In “ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and our Community” (2006), Jeffrey Hiatt suggests that successful change is rooted in facilitating change 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭. According to Hiatt, the five elements of his model — 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗿𝗲, 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲, 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆, and 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 — are all necessary for an individual to realize change. When all elements of ADKAR are achieved, in Hiatt’s opinion, individuals become more engaged and energized, leading to faster adoption rates, more employee contribution and, ultimately, more successful change initiatives.

To formulate the ADKAR model, Hiatt took the change activities prescribed in various books and a number of consultancies and mapped them to their intended outcome. He suggested that by sequencing change management activities, such as communications, sponsorship, readiness assessments, coaching, training, and resistance management, the individual would experience awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement, and benefits of the change would be realized. While the method likely differs little from that of any other purveyor of change management folklore, one should certainly consider this a creative work rather than one derived in evidence.

Similarly, in their book, “It Starts with One: Changing Individuals Changes Organizations” (2008), Black and Gregersen offer a similar prescription for change: “Without individual change, there is no organizational change.” While the authors claim over 20 years of “research” with over “10,000 managers” (remarkably comparable to Prosci’s own assertion), they offer no empirical proof for this claim. Instead, they offer only their “experience” as evidence.

Black and Gregersen state that most books on organizational change get the process backward by emphasizing changes to organizational processes, structures, and systems, rather than focusing on the individual as the primary driver of change. In other words, these books advocate for an “organization in” approach, which assumes that individual change will automatically occur once the organization has been restructured in some way. The authors suggest that this is a common but ultimately flawed approach.

Instead, they advocate an “individual out” approach. They believe lasting change can only happen when you start by changing individual mindsets and behaviors. Then they suggest a 4-stage framework for organizational change:

𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚 1: 𝘿𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙤 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡.

𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚 2: 𝘿𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜.

𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚 3: 𝘿𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙙𝙤 𝙞𝙩 𝙥𝙤𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙮, 𝙖𝙩 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩.

𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙚 4: 𝙀𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙙𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡.

The authors argue that the challenge of leading change lies in effectively navigating this fundamental change process. But wait…what about the individual? Unfortunately, the latter part of the book gives way primarily to change process, what the authors state is the problem with the “other” books on change management.

And they highlight that change failure results from three factors: the “see,” “move,” and “finish” barriers. See, as in seeing or not seeing the need for the change; Move, as in taking action or not taking action to pursue that change; and Finish, as in following through to complete the change process. Lacking any formal backing in research, however, it is safe to say that this framework is also simply opinion and folklore.

Intuitively, however, the idea of the primacy of the individual does make sense. In actual practice, however, is it realistic? Do 𝗔𝗟𝗟 individuals affected by a change really need to be fully ADKAR’d or individual out’d in order for an organizational change to be successful?

While Hiatt does not explicitly state that all individuals must experience all five elements of ADKAR before successful organizational change is possible, Prosci literature states that “successful organizational change only results when individuals are successful at change” and “organizational change is only successful when each impacted individual makes their own successful transition.” Lacking any empirical evidence to suggest that this is the case, we find ourselves, again, in the realm of change mythology.

But what Hiatt offers differs from that of Black and Gregersen in one very important respect: Hiatt never states that he views the ADKAR model as a scientific breakthrough. Rather, he offers ADKAR as a framework for understanding and applying many different approaches for managing change. The model enables other change management tactics to have critical focus and direction. This is why it endures and remains valuable for practitioners.

While there is little or no empirical evidence to support the idea that individuals must change before organizations can change, a group of researchers, Vakola, Armenakis, & Oreg, conducted 2 studies in which they examined individual reactions to change. In one study (2011) they examined 79 quantitative empirical studies published between 1948 and 2007 to understand how individuals respond to organizational change. In the other (2013), they examined an additional 57 empirical studies published between 1975 and 2010.

To be included in this analysis of change recipients’ reactions to organizational change, studies had to meet specific requirements. First, they had to describe an actual organizational change. The study would not address change only conceptually or hypothetically. Second, the study had to assess change recipients’ reactions to the change. Studies that did not assess any type of change recipient reaction to the change were excluded. And finally, the study was required to employ a quantitative methodology. The review focused specifically on quantitative investigations. Applying these criteria ensured that the selected articles provided empirical evidence about how individuals within organizations respond to real-life organizational change.

Both studies utilized Piderit’s (2000) tripartite categorization of reactions to change, which includes affective, cognitive, and behavioral components. Affective reactions refer to the feelings and emotions someone experiences in response to change. These can be both positive, such as excitement and hope, and negative, such as stress, anxiety, and anger. Cognitive reactions encompass an individual’s beliefs, thoughts, and perceptions about the change. This includes how they evaluate the change, whether they believe it is necessary and beneficial, and their sensemaking of the change. And finally, behavioral reactions are the actions and intended actions individuals take in response to the change. This includes things like active participation, information seeking, or resistance behaviors like protesting the change or trying to prevent it from happening.

From these studies, the authors developed a model of change recipient reactions to organizational change that includes five primary antecedent categories. These were categorized as pre-change antecedents and change antecedents. Pre-change antecedents are conditions that exist before a change is introduced, such as recipient characteristics and the internal context of the organization. Change antecedents, on the other hand, involve aspects of the change itself that can influence how employees react, including the change process, their perceived benefit/harm from the change, and the change content. These are discussed below.

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀

Change recipient characteristics refer to the individual differences that predispose people to respond to a change in particular ways. These break down into four categories. Personality traits, which include traits like locus of control, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and positive and negative affectivity. Coping styles, which refers to individuals’ typical coping mechanisms in stressful situations, such as problem-focused coping versus emotion-focused coping. Motivational needs, that encompass needs that drive behavior, such as higher-order needs for achievement and growth. And demographics, which include factors like age, gender, tenure, and education level.

𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁

Internal context encompasses aspects of the organization’s pre-change environment that can shape employee reactions. It includes factors such as employees’ perceptions of management as trustworthy, supportive, and respectful; the overall atmosphere and values of the organization, communication climate, and cultural fit with the proposed change; and elements of job design, such as skill variety, autonomy, and decision latitude.

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀

Change process centers on the way the change is implemented and managed in the organization. It includes factors such as the extent to which employees are involved in planning and implementing the change; the quality and amount of information provided to employees about the change; the perceived fairness of the change process and how employees are treated during the change; the support provided by change agents and opinion leaders during the change; and the perceived competence and effectiveness of management in implementing the change.

𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁/𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗺

This category focuses on employees’ perceptions of the personal implications of the change, including potential gains or losses. Factors considered in this category can include employees’ expectations about how the change will affect their workload, job complexity, job control, compensation, and career prospects, any perceived threat to job security because of the change, and the perceived fairness of the outcomes resulting from the change.

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁

This category centers on the actual nature and type of change, rather than how it is managed or its perceived implications. Studies in this category examine how different types of changes influence employee reactions. The degree or meaningfulness of the change can also be considered as part of the change content, for example, whether the change is perceived as ongoing or the extent of change

The researchers conclude that individual reactions to change are crucial in determining the success or failure of organizational change initiatives, arguing that understanding and managing these reactions is essential for effective change implementation. They stress that managers often fail to consider how employees will perceive and react to change. They advocate for a more inclusive and participatory change process that takes into account employee needs and concerns. They also highlight, however, the limitations of their review and advocate for further research in several areas, including longitudinal studies that track individual reactions over time, multi-source data collection to minimize bias, and investigations into the role of change agents in responding to employee reactions. Notwithstanding these concerns, they provide a reliable framework for change agents seeking to increase their influence on individual responses to change.

Sources:

Black, J.S. & Gregersen, H.B. (2008), “It Starts with One: Changing Individuals Changes Organizations”, Wharton School Publishing.

Hiatt, J.M. (2006), “ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and our Community”, Prosci Research.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M. & Armenakis, A. (2011), “Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change: A 60 Year Review of Quantitative Studies”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.

Piderit, S. (2000), “Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes Toward an Organizational Change”. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783-794.

Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., & Oreg, S. (2013). Reactions to organizational change from an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. In S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R. T. By (Eds.), The psychology of Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employee’s Perspective (pp. 95–122). Cambridge University Press.