this really the case, and what was actually going on?
To find the answers to these questions, we organized a small conference at the beginning of 2006, which brought together managers and organizational consultants. We asked a number of scientist and scholars from other disciplines to shed light on the role that unchangeability plays in their own fields. Taking these introductory lectures as our starting point, we talked about what kind of relevance and value these stories and insights might have for the field of organizational and change management. As the conference came to an end, we personally were left with two insights that had struck us in particular. Firstly, the conference had really helped us to more of an insight into the blind spots within our own professional field. Secondly, we noticed how difficult it was for managers and consultants to talk about unchangeability. It was not an easy topic to investigate with people who are constantly working with change and have been trained to conceive a solution for every change-related problem. And we are by no means excluding ourselves from this group.
When we told people that we were investigating the unchangeable side of organizations, we received three kinds of responses.
The first type of reaction was one of recognition and relief. It provided people with the language needed to verbalize something they observed but could not easily define or put a name to. During the aforementioned conference, for example, one of the managers who attended saw that the power that managers have to change things is in reality only very limited. To his relief, the discussion made him realize that his ambition for change had thus far been excessive in relation to the organization’s capacity for change.
Another category was formed by reactions characterized by denial or even anger. For the people who reacted in this way, change was the be all and end all. To them, if something fails to change, this simply means you have not done a good job, or that you have encountered a temporary ‘blip’ that can be overcome. A true believer does not give up so easily.
The third category included reactions from colleagues who questioned the commercial wisdom of investigating unchangeability; after all, we earn our living by doing things that are possible, right?
But by now we were hooked. Having noticed how the topic of organizational unchangeability met with so much recognition, as well as denial, we asked ourselves: What is going on here? What is it? Where does it reside? How can you see it, and what keeps us from seeing it? In the grip of this fascination, at some point we decided that these discussions should lead to a book. It was no easy task, however, to write a book about something that does not exist.
Although we had plenty of practical experience, we lacked a framework within which it could be placed.
We had a great deal of help in creating this framework. In addition to existing theories, we received even more help from the scientists and scholars who wrote essays as introductions to the various chapters. They illustrated for us – from within their own fields – pieces of the phenomenon of unchangeability. Their insights helped us along our way. The same is true of the insights and reactions provided by co-readers and people with whom we discussed the topic. What a wealth of images, and what a lot of help in bringing such a fuzzy phenomenon into focus!
Perhaps the best part of writing the book involved talking about it with each other and with others.
As we wrote, it became clear how much we were possessed by the ‘focus on change’. In writing the book, we often found it difficult to keep our focus on the unchangeable aspects. This also explains the struggle that we experienced while writing this book with regard to what unchangeability, once intuited, actually is. We regularly caught ourselves reverting to the familiar ground of discussing change instead of unchangeability. It was like trying to keep a roly-poly toy on its side. Consistently thinking in terms of unchangeability proved a true brainteaser. As we wrote, however, we learned to see unchangeability. It gradually came into focus for us.
As a result, other things happened. We started our journey in search of unchangeability from feelings irritation and of having failed in our own professional practice of implementing change. Why do so many of our changes meet with limited or no success? Why is it that, a few years on, we often observe that less has actually changed than we thought was the case when we left? Why do changes often proceed so sluggishly? We were irritated by the fact that all of this used up a great deal of energy, and our feelings of inadequacy resulted from the high expectations many of our clients seemed to have, combined with the fact that some of our colleagues did have success stories to tell. We immersed ourselves in theories about resistance and different ways of dealing with it. We saw that, in many cases, such resistance is actually resistance to resistance. After all, the resistance that agents of change ascribe to others often sparks resistance and irritation on their own part as well.
Gradually our interest, which stemmed from negative experiences, turned into a fascination with the phenomenon of unchangeability as such. We became intrigued by the fact that there is so much that cannot be changed. We started to wonder why, when so many changes fail, so little research is done into the unchangeable side of organizations. Another thing that struck us was how, in assessments of failed changes, people tend to focus on the approach taken (‘If we had only done it in another way, it would have worked...’) instead of on the capacity for change of the ‘object’ that is to be changed.
We ultimately gained the insight that, while unchangeability might be a problem for the change agent, it often holds the answer for the organization involved. We gained an increasingly clear image of an organization that is imperfect (like everything in this world), but that has earned its stripes and that is confronted with agents of change who think that things should be different.
We developed growing sympathy and understanding for the position organizations and their inhabitants are in, as they arm themselves against attack, neglect, destruction, ignorance and change-mania. We also became increasingly aware that it is a blessing that organizations do not allow everything about them to be changed. This unchangeability is a force. Robustness is the past, and therefore the future. Moreover, the reaction we are confronted with as change agents, which we describe as tenacity in the book, is actually the manifestation of an organization’s vitality, strength and value. We should really be thankful that so many change initiatives fail!
In the end, change proved to be of just as important as unchangeability after all. Parallel to the book, we wrote an article for M&O.² The gist of some of the most important comments by colleagues was that the article was ‘great, but it contains so little perspective on change’. When we started working with these comments, we noticed that, by proceeding from unchangeability, we could also translate our insights and apply them to change. This final twist was also included in the book. Our circle is thus complete: from change to unchangeability to change. A beautiful balance.
Our book is now complete. It is caught between hard covers and therefore unchangeable. However, we hope the process of thinking about unchangeability keeps moving and developing for a long while yet.
Leike van Oss & Jaap van ’t Hek, June 2008
__________________________
