Why Is Transformation Hard?
Why is change hard? We think there are three reasons why change is hard. The first reason is that change is a system problem. Organizations, groups, people, and even individuals strive for congruence. Professors David Nadler and Michael Tushman argue that congruency means that organizations are designed to produce the result they are getting.1 Somewhere inside all organizations there has to be someone, or some system, that is satisfied with the current results of the organization; if not, the organization would change. For example, while a particular promotion policy based on seniority might make it difficult to put the most qualified person in the job, the human resources department might want the seniority system due to its simplicity and defensibility. At the individual level, the concept of congruence is similar to the concept of cognitive dissonance or self-justification.2 Individuals cannot hold two contradictory ideas in their head; the dissonance would produce stress. Thus if an individual wants to lose weight, make more money, or attract a better mate, yet they cannot, then there must be a reason for their inability to change. These (often subconscious) reasons could be that they do not want to give up the social aspect of eating out that makes it difficult to lose weight, they do not want to deal with the added stress that comes with a higher paying job, or they want to maintain the dominant role in their current relationship. Many individuals, like organizations, say they want change, but in reality, due to the current congruence in the organization, they do not. Often, what we pronounce about change is not our true intention.
The second reason is that businesses, families, and governments do not change; people within these organizations do. When making change efforts, we often overlook the key component of change: the individuals involved in the process. It is people who make automobiles and computers. It is people who have conversations and interactions in families. It is also people who deliver services in a government; if you want better results, you have to get those results not from the government but from the people within the government. Think of a soccer team. If a soccer team is losing games, and you want them to be a better team, what advice would you give them? You would not build a better stadium or buy different soccer balls or new uniforms. You would try to improve each soccer player’s skill and desire to become a better player. Yet often in organizations, it seems like we do everything but address the skills and desires of our employees.
It is true that tools, technologies, and methodologies are needed for transformation. Six Sigma, reengineering, and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards are great for enabling change, but when used alone, they are insufficient and often move the organization backward. Much like trying to bake a cake with too much sugar, it not only will taste bad but also was doomed to failure from the start.
The third reason is that change is a heart conversation, not a head conversation.3 People know they should change, but for some reason they do not. If you were to ask people how their lives could be improved, most people would name many things: They may say they need to lose weight, eat better, be a better parent, and so on. In the workplace if you were to ask a group of people what results they could improve upon, they would also list many areas for improvement: customer service, quality, and so forth. Yet when asked if they are actually making these improvements, the same people will usually say no. So if people know what to change, but are not working on making the change, the question is why? Answering this question is not going to come through education, knowledge, or reasoning. This is because change is as much an emotional issue as it is a mental issue. People are comfortable in their comfort zone. Herbert Simon calls this “satisficing.”4 Instead of striving for the best outcome or the best solution, individuals base their decision upon what is acceptable. Given that their current situations is always acceptable (if it were not, they would not be in their current situation) satisficing lowers the probability of change. Notice we said acceptable, not effective or successful. Also, the congruency of the organization offers a known level of comfort to the organization. Change represents the unknown, and thus people are often afraid of what life would be like in this future organization.
In summary, we argue that organizational change is a system problem, change can only be achieved through changing people, and the process itself is as much emotional as it is mental. Failure to understand these three truisms will doom your change efforts before you even get started.