Many popular change models, like Kotter’s eight-stage process and Prosci’s ADKAR, lack robust empirical testing and validation. For example, Kotter’s eight-stage process, while widely praised and applied, has limited direct empirical support. Most of the evidence for this model comes from Kotter himself, and it is frequently used as a post-hoc framework to explain case studies rather than as the primary driver of change interventions. Studies have also found it inadequate in representing the complexity of real-world change processes.
Similarly, change models such as Prosci’s ADKAR present a rational, linear view of change, but fail to capture the complexity, messiness, and political nature of real-world organizational change. These models are often overly simplistic and reductionist, leading to overly simplistic and even contradictory recommendations in practice. Change is usually a non-linear, iterative process with competing agendas and unpredictable outcomes.
Most change models share similar underpinnings, derived from early works like Lewin’s three-step model, with few particularly unique components. This overlap results in limited diversity in techniques available to practitioners, perpetuating the use of models with weak empirical foundations. And to be clear, no single change model or blueprint consistently delivers more than passing success, as every organization, culture, and context is unique. Contingency approaches, emphasizing that effective change management depends on adapting strategies and interventions to the specific circumstances, are generally purported to be more successful. But the lack of a one-size-fits-all solution makes it crucial for practitioners to be knowledgeable about many change models, their strengths and weaknesses, and the factors that influence their effectiveness in different situations.
According to Rousseau and tenHave (2022), evidence-based change management is defined as “the science-informed practice of managing planned organizational change.” An evidence-based approach to organizational change utilizes trustworthy data, obtained from multiple sources, to help identify the real problems an organization faces. It recognizes that using trustworthy information is critical to making effective change decisions because it ensures a more comprehensive understanding of the organization, its stakeholders, and the potential impact of change interventions.
They cite four sources of change management evidence:
Scientific evidence: This refers to existing research, studies, and findings on organizational change management. When considering interventions like training or incentives, for example, it is valuable to check scientific literature to learn about their effectiveness and success factors. However, it is important to note that the authors also point out the lack of robust scientific evidence in many organizational change studies.
A significant share of the research on organizational change management is based on low-quality evidence, making it difficult to discern which practices truly have the intended effect. Research based on case studies, for example, are often used to purport the effectiveness of specific change models post-hoc rather than to test them rigorously. In addition, many appraisals of organizational change methods employ unreliable or invalid measures in broad surveys, further contributing to the challenge of identifying consistent evidence-based best practices.
Organizational evidence: This includes data and metrics available within the organization, such as employee surveys, performance data, customer feedback, and financial reports. This type of evidence can help to diagnose problems, assess readiness for change, and monitor progress over time. It is important to use reliable metrics from different stakeholders to provide relevant feedback and improve planning.
Stakeholder evidence: This involves gathering input from various stakeholders who are affected by the change, such as employees, customers, suppliers, and community members. This can be done through interviews, focus groups, surveys, and open forums. Attending to stakeholder concerns is crucial for building trust and support for the change.
Practitioner experience: This encompasses the knowledge, insights, and expertise of experienced change managers and consultants. However, relying solely on experience can be tricky, as each change situation is unique and feedback on success can be unclear. When engaging change consultants, even those purported to have extensive experience, it’s important to probe for evidence of their effectiveness in areas relevant to the organization’s needs.
Rousseau and tenHave recommend 4 key questions for deriving trustworthy evidence:
Change interventions based on trustworthy facts tend to make sense to change recipients and can make them more committed to the change. Employees also tend to trust managers who provide evidence for the decisions they make, and the use of multiple sources of evidence suggests that care was taken to make a good decision. This trust is important because change is more likely to succeed when employees trust their leaders. A lack of trust from employees often means that senior leaders do not have good information about what’s actually happening in their organizations.
When change leaders consult multiple sources of evidence, they can consider many possible definitions of a problem and evaluate how plausible each definition is. Gathering information from scientific evidence, organizational data, experienced practitioners, and stakeholders makes it more likely that the true problem will be identified, leading to the development of solutions that address that problem.
And when it comes to their own professional practice, change managers frequently face the challenge of having limited opportunities to learn from their own experience. Unlike, for example, surgeons, change managers do not repeat the same tasks frequently and often do not receive clear, timely feedback on the results of their work. This makes it difficult to learn from experience what change management strategies work and which ones don’t. Using trustworthy information and evidence-based change guidelines can improve change decisions.
By effectively leveraging all four sources of evidence, change managers can make more informed decisions, build trust with employees, and increase the likelihood of achieving desired change outcomes. This approach fosters a more data-driven and collaborative change process. And creating a history of successful change, as demonstrated through organizational and stakeholder evidence, can contribute to a positive change story and increase an organization’s readiness for future changes.
Sources:
Burnes, B. and Jackson, P. (2011), “Success and failure in organizational change: an exploration of the role of values”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 133-162
Evans, T.R. (2020), “Improving Evidence Quality for Organizational Change Management Through Open Science”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(2):367-378.
Mosadeghrad, A.M. and Ansarian, M. (2014), “Why do organisational change programmes fail?”, International Journal of Strategic Change Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 189-218
Rousseau, D.M. and tenHave, S. (2022), “Evidence-based change management”, Organizational Dynamics, 51(3).