Navigating the messiness of change beyond theoretical frameworks
Within change management there are many different methodologies and frameworks, with different paths promising a clear and structured way to achieve successful change.
However, no matter how much effort is put into planning change, real life change is rarely straightforward. Organizations consist of diverse groups of people, projects that run in parallel or interweave and other factors leading to unpredictability. This blog aims to highlight the at times uncomfortable gap between theoretical frameworks and practical execution, with the perspective of the ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) change management framework.
The gap between theory and reality of creating desire
Frameworks like ADKAR supply a compelling narrative for change: starting with awareness, nurturing the desire, imparting knowledge, building ability, and finally reinforcing the new way of working. However, change within organizations is rarely linear and without hiccups. There are crosscurrents, for example departmental or organizational silos, individual career priorities, and simultaneous project, changes or initiatives competing for employee’s attention. People only have so much attention to give, and most are taken up by their daily work tasks. Let’s have a look at how theory and practice may crash – because how would one go about creating desire for both innovators and laggards?
Employees may be at completely different stages of the change curve; some are eager, some skeptical, and some completely opposed. Creating desire for change is challenging, especially when balancing the needs of both innovators and laggards. Innovators are typically eager for new opportunities, while laggards may feel more comfortable with established routines and may be skeptical of change. By the time laggards begin to accept one change, innovators may be pushing for the next, and this misalignment could breed frustration and fatigue. In extreme cases it may even cause resentment, from both camps.
For innovators, it may look like “How can they oppose these change? They make our process ten times easier and faster.”, while for the laggards it may look like “Why can’t they ever be content with the process as it is? It works just fine.”. Both camps are absolutely allowed to feel whichever frustrating feeling they have regarding the change.
To build genuine desire, the approach should be tailored to the spectrum of employees. From emphasizing advancement and impact for innovators to reassuring laggard based on empathy, trust and job security. This process is of course ideal in theory, but how does this translate into practice? When have you ever been part of a project where the money and the time is sufficient to facilitate a successful desire phase for everyone?
Consider, too, there are compounding factors: organizational culture, change fatigue from previous change processes, and leadership styles all influence how frameworks are adopted and change processes translated from theory to practice. The ADKAR model may provide a map, but the change terrain of each organization is unique and often rather bumpy. What works in one context may fail in another, and rigid adherence to any model can inadvertently steer a change project in the wrong direction.
Should compliance trump employee comfort?
A precarious dilemma in change management is whether to delay critical changes—such as those driven by regulatory compliance or cybersecurity needs—until broad consensus is achieved. This dilemma is not only theoretical, because regulatory and compliance-driven changes often need to be swiftly implemented to avoid unnecessary risks. Should organizations risk fines, penalties, or the loss of critical data to give laggards more time to adjust? Or, instead, is it sometimes necessary to set a firm path, communicating clearly, respecting concerns, but ultimately prioritizing organizational survival?
While letting all voices be heard is the most inclusive and by-the-book approach, it can place the entire enterprise at risk. Temporary discomfort for some is often more desirable than placing the entire enterprise in severe risk. The challenge, then, is to balance empathy and inclusion with the non-negotiable imperative of staying compliant and secure.
Perhaps it’s time to rethink how we approach change in practice?
While it’s important to acknowledge concerns and strive for inclusion, there are times when decisive action is required, especially when one may incur legal or business risks. The practice of change management is as complex as the organizations that use it to guide their change processes. Is there a “best” way to balance the needs of innovators, early adopters, and laggards? Are frameworks like ADKAR sufficient, or should organizations prioritize agility and context-specific approaches? Although no framework promises success, it’s worth mentioning that many who utilize these frameworks expect their efforts to translate into success. The ultimate lesson: Embrace flexibility, use frameworks like ADKAR as guides, and never underestimate the importance of creativity. In the end, lasting transformation requires both structure and adaptability, with leaders and teams willing to learn, adjust, and move forward together.
Do you need assistance to ensure successful change?
No matter what approach your organization chooses to take, we at Infotechtion are here to help you reach all your information and data security goals in Microsoft 365. We are experts at translating needs and requirements to successful implementation of data security change. Please feel free to reach out at contact@infotechtion.com to learn how we can help keep your information safe, and your digital environment compliant.