If Your Change Management Causes Doubts, Here's Why and What's Next...

"I had doubts too, so I sought answers. Here is what I discovered and why I created Förändring."

Change is changing...

Introduction

Creating a new solution for change management was never something I set out to do. In fact, I had every intention of working within the established frameworks that so many organizations rely on. Over time, however, my doubts about the effectiveness of these approaches became too significant to ignore.

As I encountered challenges and inconsistencies, I began to wonder if the root of the problem was my own understanding, the models themselves, or something deeper within the field. This question became impossible to set aside. I realized that to move forward, I needed to look beyond the surface and truly examine where things were breaking down.

The Lens I Bring: Experience and Tools Behind My Analysis

Over the past twenty-five years, I have worked hands-on in change management in some capacity, applying various methodologies across diverse organizations and challenges. This practical experience is complemented by formal training in Lean and Six Sigma, multiple change management and project management certifications, and two master's degrees where I authored papers focused on change management.

This blend of practical application, formal training, and scholarly research has equipped me with the tools to critically evaluate existing models and identify where they fall short.

Analysis

What I found initially was that contemporary change management is surrounded by a mythology and belief system that is often mistaken for fact rather than recognized as perspective. These deeply embedded assumptions, illusions, and biases are so ingrained in the discipline that setting them aside proved to be a significant challenge it itself.

I went back to the very beginning, examining Lewin's model from 1947 to trace the origins of formal change management, determining whether the foundational theory was ever truly valid and whether it still holds up today. Then I studied the major models since that time through to the present day. To truly understand the effectiveness of these approaches, I adopted the stance of a cold-eyed reviewer, refusing to accept any claim or principle unless it could be verified.

I began with the outcomes organizations actually need and worked backward, challenging each step to see if it stood up to scrutiny. This process forced me to separate fact from fiction, discerning what was necessary, what wasn’t, and what was a false lead entirely.

Analysis Results – Premises

What stood out to me was that each prominent contemporary change management framework had each been created to address the specific challenges of its respective era.

• Lewin's foundational work emerged in the aftermath of World War II, with a focus on restoring cultural cohesion.

• McKinsey's framework responded to the demands of a rapidly globalizing economy.

• Kotter's model took shape during a time when hierarchical structures dominated and leadership was the primary driver of organizational change.

• PROSCI's model was developed in an era marked by relative stability, before the digital revolution (pre-Y2K even) and before major global disruptions (like September 11).

  
  

In each of those eras, change was comparatively infrequent but often deeply personal. This resulted in an emphasis being placed on helping individuals accept and psychologically adjust to new realities. These approaches were well suited to the challenges of their time.

However, since the digital revolution, change has become culturally ubiquitous and more often involves technical adjustments rather than deeply personal shifts. The focus has moved from removing psychological resistance to enabling people and systems to adapt quickly. A new category of change has emerged to dominate the transformation landscape, and applying traditional methods to these new realities is far less effective.

Results of Analysis – Approaches

A closer examination of contemporary models’ recommended practices reveals several persistent shortcomings. First, these approaches are overwhelmingly theory-based—heavy on abstract concepts but light on practical, real-world application. I consistently encountered broad suggestions with few truly actionable steps.

Much of the formalized activity and process that exists centers on assessments, surveys, and readiness checks, which while valuable, are tasks that should have been completed before any decision to launch an implementation project had been made. They are occurring in the wrong stage of the process, but without a structured flow of a transformation lifecycle, it is understandable how this has happened. Right activity, wrong timing. 

In contrast the development and execution of a viable implementation plan, which ultimately determines the success or failure of transformation adoption has little if any formality or process, relying instead upon a practitioner’s individual aptitude and instincts.

I found the premise of resistance to change as being obsessively attention stealing, with even healthy questioning or curiosity labeled as resistance.  This relentless pursuit of buy-in can create psychological pressure to conform or risk being singled out, undermining individual autonomy and discouraging honest feedback. There is also an unfounded predilection to delve into psychoanalysis without relevant qualifications, and a fabrication of scenarios that are at best exceptions or anomalies made to justify an increase of activities for the majority.

Ironically, these practices can be more disruptive than stabilizing.

Communication activities become a stand-in for actual implementation rather than a tool for clarity. All change is treated as essentially the same, with little distinction made regarding how different types impact recipients, nor any acknowledgment that some changes will inevitably be perceived as negative.

Complexity creation has become a fascination, whereby more charts, tasks, and activities are considered to create more value. There is a fundamental replacement of the mission goal with the potential mission enabling factors.

Finally, the lack of a true procedural approach leaves practitioners to rely on their best judgment for every aspect. Without a repeatable and reproducible method, outcomes depend more on individual practitioner skills than on the framework itself. This creates inconsistency of both the journey and results for the practitioners and the leadership alike.

Förändring: A New Approach

Recognizing these shortcomings, I realized that more than correction was needed, and that a re-engineered, built for purpose solution set was required. It had to be ethical, practical, and actionable. Accordingly, it had to be logical and as simple as it could be, the outcome was delivered by the activities, which were created by the conditions of the change item and the change recipient. It needs to be result focused, and built for the practitioner to use effectively.

Förändring is based on four foundations that to my mind, all transformation initiatives must contain:

• Ethos: Förändring establishes the Ethical Covenant, recognizing that change management can have a darker side if not monitored.

  
  

• Structure: Förändring’s Architecture creates a lifecycle flow from inception to handover completion that defines the purpose, roles, relationship and responsibilities of each stage.

  
  

• Strategy: The approach that Förändring brings is the PACT Strategy, which means the Psyche / Ability Centered Transformation approach. This categorizes the relationship of the change recipient to the change item and develops an implementation plan accordingly.

  
  

• Methodology: Förändring employs the Adaptic™ Methodology, a standardized set of categorizations, activities and linking logic that focus on building the implementation plan and delivering the implementation plan.

This holistic approach to creating an ethic, contextualizing the change lifecycle, having a guiding philosophy and a standardized toolset focused on implementation delivery creates a suite of solutions that enable successful outcomes.

 Conclusion

If you have ever felt uneasy about the effectiveness of traditional change management, you are not alone. The world has changed, and so too must our methods. Real improvement requires more than minor tweak, it demands a fundamental rethinking of our assumptions and practices and consequently a re-design of our thoughts, tools and techniques.

Förändring is my response to these challenges. It is an invitation to move beyond traditional models and embrace an approach that is truly fit for purpose in today's dynamic environment. I encourage you to reflect on your own experiences with change, challenge the status quo, and join the conversation about what effective transformation should look like now and in the future.

www.Forandring.ca