• AI adoption succeeds when it builds on familiar tech adoption principles while addressing new trust-related concerns.

• Tailored strategies matter: industry norms, organizational culture, and AI type all shape what works.

• Trust challenges go beyond automation—spanning transparency, fairness, and perceived impacts on roles.

• Social influence is powerful and often underestimated; peer behavior shapes adoption even when not acknowledged.

AI adoption builds on many familiar lessons from past technology rollouts—but it also raises new, trust-centered challenges that demand fresh thinking. From concerns about transparency and fairness to uncertainty about how AI will affect roles and responsibilities, trust emerges as a critical differentiator. This article explores where traditional adoption strategies still apply, where they fall short, and how to support effective, context-sensitive AI integration.

Why Defining AI Is a Crucial First Step in Driving Adoption

While many people report having heard of artificial intelligence, studies show that more than half feel unsure about what AI actually is—or how and when it’s being used. This uncertainty presents a significant, often overlooked, barrier to adoption.

Understanding AI shapes how people perceive its value, how much they trust it, and whether they believe they can successfully use it. In that sense, defining AI isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s a strategic first step in preparing an organization for successful implementation.

At its core, artificial intelligence refers to systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. Some example definitions include:

“AI is the imitation of human behavior (ability to think, solve problems, learn, correct oneself, etc.) by computer.”

“Artificial intelligence devices can simulate human behaviors (e.g., talk, walk, express emotions) and/or intelligence (e.g., learning, analysis, independent consciousness).”

“Artificial intelligence refers to computers and robots doing things that traditionally require using human intelligence.”

Beyond a basic definition, it’s also helpful to clarify the specific type of AI being implemented in your organization, and the capabilities users will encounter directly. This could include explaining whether the system makes recommendations, automates decisions, or interacts using natural language—and doing so in plain, practical terms.

Creating this shared understanding early on helps people feel more confident, more in control, and more open to engaging with AI meaningfully—all of which are essential for adoption.

Usefulness and Ease of Use Are Still Top Drivers of AI Adoption

Early research in AI suggests that the many key drivers of AI adoption mirror those of broader technology adoption. Across studies, two core factors most strongly shape people’s willingness to use AI systems:

• Perceived usefulness – Will this AI system improve my job performance? Will it make specific tasks easier or more efficient?

• Ease of use – Is the system intuitive and user-friendly? What kind of training or support will I need to use it effectively?

These factors have long been central to the success of new technology adoption—and they remain highly relevant when introducing AI. If people don’t see clear value or feel confident using a system, adoption is unlikely, no matter how advanced the underlying technology.

That said, AI also introduces new layers of complexity, such as trust, transparency, and perceived fairness. While usefulness and ease of use are foundational, they're no longer sufficient on their own. Leaders must design adoption strategies that address both the familiar drivers and the unique challenges AI presents.

The Trust Factor: A Unique Challenge in AI Adoption in Organizations

While traditional technology adoption emphasizes perceived usefulness and ease of use, AI introduces an additional and complex variable: trust. Research to date frames trust in AI as multifaceted, involving both human-like and functional dimensions.

Human-Like Trust Factors

These refer to how users perceive the AI’s intentions and “character”—in ways that resemble how we judge other people:

• Competence – The belief that the AI can perform tasks effectively.

• Integrity – The sense that the AI follows acceptable rules or principles.

• Benevolence – The belief that the AI acts in the user’s best interest.

Functional Trust Factors

These relate to how well the AI operates and how its behavior is understood:

• Reliability – Consistent, dependable performance over time.

• Explainability – The extent to which users can understand how the AI reaches its conclusions.

• Transparency – Clarity about the AI’s capabilities, limitations, and data sources.

Current studies indicate that functional trust is especially influential in AI adoption decisions—because it’s closely tied to whether the system is seen as capable and dependable. For example, in managerial or decision-support contexts, users must trust the AI to provide accurate, consistent analysis based on available data.

That said, in domains like healthcare, education, and customer service, where empathy, interaction, and care matter, human-like trust factors may carry more weight. In these settings, users may be more influenced by how well the AI mimics human qualities or appears to act with positive intent.

To build trust, change leaders can focus on:

• Demonstrating consistent performance to establish reliability

• Explaining how AI decisions are made to improve explainability

• Being transparent about the system’s scope and limitations

• Clearly communicating how AI use is governed within the organization

These actions help establish the credibility and confidence needed for users to adopt AI as part of their daily work.

Context Matters: Tailoring Trust-Building Strategies

Building trust in AI isn’t one-size-fits-all. Studies suggest that the importance of trust—and which trust factors matter most—varies based on context, including industry, national culture, and the specific type of AI in use.

For example:

• Type of trust: In domains like financial services or customer-facing applications, human-like trust factors—such as perceived integrity and benevolence—may play a larger role. In contrast, workplace tools that employees depend on may shift focus toward functional factors like reliability and result accuracy, particularly when users have little choice about whether to engage with the system.

• National culture: Survey data shows that individuals in emerging economies (e.g., India, China, Brazil) report higher general trust in AI than those in developed economies such as Finland, the Netherlands, and Japan.

• Organizational domain: Willingness to trust AI also differs by functional area. For instance, studies report lower comfort with AI in Human Resources than in areas like healthcare diagnosis and treatment.

These variations suggest that trust-building strategies should be tailored, not templated. Change leaders may benefit from researching AI implementations in their specific industry, cultural context, and domain. Google Scholar is a good entry point for finding academic studies, while reports from consulting or AI firms may offer more current—though potentially commercially biased—insights.

Building Institutional Trust to Support AI Adoption

In addition to individual perceptions, institutional trust plays a key role in shaping how people engage with AI. A 2023 study from the University of Queensland found that people often rely on authoritative institutions to signal the safety and reliability of new technologies.

This trust is shaped by mechanisms such as:

• Government regulations

• Corporate ethics guidelines

• Organizational governance practices

However, the study also found that many people perceive these safeguards as insufficient—creating a gap between expectations and reality. For organizations, this presents an opportunity: demonstrating visible, credible AI governance practices can build trust and set them apart.

Rather than waiting for external regulators, change leaders can take proactive steps to:

• Define internal AI usage standards

• Communicate clearly about governance processes

• Align AI deployment with organizational values and ethics

By reinforcing institutional trust alongside functional and human-like trust factors, organizations can strengthen the foundation for successful AI adoption.

The Complex Role of Social Influence in AI Adoption

While trust plays a central role in shaping individual attitudes toward AI, social norms and peer behavior also have a powerful—though nuanced—impact, especially in high-contact settings like healthcare, education, and customer service.

Studies suggest that social influence is most potent during the early, pre-adoption phase, when people are still forming opinions. Over time, as individuals gain experience with AI, its direct influence may decline in favor of personal judgment.

However, a broader body of research across domains—from physicians' prescribing habits to community water conservation—suggests a counterintuitive insight:

People often believe they are guided by personal values or rational arguments, but are more influenced by peer behavior than they admit.

Moreover, these shifts don’t tend to spread through one charismatic “influencer.” Instead, behavior change travels most effectively through broad, well-connected networks—where many peers, across groups, demonstrate similar behaviors.

Implications for AI Adoption Strategies:

• Create visible examples of AI being used successfully by respected colleagues.

• Embed AI tools into team workflows, particularly across cross-functional groups.

• Leverage peer learning and normalization, rather than relying only on persuasive messaging or top-down encouragement.

By shaping the social context around AI use—not just the individual decision—you can increase adoption momentum in more durable, organic ways.

Bridging the Intention–Action Gap in AI Adoption

Even when people express willingness to adopt AI, there’s often a gap between intention and actual use. This is a common challenge in technology adoption more broadly—and one that AI initiatives must anticipate.

Most AI adoption studies focus on intentions, not behaviors. But research suggests that intentions alone don’t always lead to action. Instead, a range of "facilitating conditions"—both organizational and technological—can make the difference.

These include:

• Leadership commitment and support

• Hands-on training and ongoing guidance

• Dedicated time, resources, and infrastructure

Some AI-specific research echoes these findings, though results have been mixed. Still, the overall pattern is clear: lowering friction and boosting support increases the odds that AI tools will move from pilot to practice.

To close the gap between intention and action:

• Provide hands-on experience and reinforce with training and support.

• Identify and remove adoption barriers—such as lack of time, tools, or conflicting signals from leadership.

• Highlight visible investments in infrastructure to support AI use.

• Clarify how success will be measured and share ongoing progress and lessons learned.

• Celebrate early wins and model adoption broadly, especially among leaders.

• Acknowledge concerns and skepticism openly, with transparent responses.

By combining these operational enablers with attention to trust, context, and social influence, organizations can move beyond isolated interest toward meaningful, widespread AI adoption.

Tips for Change Leaders to Overcome AI Adoption Challenges

Successful AI adoption requires more than technical implementation—it demands a change strategy that accounts for both what’s familiar about technology adoption and what’s uniquely challenging about AI. While foundational drivers like usefulness and ease of use remain relevant, change leaders must also address trust, context, and the social dynamics that shape behavior.

Below are practical actions change leaders can take to build the organizational conditions for sustained AI adoption:

1. Define AI clearly: Provide specific definitions and examples of the types of AI being implemented in your organization. Consider creating brief videos to illustrate the AI's functionality and how users will experience it.

2. Build Multi-Faceted Trust: Develop strategies that address various aspects of human-like and functional aspects of trust in AI. This might include demonstrating the AI's reliability, explaining its decision-making process, and showcasing its positive impact on work processes.

3. Strengthen Institutional Trust: Develop and communicate clear ethics guidelines and governance practices for AI use in your organization. Consider partnering with respected external bodies to validate your approach.

4. Tailor Your Approach: Research AI adoption specific to your industry, country context, and the type of AI you're implementing. Use these insights to customize your change management strategies to fit your change context.

5. Leverage Social Influence: Identify and support early adopters, ideally groups of them, who can serve as visible examples of successful integration of AI into work practices. Create opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and sharing of AI experiences.

6. Monitor and Bridge the Intention-Action Gap: Regularly assess both intended and actual AI usage. Follow-up to identify barriers to adoption and develop targeted change interventions to address them.

7. Communicate Transparently: Be open about the capabilities and limitations of the AI solution. Address concerns proactively and create safe spaces for employees to express their doubts or reservations.

8. Provide Ongoing Support: Recognize that AI adoption is a journey, not a destination. Model the use of AI, at all levels where possible, and offer continuous learning opportunities, technical support, and channels for feedback and improvement suggestions.

References 

Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global environmental Change, 23(6), 1773-1785.

Bach, T. A., Khan, A., Hallock, H., Beltrão, G., & Sousa, S. (2024). A systematic literature review of user trust in AI-enabled systems: An HCI perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(5), 1251-1266.

Bankins, S., Ocampo, A. C., Marrone, M., Restubog, S. L. D., & Woo, S. E. (2024). A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for organizational behavior research and practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(2), 159-182.

Bedué, P., & Fritzsche, A. (2022). Can we trust AI? an empirical investigation of trust requirements and guide to successful AI adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35(2), 530-549.

Cao, G., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Understanding managers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions towards using artificial intelligence for organizational decision-making. Technovation, 106, 102312.

Centola, D. (2018, November 7). The Truth About Behavioral Change. MIT Sloan Management Review.

Chi, O. H., Gursoy, D., & Chi, C. G. (2022). Tourists’ attitudes toward the use of artificially intelligent (AI) devices in tourism service delivery: moderating role of service value seeking. Journal of Travel Research, 61(1), 170-185. (1)

Choung, H., David, P., & Ross, A. (2022). Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–13.  

Gansser, O. A., & Reich, C. S. (2021). A new acceptance model for artificial intelligence with extensions to UTAUT2: An empirical study in three segments of application. Technology in Society, 65, 101535. (2)

Gillespie, N., Lockey, S., Curtis, C., Pool, J., & Akbari, A. (2023). Trust in Artificial Intelligence: A Global Study. The University of Queensland and KPMG Australia.

Kelly, S., Kaye, S. A., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. (2023). What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 77, 101925. 

Kelley, S. (2022). Employee perceptions of the effective adoption of AI principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(4), 871-893.

5 charts that show what people around the world think about AI. World Economic Forum. (2022, 5 January)  (3).

Manning, C. (2020, September). Artificial Intelligence Definitions. Stanford University Human-centered Artificial Intelligence. 

Noonan, D. (2024, February 20). The 25% revolution--how big does a minority have to be to reshape society? Scientific American.

Russo, D. (2024). Navigating the complexity of generative AI adoption in software engineering. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology.

Tomoko Yokoi, M. R. W. (2024, May 30). How organizations navigate AI ethics. I by IMD.

AI Statement: Consensus was used, in addition to Google Scholar and Google Search, to identify relevant research on this topic. Claude was used to develop initial drafts from an outline and notes provided by the author. Claude was used as an assistant to interpret statistical findings from sources. ChatGPT was used to refine structure and mark-up to support search visibility.

This article was original published on September 13, 2024 and updated on July 15, 2025.

Photo by Pavel Danilyuk

• Use a three-part framework — completion, achievement, and satisfaction — to evaluate both implementation and outcomes comprehensively.

• Define success as a range, not a point, to reflect real-world progress and avoid all-or-nothing thinking.

• Start simple and plan early. Identify a few core change metrics during planning, and build your measurement capability over time.

Measuring the success of a change initiative isn’t optional—it’s essential. Yet many organizations still struggle to define what success looks like or how to track it. This article introduces a simple, three-part framework for evaluating change efforts using metrics for completion, achievement, and satisfaction. It offers practical guidance for setting meaningful KPIs, defining success as a range, and building a consistent approach to change measurement.

Use a Multi-Dimensional Definition of Change Success

Change success isn’t a single destination — it’s a multi-dimensional outcome. In her research on strategic decision implementation, Susan Miller proposed a framework for evaluating change success across three critical dimensions: completion, achievement, and acceptability. While many change efforts focus on just one or two of these areas, it’s only by measuring all three that you gain a complete picture of how successful your change initiative really is.

1. Achievement: Did the Change Deliver the Intended Results?

Achievement refers to the actual outcomes or benefits of the change — the "so what?" of the effort. It helps distinguish meaningful results from mere activity. For longer or transformational change initiatives, it’s helpful to break achievement into three time horizons:

• Ultimate outcomes (long-term):

  • These reflect the big-picture goals of the change. What is fundamentally different as a result?

  • Example: In the annual employee survey, agreement with ‘My manager gives me actionable feedback’ increases from 52% to 75% within one year of implementation.

• Mid-term indicators (intermediate):

  • These show whether you're making progress toward your ultimate outcomes.

  • Example: 65% of managers are rated as “have improved” on effective feedback provision in mid-year team pulse survey.

• Short-term outputs (early indicators):

  • These measure initial adoption — whether the change is in use, not yet how well it’s working.

  • Example: 85% of managers complete the feedback training and begin using the new 1:1 structure within the first month of rollout.

Achievement metrics often align with business impact, behavior change, or performance improvements — and are typically assessed over time as the change takes root.

2. Completion: Was the Change Executed as Planned?

Completion measures assess whether the change was delivered as intended — on time, on budget, and in scope. These often resemble project management KPIs but are vital for understanding implementation quality.

You can also track the execution of core change management activities — such as leadership alignment sessions, stakeholder mapping, or reinforcement strategies — as part of completion.

• Example metrics:

  • “All training modules launched by target date.”

  • “Change communications sent to 100% of impacted employees.”

  • “Deployment completed within 5% of planned budget.”

3. Acceptability: Do Stakeholders Support and Value the Change?

Acceptability captures how stakeholders perceive the change solution and process. It addresses questions like: Is the change seen as helpful? Fair? Worth the effort? These insights often come from perception data — and they change over time.

• Example metrics:

  • “70% of employees report satisfaction with how the change was communicated.”

  • “Managers rate the new performance system a 4 out of 5 on usability.”

  • “Pulse survey results show growing trust in leadership’s change decisions.”

Gather feedback throughout the initiative — not just at the end — to course-correct and reinforce adoption. Focus groups, surveys, and open feedback tools are valuable here.

Why You Need All Three

Each dimension — achievement, completion, and acceptability — is necessary, but not sufficient on its own:

• A project that’s delivered on time (completion) but produces no real benefits (achievement) isn’t successful.

• A change that delivers results but is widely disliked (low acceptability) risks long-term resistance or reversal.

• A change that is well-received but poorly implemented may never reach its potential.

Using all three gives you a balanced and accurate assessment of your change initiative — and a clearer path to improving your future efforts.

Define Success as a Range — Not a Single Point

Change efforts rarely go exactly as planned. That’s why it’s more effective to define success as a range — not a fixed target. Evaluating change performance across a spectrum of outcomes helps you move beyond all-or-nothing thinking and supports a more nuanced, actionable assessment.

Why Ranges Are More Realistic

• Perfection is rare: Most organizational changes encounter trade-offs, surprises, or shifting conditions.

• Context evolves: What’s considered “successful” may change as your organization learns and adapts.

• Binary thinking distorts feedback: A narrow definition of success (e.g., “hit 100% adoption by Q3”) can obscure meaningful progress — or set you up to miss critical lessons.

Use Ranges Across All Three Dimensions

You can define a success range for each of your core measurement categories:

• Achievement

  • Ideal: “Customer satisfaction scores increase by 30% within one year.”

  • Acceptable: “A 15–20% increase with stable support ratings across key service areas.”

• Completion

  • Ideal: “All training sessions completed by 8/31 with 95% participation.”

  • Acceptable: “At least 85% of staff trained by mid-September with core teams prioritized.”

• Acceptability

  • Ideal: “Over 75% of stakeholders report high satisfaction with the process and outcome.”

  • Acceptable: “A minimum of 60% express moderate or better satisfaction, with qualitative feedback used for adjustment.”

Graduated Success Helps You Learn

Defining a spectrum of success doesn’t lower your standards — it builds in flexibility for learning and adaptation. It allows you to:

• Track partial wins that still add value.

• Spot early signals of resistance or underperformance.

• Adjust strategy while staying aligned to your broader goals.

When you treat success as a range, you gain a more accurate picture of how well the change is working — and where to focus your next improvement.

Need help applying these ideas?

Learn more about change management coaching.

Lay the Groundwork for Measurement Early

Effective change measurement starts well before implementation. To evaluate success across completion, achievement, and satisfaction, you need to plan how you’ll gather and interpret the right data — and that means building a measurement foundation during the planning phase of the change initiative.

1. Start with a Clear Vision and Outcome Roadmap

Begin by defining (or working with leadership to define):

• What the change is meant to accomplish

• What success looks like in the short, medium, and long term

• When and how the change solution will be rolled out

This gives you the context needed to select relevant metrics — and helps ensure that your KPIs are aligned with your intended impact.

2. Be Specific About What “Completion” Means

It’s easy to assume that “completion” is obvious — but general goals often lead to misalignment.

• Vague: “All teams will be using the new process by the end of the year.”

• Clearer: “25 teams will have documented completion of three required process steps by December 31.”

Defining completion in concrete, measurable terms enables better tracking, stronger accountability, and shared understanding across stakeholders.

3. Build Your Metrics Into the Plan — Not After the Fact

Waiting until the end to define success measures introduces bias and reduces effectiveness. Create your KPIs and data collection methods upfront, alongside your change strategy. This includes:

• Setting initial targets (even if they’re provisional)

• Determining how and when data will be gathered

• Identifying who is responsible for monitoring progress

Tip: For long-term or complex changes, you may not have all the answers at the start — and that’s okay. Establish baseline data early and plan to refine your metrics over time as you learn.

Why It Matters

By laying the groundwork early, you:

• Avoid guesswork or post-hoc rationalization

• Improve transparency, alignment and perceptions of fairness

• Equip your team to make data-informed decisions throughout the change process

Taking a proactive approach to measurement strengthens both the implementation itself and your organization’s long-term change capability.

Use Your Metrics to Drive Growth and Improvement

A multi-dimensional approach to change measurement does more than track success — it creates an opportunity to learn, adjust, and grow. By evaluating performance across completion, achievement, and satisfaction, you gain a clearer picture of where your change management efforts are thriving — and where they may need support.

Identify Patterns and Targeted Improvements

As you apply this three-part framework across multiple change initiatives, you’ll start to see trends:

• Are change solutions consistently late or over budget? That may signal a project management gap.

• Are adoption levels high, but outcomes underwhelming? Consider focusing on behavioral reinforcement or benefits tracking.

• Are stakeholder feedback scores low? That may point to a need for stronger communication and engagement strategies.

By reflecting on your data, you can prioritize the skills, practices, or systems that will make the biggest impact on your future change success.

Stay Consistent to Build Capability

It’s tempting to redefine success with each new initiative — especially in fast-paced environments. But shifting your evaluation approach each time makes it harder to compare outcomes or build institutional knowledge.

Using the same simple framework across diverse initiatives allows you to:

• Benchmark performance over time

• Spot patterns across teams or functions

• Build a shared vocabulary for success and improvement

The more consistently you use it, the more valuable your measurement data becomes — and the more effectively you can strengthen your organization's capacity for change.

Want to Learn More?

If you’re interested in building practical implementation skills — including how to measure, adapt, and sustain change — I invite you to check out my book, The Implementer's Starter Kit and change coaching services. 

References

Miller, Susan, (1997)“Implementing Strategic Decisions: Four Key Success Factors.” Organization Studies. 18, pp. 577-602.  Note: The findings of this research are based on a small number of case studies (11 decisions in 6 organizations.)  

This article was originally published on June 16, 2016. It was updated on July 20, 2020 and again on July 15, 2025.

• From–To statements clarify what an organizational change means in practice by contrasting how things work today with how they need to work going forward—helping people see what’s actually shifting in systems, behaviors, roles, or priorities.

• They are useful across all stages of change. Early in an change effort, they offer an analytical tool to sharpen thinking and expose assumptions. Throughout the change they can be used as a communication tool to align people around what the change is really asking. Finally, they can also support measurement of progress by defining what success looks like in the future state.

• By focusing attention on a meaningful future state, From–To statements can activate approach motivation, helping people feel more energized and committed—even when the starting point is difficult.

For those leading organizational change, a consistent challenge is helping people make sense of what a change really means. It’s easy to say we’re becoming “more customer-centric” or “embracing agility,” but abstract aspirations don’t always help people understand what will be different in their day-to-day work.

That’s where a deceptively simple tool—called a From–To statement—can make a big difference for effective change communication.

What From–To Statements Do

At their core, From–To statements describe in practical terms the shifts required to create real change, which offers the clarity many people need for understanding.

From-To statements do this by naming:

• The current state (the “From”): What’s typical today—how things work, how people operate, or what systems are in place

• The desired future state (the “To”): What the organization is moving toward and how it’s different from the status quo.

They can be used to make in all aspects of organizational functioning, more tangible, by moving beyond broad buzz words.

Here are a few examples that illustrate the range of ways From–To statements can be used:

Why From–To Statements Are Motivating

From–To statements don’t just clarify what’s changing—they can also affect how people feel about making that change. This connects to a concept in motivational psychology known as approach and avoidance.

Approach goals focus on achieving a positive outcome—moving toward something desirable. Avoidance goals, by contrast, center on preventing a negative outcome—moving away from something undesirable.

Research has shown that approach goals tend to foster more persistence, satisfaction, and engagement than avoidance goals do. While both can be motivating in the right context, avoidance goals are more often linked to anxiety, ambiguity, and even burnout—especially over time.

From–To statements can help shape how a change is experienced by not only pointing out what is unsustainable in the current state — highlighting why the change is necessary — but also giving people something to move toward. A “To” that reflects a compelling and meaningfully different future state can activate approach motivation—even when the “From” includes difficult realities.

For instance:

• From: Inconsistent pricing and discounting practices leading to customer confusion

• To: Applying transparent pricing aligned to customer value

This shift isn’t just about solving a problem—it’s about reaching something better. By making the desired state more concrete, From–To statements give people a reason to engage, not just comply.

A Note on Goals vs. Directional Shifts

From–To statements can be used to convey different types of outcomes and understanding the difference can help avoid confusion.

You can use From-To statements to describe a goal or a measurable result, such as a target metric or performance threshold. In this case, the “To” would provide a clear destination. However, they can also be used to outline a broader shift in high-level strategic orientation or change in organizational focus. In such cases, the “To” would provide a sense of direction, rather than a specific destination.

Both are useful, and both have a place. What matters is being clear about which one you’re using—and making sure others interpret it the same way.

For example:

• From: Responding inconsistently across channels

• To (directional): Providing a seamless, coordinated customer experience across teams

• To (measurable): 90% of customer inquiries responded to within 2 hours across all channels

In this case, the directional version signals how the organization wants to operate in the future, while the measurable version defines what success looks like. Used together or independently, both can play a valuable role—direction gives focus; metrics provide accountability.

These approaches can complement one another. Direction gives a sense of focus; measurable goals provide benchmarks. Problems arise only when it’s unclear which one is being communicated.

When and Where to Use From-To Statements

From–To statements are helpful anytime people need clarity about what a change means for them, in terms of shifts they may need to make in actions, behaviors or mindsets.

They can be incorporated in a change management strategy at all phases of change, such as:

• Early in planning, to sharpen internal alignment amongst decision-makers on the scope and purpose of the change

• When initially communicating a change, to make expectations clearer

• In team settings, to generate discussion and build shared understanding

• As tool to share progress, during implementation or retrospectives

From-To Statements can also cascade. For instance, a senior leader may define a high-level shift, in one set of statements, while individual teams are offered the opportunity to craft their own From–To statements to localize it to their specific context.

In Sum

Change doesn't just require vision—it requires translation. A From–To statement makes that translation visible. It provides a line of sight from the current reality to a meaningful future and gives people a more grounded sense of how to get there.

The best way to master From-To statements is to start experimenting with them. \Write up a few, test them with colleagues, adjust, and build from there.

References

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.

Research: Work psychology series: Motivation and work performance. Corporate Research Forum. (2025, February 19).

Photo Credit: Diva Plavalaguna

• Organizations are investing more in technology, but ROI concerns persist due to slow staff adoption.

• The Unified Theory of Adoption and Use of Technology (UTAUT) helps explain up to 70% of differences in people's intention to use, and 50% of differences in actual use, of a new technology.

• Four key factors are known to influence adoption: usefulness, ease of use, social influence, and resources & support.

In an era of rapid digital transformation, organizations are investing heavily in technology as part of their organizational change efforts. In 2023, companies allocated an average of 5% of revenue to tech spending, up from 3% in 2018. However, this increased investment doesn't guarantee success. Alarmingly, 60% of organizational decision-makers express concern about the ROI on digital investments, primarily due to technology adoption challenges faced by staff.

As leaders navigating digital transformation efforts, understanding the factors that influence technology adoption is crucial. Let's explore the key elements that drive employee acceptance of new technologies and how you can leverage this knowledge to enhance your change initiatives and overcome technology adoption challenges.

The Science Behind Technology Adoption

While numerous frameworks exist to explain technology adoption, one stands out for its comprehensive approach and proven track record in addressing technology adoption challenges in organizational settings: the Unified Theory of Adoption and Use of Technology (UTAUT). This model integrates findings from various theories and has been shown to explain up to 70% of the differences in people's intentions to use new technology and 50% of the differences in actual use.

While it doesn't predict individual behavior with certainty, this theory provides valuable insights into the factors that influence adoption across a population of people. As such, it’s highly relevant for those involved in championing the adoption of new tech as part of organizational transformation efforts.

Four Key Factors Influencing Technology Adoption

The UTAUT identifies four primary factors that shape employees' intentions and use of new technology. Insights into these areas can help change leaders identify and address technology adoption challenges.  

1. Usefulness (Performance Expectancy): How will this technology impact my job performance?

2. Ease of Use (Effort Expectancy): How much effort will it take to learn and use this technology?

3. Social Influence: What do others, who are important to me, think about this technology?

4. Resources and Support (Facilitating Conditions): How much support is there to help me use this technology effectively?

In addition, different versions of the model include various factors that could moderate the influence— increase or decrease — of these factors. However, most research undertaken with the model over the past twenty years, only use the core four.  

From Intention to Action: The Pathway to Technology Adoption

Research on technology adoption is generally focused on predicting adoption, not measuring its use. Therefore, it tends to focus on attitudes about a particular technology or people’s intentions to use a new technology, rather than if they are using it regularly.

This is a bit different than ultimate interests of decision-makers in organizations undertaking technological change efforts — ROI. So, how can it be useful to leaders guiding their organizations through change?

First, research helps us to see that these different outcomes are like steps on a pathway to active and regular use of new technology — resulting in a good ROI.  It indicates that attitudes are the best predictor of intentions, and intentions are the best predictor of actual use. In other words, I think using this technology is a good/foolish idea (attitude), therefore I’m more/less likely to make a plan to use it in my work (intention), therefore, I’m more/less likely to use it in my work (use). You might think of them being stops along a pathway to active and regular use of a new technology. 

Second, some factors have been shown better predictors of different aspects of this process. For instance, ease of use and social influence have a moderate impact on intention to use a new technology but seem to be less important as people start using the technology.

However, perceptions about adequate resources and support, influence both intentions and actual use of technology. That suggests that things such as ensuring people feel they have the time, training and supportive infrastructure to succeed with the new technology is important throughout the life of an implementation.

Two take-aways.  As a decision-maker or change practitioner managing organizational change, it’s essential to remember that predictions are not guarantees, and intentions don't always translate into actions. Second, you can benefit from paying attention to the factors that are better gauges of early vs. late-stage adoption. For instance, you may focus early communication and awareness building on the benefits of the technology, and having leaders demonstrate their commitment to it. As time goes on, you may lessen the messages about potential benefits and ease of use, and focus more on support and ensuring that you remove obstacles that may be inhibiting people from full adoption.

Context and Type of Technology Make a Difference

The degree of influence these four factors have can vary depending on the type of technology, who’s using it, and the overall context in which they are doing so.

For example, the UTAUT model includes demographic factors like gender, age, and experience level. These have been shown to play a role in intentions and use, however their influence tends to vary based on the environment and the type of technology being implemented. For example, some studies indicate that women and older employees tend to be influenced more by ease of use and social influence; however, the more experience people have with technology, the less such factors matter. 

A meta-analysis that reviewed 700 published works on technology adoption, found that a group of 21 influence factors remained reasonably reliable predictors of adoption over a thirty-year period, however, the accuracy of the predictions often varied by technology type and industry. For instance, in healthcare and for e-commerce the factors tended to better predict attitudes towards technology (e.g., do I think using it is a good idea?), while for e-government, e-banking, and marketing services, they seem to be more effective at predicting intention to use, (e.g., do I plan to use it?) Still other reviews of UTAUT have indicated that different factors are more powerful for different types of technology — for instance, usefulness may be more influential for technologies that enable financial transactions and for those accessed on mobile devices.  

Bottom-line, where possible, it’s wise to look for research on technology adoption that is aligns well with your context (e.g., organizations vs. households, industry) and the technology you are implementing. This can help you better understand the factors that may be most predictive to your situation or better understand their limitations.

The AI Factor: Trust Becomes Even More Critical

Although these factors have been largely stable predictors of technology adoption for decades, one additional element seems to be particularly powerful related to the adoption of artificial intelligence: trust.

There is still much to be learned about AI and its use in organizations; however, trust is emerging as an important influencer of AI adoption in early studies. Some of the research on AI adoption has investigated trust from a functional standpoint, such as the reliability and accuracy of the AI being used. Given the anthropomorphic aspects of GPTs in particular, some other investigators have started to look more humanistic perceptions of trust in technology, such as does the technology have good intentions? Initial indications suggest trust influence attitudes towards AI and intentions to use AI.  

(See my accompanying article on AI Adoption for a deeper dive.)

Applying this Research to Your Change Leadership

As a leader or manager guiding digital transformation or technology adoption as part of an organizational change, you can leverage these insights to enhance your implementation strategies and overcome technology adoption challenges.

Consider how you can use these to:

1. Guide how you gather and analyze staff feedback: Researchers have developed validated scales, or groups of survey questions, that you can use to gauge people’s perceptions during a technology implementation effort. (See references for more details.)

   Use such surveys to help you identify strengths to amplify in your interactions and communications and weaknesses to address as you develop your change implementation strategies. Be sure to get feedback from a representative cross-section of end users, to avoid blind spots.

   Remember, correlation is not causation and small sample size can strongly influence results. Be careful not to interpret results as a guarantee of success or failure.

1. Help your team think critically: Assess your change initiative through the lens of these factors, keeping in mind potential differences based on your context and type of technology. What opportunities do you have to make the technology easier to use? What specific benefits will staff realize (not the just the organization)? Are you providing adequate resources for enable people to successfully use the new technology? What do you need leaders and managers saying and doing to reflect their commitment to the use of this new technology?

2. Develop shared, realistic expectations: A common blind spot in technology implementation efforts is to focus solely on the promise of the tech, not what it takes to enable many people to use it effectively to achieve results. Use these four factors to spur discussions with stakeholders at all levels to develop shared expectations about the effort required for successful adoption, and the role they can play in making it happen.

 Photo credit: Fauxels

References

Blut, M., Chong, A., Tsiga, Z., & Venkatesh, V. (2021). Meta-analysis of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): challenging its validity and charting a research agenda in the red ocean. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, forthcoming.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.  (*Includes scales (survey questions) in the Appendix.)

DiLorenzo , L. (2024a, March 25). From tech investment to impact: Strategies for allocating capital and articulating value. Deloitte Insights.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Rubenstein, A. L., & Barnes, T. S. (2024). The Role of Attitudes in Work Behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 221-250.

Kelly, S., Kaye, S. A., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. (2023). What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 77, 101925.

Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Stewart, G. (2023). Technology acceptance research: Meta-analysis. Journal of Information Science, 01655515231191177.

Sweary, R. (n.d.). The State of Digital Adoption 2022-2023. WalkMe .

Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and software technology, 52(5), 463-479.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478. *Includes scales (survey questions) within the body of the paper.)

AI Statement: Consensus was used, in addition to Google Scholar and Google Search, to identify relevant research on this topic. Claude was used to develop initial drafts from an outline and notes provided by the author. Claude was used as an assistant to interpret statistical findings from sources.

• The content and delivery of a leader's change message impacts employee commitment differently in contexts of job security vs. insecurity

• When jobs are secure, emotional message content and strong delivery lead to higher commitment

• When jobs are insecure, rational message content is more effective and delivery style matters less

• Understanding these differences supports leaders to tailor change communication for greater impact

While there is consistent advice about what makes for good change communication it can be overly generalized. Recent experiments led by Secil Bayraktar and Hayat Kabasakal address this issue, by shedding new light on the nuances of change communication when jobs are threatened.

In this study, they investigated how different aspects of change communication impact commitment to change. Change commitment is often defined as mindset that reflects a persons belief in the necessity of the change and their willingness to be a part of implementing teh change effort.

These researchers were specifically interested in the influences of emotional versus rational change messages and strong and weak delivery style, when jobs were and weren’t threatened by the organizational change.

Job insecurity was described in the study as leaders who hoped, but could not guarantee there would be no layoffs, and in which significant shifts to job descriptions were expected. So, these finding relate to not simply job loss but also major adjustments to core job tasks and responsibilities.

Tailoring change messages to specific situations makes a difference

Some findings worth noting results from this study, including:

• When employees feel their jobs are secure, emotional message content focusing on the positive vision and outcomes of change, delivered in an enthusiastic style, generated the highest commitment. The researchers advise using metaphors, personal stories and inspirational appeals in such situations.

• However, when job insecurity was high, rational message content providing facts, logical arguments and detailed information was more effective for fostering commitment. In these contexts, delivery style mattered less.

What might explain these findings?
In short, when job insecurity is at play people likely pay more attention to what leaders are saying. They search for information to increase their sense of control, develop job preservations strategies, or simply to reduce the discomfort of uncertainty.

Tips for applying these findings in your organizational change

As change leaders, it pays to diagnose our context and adapt our messaging accordingly. Things to consider:

• Assess perceptions job security by checking in with key stakeholders and monitoring the organizational grapevine. Mitigate rumors about job risks through timely, consistent , and transparent communication.

• Dial up rational content (e.g. relevant facts, figures, logical arguments) when planning communications in insecure environments. Take time to highlight specifics about the change process and impacts of the change. Worry more getting the messages right, and less about delivery.

• Double down on emotional appeals (e.g. vivid imagery, powerful anecdotes, shared purpose and values) and dynamic delivery in stable settings. Executives and sponsors who struggle with presenting to groups effectively may benefit from support and coaching to increase the impact of their communication efforts.

• Solicit feedback on draft communications from diverse stakeholders to pressure-test your approach.

What insights might this study offer for organizations for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation?

According to recent polls, concerns are growing about AI in general and its impact on jobs. 2023 data from PEW suggests that 52% Americans report feeling more concerned than excited about AI, up from 38% in 2022. Also in 2023, IPSOS found that, globally, 56% of respondents believed that AI would change how they did their job in the next five years, although only 36% felt it was likely that AI would replace their jobs in that time period.

This suggests that those of us engaging with employees around the implementation of AI should account for the likelihood that some staff may be feeling nervous and concerned about AI’s impacts that their jobs. Consider using the tips above to help balance big picture, blue sky visions about the future of AI, with at least some nuts and bolts details about the impacts AI is likely to have on your employees and staff now.

Why should we trust these findings?

The research has several methodological strengths increasing our confidence in the results:

• The study used an experimental design, the gold standard for identifying cause-and-effect relationships. Participants were randomly assigned to different change scenarios, a technique that yields high internal validity.

• Rather than focusing on students, as is common in such research, the sample consisted of 200 professionals who had experienced at least one organizational change. This makes the findings more generalizable.

• The vignettes describing organizational changes in the experiments were carefully designed and validated by experts and in a pilot study to ensure realism.

The bottom line

Tailoring your communication strategy to your unique change context is key to winning hearts and minds. By leveraging insights from this research, you can ensure your change message hits the mark when it matters most.

References

Bayraktar, S., & Kabasakal, H. (2022). Crafting a change message and delivering it with success: An experimental study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(1), 97-119.

Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. (n.d.-b). AI Index Report 2024 – artificial intelligence index. Stanford University | AI Index. https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/

• Life balance goes by many names — work-life balance, work-family balance, work-non-work balance.

• The right life balance is unique to each person. You have the opportunity but also a responsibility to define it for yourself.

• Four factors influence a sense of balance: involvement, competence, feelings, and alignment.

• Developing life balance requires continuous attention. However, research indicates it’s worth the effort. A sense of balance is linked with positive work and life outcomes.

Defining life balance

What is life balance?

The answer to that question is in your hands. You define balance for yourself. That means you have an opportunity, but also a responsibility when it comes to life balance. You can't look to your boss, friends, gurus, or celebrities to define it for you.

That said, a better understanding of the concept can help support you in the definition process.

A 2018 study indicates there are over 230 different conceptualizations of balance in the academic research — work-life balance, work-family balance, work-family conflict, work/non-work balance and so on.

Lucky for us, this same research also indicates there are common themes across these conceptualizations. It’s these themes that can be helpful as you aim to better understand and define balance for yourself.

Four factors that influence our sense of balance

You derive a sense of balance based on a few factors related to different domains in your life (e.g., work, relationships, community involvement, personal development, health and well-being, etc.)

These factors are:

• Involvement: How much time and energy are you investing in various life roles?

• Competence: How effective are you across different life domains? What are you achieving?

• Feelings: What is your experience in these different domains? Does it trend positive, negative or is it mixed?

• Alignment: How well do your investments in each area align with your values and priorities?

The term involvement suggests balance is not merely about how much time you invest in various areas of your life, but also if you are fully present during that time. It's wholly possible to work out a way to be physically present for many activities, but to be so exhausted that mental or emotional presence is out of reach.

Competence indicates that it's not enough to put time and energy into something — you want to feel as though you are effective at it as well.

Feeling demonstrates that your emotional experiences in different domains are have an impact. Do they trend positive, negative or are they mixed? If you invest a great deal of yourself in a particular area of your life, achieve a lot in it, but don’t much enjoy the experience, the related negative feelings may have an impact on your sense of balance.

But, involvement, competence, and feelings are not the full story. There's one more element that is key. That is how your investments of time, competence, and feeling align with your priorities and values.

Life balance isn’t about equality across life domains. Generally, you are not looking for the same returns in all areas of life. Instead, balance involves making more substantial investments, and having more positive experiences, in the areas that are most important to you.

For that reason, if you feel your career is the most important thing to you, it might feel best when you are investing a lot in your work. You may feel off balance if other demands pull you away for work. Likewise, such investments might feel a bit out-of-balance if you do not feel you are accomplishing much.

For others, a sense of connection with family and community may be a top priority. \ Long hours at the office that keep them from volunteering and spending time with family may leave them feeling off-kilter.

Identifying what’s most important to you

A pre-requisite for balance is clarity about your priorities and values.

There are many ways to build your awareness of your priorities and values, such as:

• Reflecting on experiences of flow — Flow is when you feel completely engaged in what you are doing, such that you lose a sense of time. Working with a coach or on your on, reflect on the last time you felt a sense of flow and identify what you were doing, who was there, where you, etc. From your reflection, what have you learned about the aspects of your life that bring you the most fulfillment and in which you want to invest more?

• Identifying your strengths —  Strengths are things that you do well and provide you a feeling of energy (vs. depletion). Having a nuanced sense of your strengths and how to use them well is linked with greater well-being and performance. A strengths assessment can help you better understand the strengths you want to leverage and things that you may wish to dial down or avoid as you recalibrate your balance.

What does life balance have to do with organizational change?

Although our values often remain fairly stable throughout our life, our priorities or how we express those values may evolve over time. Shifts, such as those experienced during significant organizational changes, may spur you to reevaluate the balance you strike and renegotiate the investments you make in different aspects of your life.

Additionally, if you are in a leadership role during organizational transitions, you should anticipate that some of your colleagues may be spurred by the change to evaluate their balance and make adjustments that may have implications for how they wish to show up in the organization.

Why should you bother with continuously crafting your sense of balance?

Balance is something you must tend to continuously, which could feel like a lot of effort?

While auto-pilot may be tempting, studies indicate that intentionally crafting balance in your life is worth the effort. A greater sense of balance is related to a variety of work outcomes — such as job satisfaction, performance, and career development. However, there are even more substantial links with "life outcomes" such as life satisfaction, and physical and emotional well-being. For instance, some researchers have found significant links between a greater sense of life balance, and reduced stress, anxiety, and irritability.

This evidence suggests that balance is a key ingredient for a satisfying life. Given that, it seems wise to view it more as a basic need, than a luxury good. “Perfect balance” may be an ideal that is out-of-reach, however, small steps that positively impact well-being are within everyone’s grasp.

References

Casper, W. J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., DeHauw, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2018). The jingle-jangle of work–nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning and measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 182.

Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361-373.

Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D. J. (2018). Work-life balance: An integrative review. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13(1), 229-254.

This article was originally published in November 2018, it was updated in June 2024.

• Communicating change effectively is linked with a variety of good outcomes such as trust, performance, and openness to change.

• Research on organizational change readiness suggests five areas to address when communicating about any change — the need for change, the change solution, the organizational capacity for and commitment to the change, and how the change will impact individuals and teams.

• Adjusting the content of your communication — emotional vs. rational — based on the context is also important for change commitment.

• Who communicates and how they do it also matters – as part of your change management communication strategy, match messengers to messages, use diverse communication methods and provide opportunities and time for staff to ask questions, provide input, and process what the change means for them.

During times of great uncertainty, you may hesitate to communicate. So much is unknown, you may think it will be better if you wait until things are more clear. Unfortunately, that’s often not the case.

ANY information is better than no information during periods of workplace change. But you don’t have to wing it when it comes to what you should communicate. Research shows that during times of change, staff members are looking for useful information that answers their basic questions in a timely way. If you develop a change communication plan designed around these elements, you are well on your way to success.

The consequences of effective (and ineffective) change communication

Influential change communication takes time, patience, and skill on the part of a wide array of leaders. But the investment is worth it. Years of research on organizational change management indicate that when we communicate change effectively, we often see things such as:

• Increased: Trust, performance, job satisfaction, and openness & commitment to the change

• Decreased: Uncertainty, anxiety, and stress

On the other hand, poorly managed change communication may result in:

• Widespread rumors, increased cynicism, and resistance to change

• Negative outcomes such as absenteeism and turnover

Finally, while effective internal communications won’t erase all unfortunate aspects of a planned change initiative, they can help people cope with losses. Multiple studies indicate that negative reactions to a change — such as cynicism or turnover intention — tend to stabilize amongst staff who are provided explanations. These negative reactions tend to increase amongst those who are kept in the dark.

1. Talk about these five things to communicate organizational change

When communicating change as part of your change management strategy, you want to ensure everyone understands the five key messages for any organizational change.

• THE NEED: Explain the rationale for the organizational change. What is the specific problem you are trying to solve? What is your vision for the future (what do you want to achieve by solving the problem?) Use both data and motivational messaging. Senior leaders are best suited to deliver such messages.

• CHANGE SOLUTION: Explain why this solution (change) is the best fit for the problem and the organization. What is “the change” (e.g., policy, org structure, system, practice, etc.)? Why have you chosen it? How was the decision made? What’s fixed and what’s flexible? What’s not changing?

• CHANGE CAPABILITY: Demonstrate that the organization is capable of taking on this change. What is the plan for the change? Who is leading the effort? What support will be provided to individuals, teams, and managers? What lessons from the past (successes or failures) have informed your plans?

• COMMITMENT: Articulate the organization’s level of commitment to the organizational change. How high a priority is this change compared to other efforts? How is the change being resourced? How are you ensuring leaders at all levels are aligned around this change? Note: Ensure leaders’ actions match their words.  

• IMPACT: Help people understand how the workplace change will impact them. How will this alter what people do, how they do it, or the pay or benefits they receive? What specifically are you asking people to do? Acknowledge — don’t ignore — any negative impacts that some might experience. Being realistic and honest is important for maintaining trust. Finally, follow-up with specific details targeted to relevant groups — middle managers are particularly well-positioned to share tailored information on impact.

Communicating change via these five factors helps you pressure test your readiness to lead change. If you find you don’t have adequate answers for these questions, then you have work to do. Engaging with employees via change communications supports them in the process of sense-making and personally preparing themselves for changes that lie ahead.

To see examples of each key message from top companies, see our in-depth post on key change messages.

2. Adjust your content to meet your context, particularly when job insecurity is at play

A 2022 experimental study found that it’s wise to adjust the content of your change messages, depending on whether or not the change is likely to impact people’s job security.

• Focus on rationale messages when roles are being redefined or there is a chance of downsizing. Share objective facts and data, an be sure to keep things relevant and as detailed as possible. In such situations, it matters less how well a leader delivers the message — clear content is key.

• Emotional messages and strong delivery have a greater influence on change commitment, when jobs are not threatened. So dial up the metaphors, inspirational vision, and reference to individuals’ values. Take pains to over-communicate the fact that jobs are safe.

3. Be transparent when you don’t have the answers

It’s common not to have all the answers upfront when undertaking organizational change — the nature of uncertain times is that things can be…uncertain. Rather than fudging or avoiding questions, acknowledging what is not yet known can be a wise move.

In such cases, be sure to:

• Be transparent about what you don’t know (and be sure to confidently state what you do know.)

• Clarify what you are doing to get more information.

• Let people know when you will update them again. Frequent communication during times of high uncertainty is important. Let people know when to expect the next update, and stick to it — keeping promises is essential for building trust.

  • Example: “We have to be very clear and transparent with you. All of these numbers are a gross underestimation, and we have no real idea of the prevalence of this infection yet.”

3. Match your change messenger to your message

Aligning the messenger to the message is a best practice change communications strategy.

People expect different types of messages to be shared by different people in the organization, using different types of communication channels. It's not very effective to have a project manager try to sell people on the organization's commitment – that's a role for an executive. Staff may trust that their supervisor better understands how the change will affect their day-to-day than the CEO.

So, while the CEO may be well-positioned to deliver messages to the entire organization when speaking directly to a team, a leader closer to the staff is often more effective.

4. Use multiple communication channels to repeat your change message

Reaching employees in a variety of ways to communicate change is a good bet. Consider using a diversity of methods that offer different benefits.

The types of conversations you'll have during manager one on ones will be different than at all-hands meetings — slack messages may be more effective in reinforcing key aspects of the change or check-in with particular teams, while emails or posts on an intranet site can provide standardized information employees need to understand the nuts and bolts of the change.

And, don't forget — communication is about more than words. People watch the actions of leaders at all levels to see if they align with their words. It's essential, in particular, that senior leaders model the change they are asking employees to make.

At the end of the day, the communication channels you use will depend on your organization, but planning for regular communications via a diversity of methods is something every change management team should do.

5. Build better understanding through informal communication and time for sense-making

It's not enough to share a lot of information as part of your change management approach. You also need to engage with staff who are impacted by change initiatives to understand their perspectives, hear their feedback and acknowledge their concerns.

It can take time for people at all levels of the organization to make sense of the change, and it's important to offer multiple opportunities for people to ask questions, talk to their peers, and share their ideas about the change.

Example: “Please just acknowledge and give a name to what you’re going through. Acknowledge it with each other. And so I just want to acknowledge that these are still really tough times. This is wearing on all of us, and I just want to acknowledge that. I just want to acknowledge that all of us are feeling this. It’s such an unprecedented time.”

Some degree of staff engagement is critical for building shared understanding of and motivation for change, as well as impacting employee perceptions of fairness (which is linked to reduced employee resistance and increased change acceptance.)

6. Assess the effectiveness of your change communications

It’s useful to understand how organizational stakeholders perceive the effectiveness of your communications efforts. If people generally feel well informed, it means someone has been doing a good job, and you have a strong foundation to build on. If people aren’t thrilled with the overall communication climate or information shared about a particular change, you’ll need to go the extra mile to make up for lost ground.

There are a variety of tools available to assess the effectiveness of change communication and general communication climate in the organization. Below are sample questions adapted from broader questionnaires on change readiness developed by Brockenbough and Judge, respectively. (Scales generally ask the respondents to indicate their level of agreement with statements.)

Change Communications Survey Questions (Bouckenooghe, et al 2009)

• I am regularly informed on how the change is going.

• There is good communication between project leaders and staff members about the organization’s policy toward changes.

• Information provided on change is clear.

General Communications Effectiveness (Judge & Douglas, 2009)

Does information flow effectively…

• Across business units

• From business units to customers

In addition, pay attention to the environment or context in which the change is happening. If a new leader has just come on board, there is high or low performance, or there is a myriad of other priorities demanding attention that will impact how people view the change.

Assessing your broader change context early in your change process to identify barriers and opportunities can help inform a more effective change communication strategy.

Bring it all together to support organizational change success

In order to effectively manage change, communication is key.

Research on organizational change readiness suggests five important areas to address when communicating about any change — the need for change, the change solution, the organizational capacity for and commitment to the change, and how the change will impact individuals and teams.

Who communicates and how they do it also matters. As part of your change management approach, match your messengers and messages, use diverse communication methods, and provide opportunities and time for staff to ask questions, provide input, and process what the change means for them.

This article was originally published on March 20, 2020. It was updated on May 21, 2024 to reflect new research findings.

References

Bayraktar, S., & Kabasakal, H. (2022). Crafting a change message and delivering it with success: An experimental study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(1), 97-119.

Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change questionnaire–climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. The Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 559-599.

William Judge Thomas Douglas, (2009), Organizational change capacity: the systematic development of a scale", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22 Iss 6 pp. 635 - 649

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135.

Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 455

Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135.

Example Sources

Dosani, S., & Westbrook, A. (2020, May 05). The leader we wish we all had. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000007111965/coronavirus-ohio-amy-acton.html?action=click>ype=vhs&version=vhs-heading&module=vhs®ion=title-area&cview=true&t=11

• An accurate understanding of the complexity of a workplace change leads to better strategic and tactical decisions in support of successful change implementation.

• The interplay between two factors provides insight into change complexity — Change Impact (Scale, Scope, Pace) and Readiness (Willingness and Capability).

• Evaluating complexity of a change is an inexact science, but a variety of tools and methods are available to aid in the process.

A failure to recognize the full significance of a workplace change is at the heart of many challenges faced in organizational change implementation. From unrealistic expectations about timeframes and appropriate resourcing, to mismatched change supports, or gaps in outreach.

Whether it's a minor adjustment in processes, a new policy rollout, a system upgrade, or organizational transformation, a critical question is: How big of a deal is this change, really?

In asking this question, we move beyond thinking about change as a noun — the technical solution we are implementing — and begin to consider change as a verb — what it will take to integrate that solution into our organization.

Building a shared awareness of the magnitude and complexity of organizational change can make all the difference in successfully navigating through it to achieve desired results. Let's explore why assessing the size and complexity of organizational change matters, delve into the concepts of change impact and readiness, and review some practical tools to help us gauge them effectively. 

Why it’s Important to Evaluate the Complexity of a Workplace Change

Imagine organizational change as a journey. Evaluating the complexity of our change is akin to understanding the distance and difficulty of the terrain ahead and how prepared we are to travel it.  Is it like a walk through a park, in a busy city, with 3,000 elementary students? Traversing a mountain range with an elite group of highly skilled climbers? A strenuous day hike in familiar terrain, participants with a mix of ability levels, and the possibility for bad weather?   

Building awareness of the true size and complexity of a change provides vital information to inform both strategic and tactical aspects of the change process. It can help a manager anticipate and address challenges, executives to prioritize and allocate resources wisely, and everyone to share realistic expectations of what lies ahead. By sizing up the change early on, we can pave the way for a smoother transition and increase the likelihood of achieving results from our efforts.

A Simple Formula for Big Insights About Your Change

Research suggests that understanding the size and complexity of any organizational change — and the likely degree of effort it will take to enable it — involves considering the interplay between the IMPACT of the change and the organization's READINESS to embrace it.

We might think of it as an equation: Impact/Readiness —> Complexity

To be clear, there is no single definition of the concepts of change impact and readiness, or a standardized way to measure them in the academic literature; they are somewhat nebulous. However, some fundamental ideas stand out and can guide our approach, let’s review them.

Change Impact Defined

Change impact relates to the structural aspects of a change, including:

• Scale — The number of people and locations or functions affected

• Scope — The extent of change at the organizational (strategy, structure) and individual levels (competencies, compensation, reporting)

• Pace— The tempo and duration of the change

As the scale, scope, duration, and pace of change increase, so does the complexity of the change process. For instance, a change that affects one aspect of a single team’s work is quite different than a wholesale reinvention of process that involves various internal departments and external stakeholders.

A small change alone may seem of small consequence; however, if it is implemented alongside five other changes all with tight deadlines, that ramps up the complexity of supporting the organization through the process of integrating it.

Change impact relates to the scale, scope and pace of change. However, if we consider impact in isolation, we may conclude that the more impact, the more change management is needed. This is not wholly wrong, but it’s not wholly right either. The degree of additional effort required to enable change in our organization is also influenced by the existing readiness of the organization, leaders, and staff to undertake the change.

Change Readiness Defined

Readiness provides insight into how willing and able, or capable, the organization, impacted teams, and individuals are to create the change that’s envisioned.

• Ability or Capability pertains to both existing know-how relevant to the change and, importantly, confidence in one’s ability to learn.

• Willingness highlights how much the change is valued. The reasons for valuing the change can vary, whether it's because it's believed to be effective, aligns with organizational values, personally benefits individuals, or is viewed as important by influential people in the company. Regardless of the reasons, willingness is a reflection of the current level of motivation in the organization to make the necessary sacrifices to bring about change.

[Some researchers include an additional factor when considering change readiness, which has to do with opportunity or capacity. This relates to whether or not people have the necessary resources and support to engage in the change. That is, they may support it, and have the skills necessary, but they don’t have the resources necessary to engage. Examples include unfunded mandates (lack of material resources), lack of time or conflicting priorities, or lack of peer or managerial support.]

Broadly speaking, as readiness increases, the level of effort required to enable the change decreases. In addition, differentiating between willingness and capability is also useful. Understanding where we have strengths and weaknesses in existing readiness enables us to tailor our investments in change management to those change practices that might be most effective for our situation. For example, given a group that is relatively well-skilled but doesn’t see the need for change, our emphasis may be more on influential communication and participation in change-decisions, along with investments in more advanced training.

The Inexact Science of Assessing Change Impact and Readiness

Evaluating change impact and readiness is an inexact science. There is no single prescription for how to do it, but there are a variety of commonly used tools. A good rule of thumb is to start small and go deeper as we gain better understanding of the magnitude of the change.

 Regardless of which methods we choose, some practices to follow include:

1. Assess various dimensions of impact and readiness. While we do not need to analyze to the “nth” degree, we may want to ensure we touch on multiple aspects of impact and readiness, e.g., moving beyond raw numbers of people impacted, to understanding differences in team culture or priorities for wide-scale changes.

2. Gather perspectives from a representative group of stakeholders to ensure we develop an accurate picture. If we are only talking to one function, or the management level, we are unlikely to uncover blind spots.

3. Share what we find. Remember that information about change complexity has both strategic and tactical value. It is useful for those involved in developing change tactics and the change management approach. It is equally critical to inform executives’ understanding and decision-making about a change. Overall, a shared understanding of change complexity can support realistic expectations across the organization of the effort and resources required to successfully enable the desired change in the organization.

Methods for Assessing Change Impact

 Scale of Impact – How many people, across how many locations or functions?

Scale can be thought of as the breadth of change. How many people are affected across how many reporting lines in how many geographic locations? For example, implementing a new software system across all departments and locations of a large multinational corporation would have a significant scale, affecting thousands of employees across multiple regions. However, a shift in scheduling may only impact a single team, under a single leader, thus the scale would relatively small.

Tools that can help to analyze the scale of change impact include the “Blast Radius”, often used in software design, and “Power/Interest Matrix” borrowed from strategy development.

Blast Radius

The “blast radius” tool enables a high-level assessment of the reach of a change. This tool is borrowed from software development and popular amongst those focused on agile change processes.

It is used in group discussions, to visualize the spread and impact of change initiatives much like the effect of an explosion, demonstrating both the immediate area of greatest impact and the subsequent, wider-reaching effects. This metaphor illustrates that it is important to understand not only who is directly affected by the change but also the ripple effects that may touch on less obvious parts of the organization or external stakeholders.

Power/Interest Matrix

The Power/Interest matrix is an evolution of stakeholder mapping theories developed by Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann. It offers a more granular approach to stakeholder analysis. By categorizing stakeholders based on their level of interest in the organizational change and their power to influence it, this matrix allows us to prioritize engagement and tailor strategies to different groups, ensuring that critical stakeholders are identified and managed appropriately.

When we combine this analysis of impacted stakeholder groups with the readiness of these groups (more on that below), we can often optimize our investments in change management.

Scope of Impact —How much change, how fast, and for how long?

There are a variety of terms used to describe the scope and nature of a workplace change, which generally range from incremental to radical.

Incremental, or evolutionary changes are those that happen over longer time periods, within existing systems and structures and often build on core capabilities.

On the other end of the spectrum is radical or transformative change, which involves shifts that fundamentally alter the organization (or teams, or individual roles) in terms of strategy, structure, and operations.

To analyze scope, we can start by gathering stakeholder perspectives about where on the spectrum from incremental to radical our envisioned change sits. If warranted, a next step involves delving more deeply into how change impact will be felt in the organization.

Organizational Scope

Christopher T. Street and R. Brent Gallupe suggest that to gauge the scope of change at the organizational level, we can think about the extent of shifts in three critical areas:

• Strategy: This can include shifts aimed at advancing the company’s position, such as in strategic orientation, business model, or core products or services.

• Structure: This involves changes such as organizational redesigns or the redistribution of power to facilitate more efficient decision-making or enhance overall agility.

• Operations: This relates to the intended implementation of new or altered processes, systems, and controls within the organization.

Individual Scope

To understand the breadth and depth of change that staff will be asked to absorb as part of the envisioned workplace change, we can consider the degree of shift in:

• What the work is: Job/Role Responsibilities, Performance Standards, Governance & Reporting

• How work is done: Knowledge & Skills, Systems, Processes & Tools, People & Relationships

• Relationship to the Work/Organization – Compensation, Location, Job Security, Time Burden, Mindset/Beliefs

To evaluate these aspects of staff work experience, it’s wise to gather perspectives directly from those in the roles that will be impacted, as they often have insights into their work and how it’s done that others will not have.

Pace: How fast and for how long are we “changing”?

The impacts of pace during change are often relative to the context. What may seem fast or radical in a mature organization could be deemed plodding or incremental at a startup. We’ll want to bring our knowledge of our organizational context to our analysis of timing impacts.

 Even so, some ways to differentiate how change pace may affect the organization during a change include:

• Episodic vs. Continuous: Episodic change tends to be infrequent, isolated and significant (scope). There is generally a more defined beginning and end to these organizational change efforts. While continuous change tends to be an ongoing process of frequent, small changes, that accumulate over time. Agile change management is often used for continuous change.

• Duration: The end-to-end length of a defined change initiative, or a change cycle within continuous change.

• Tempo:  Reflects the pace in which staff are anticipated to adopt and adjust to the change.

For example, a switch from system A to B may be episodic, take a few weeks, and involve a high intensity of effort from impacted staff during that period. However, adoption of a new process, such as agile or lean, may be continuous, with ongoing experimentation and learning, done at a lower-level intensity with “mastery” achieved over several years.

Methods for Assessing Change Readiness

Change readiness is a concept that gets at our individual and collective preparedness for what lies ahead as the organization integrates a given change.

It reflects the beliefs of people in the organization about the need for the change and the capacity of the organization to successfully create it. Research links the degree of change readiness to people's decisions to support or resist the change. It also suggests that change agents can influence readiness through their choice of strategies to introduce and implement organizational changes.

Researchers in organizational change and implementation science have been working for more than 15 years to develop means to accurately assess organizational and individual change readiness. They have not settled the question!

However, below are some sample questions from two change readiness assessments, that have consistently been noted in research as valid and reliable. Valid scales measure what they say they measure, while reliable scale indicate that people consistently interpret the questions in the same way.

Plus, both are freely available (see links below.)

One assessment tool conceptualizes readiness at the organizational level, asking people to reflect broadly on people or situations across the organization. The other frames readiness at the individual level, asking people to reflect on themselves and their own experiences. (While some feel organizational or team readiness is simply the aggregate of individual readiness, others suggest it is not and can differ at the team or organizational level. My suggestion is to review the scales to see which would likely provide the greatest insight, for the least amount of effort for your situation.)

Organizational Change Readiness Scale Example

The Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale is 12 questions. (It refers to commitment rather than willingness, and efficacy rather than capability.) Some sample questions from this scale are below:

Willingness

• People who work here are committed to implementing this change.

• People who work here will do whatever it takes to implement this change.

• People who work here want to implement this change.

Capability

• People who work here feel confident that the organization can support people as they adjust to this change.

• People who work here feel confident that they can handle the challenges that might arise in implementing this change.

• People who work here feel they can coordinate tasks so that implementation goes smoothly.

Individual Change Readiness Scale Example

The Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale (OCRBS) is 24 questions that aim to uncover perspectives on five dimensions of readiness. We can loosely categorize these dimensions as related to willingness (need for change, fit of change, leader commitment, anticipated benefits) and capability (confidence in ability to change.) For an in-depth example of how this scale could be used and interpreted, see the Nebraska Department of Health’s write up of their use of the OCRBS survey in a pilot project.

Willingness

• This change will benefit me.

• We need to change the way we do some things in this organization

• The majority of my respected peers are dedicated to making this change work.

• The top leaders in this organization are “walking the talk.”

Capability

• I can implement this change in my job.

• I have the capability to implement the change that has been initiated.

• I believe we can successfully implement this change.

In sum

Change complexity is somewhat of a complex topic!

However, breaking it down into component parts of change impact and readiness can make it more manageable concept.

That’s important because understanding the complexity created by workplace change is essential for effectively navigating through it to achieve desired outcomes.

By assessing both the change impact and readiness of the organization, impacted teams, and individuals, to take it on, we can anticipate challenges, prioritize resources, and set realistic expectations for the change journey.

While evaluating change impact and readiness may not be an exact science, employing practical tools and gathering perspectives from a representative group of stakeholders can provide valuable insights. By taking these steps, organizations can pave the way for smoother transitions and increase the likelihood of successful change implementation.

References

Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational Xhange Recipients' Beliefs Scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 43(4), 481-505.

Caldwell, S. D. (2013). Are change readiness strategies overrated? A commentary on boundary conditions. Journal of Change Management, 13(1), 19-35.

Creasey, T. (2024a, January 8). Defining change impact. Prosci.

Change Blast Radius. IdeaLeap. (n.d.). https://idealeap.com/downloads 

Eden, Colin, and Fran Ackermann. Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage, 2013.

Groulx, P., Johnson, K., & Harvey, J.-F. (2023). Team Readiness to Change: Reflexivity, Tenure, and Vision in Play. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 0(0).

Miake-Lye, I. M., Delevan, D. M., Ganz, D. A., Mittman, B. S., & Finley, E. P. (2020). Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1-13.

Neeley, T., & Leonardi, P. (2022). Developing a Digital Mindset. Harvard Business Review, 100(5-6), 50-55.

Rousseau, D. M., & ten Have, S. (2022). Evidence-based change management. Organizational Dynamics, 51(3), 100899.

Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The hard side of change management. HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Change, 99.

Street, C. T., & Gallupe, R. B. (2009). A proposal for operationalizing the pace and scope of organizational change in management studies. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 720-737.

Shea, C. M., Jacobs. S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., Y Weiner, B. J. (2014). Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation Science, 9, 7.

Wong, W. (2022, February 9). Psychological Contract: Factsheets. CIPD.

• Organizational change is mainly managed through six types of practices: According to a recent review of change management research, change agents influence people’s responses to organizational change using six practice groups: Communication, Support, Involvement, Reinforcement, Social Influence, and Pressure, with the latter being less effective and generally advised against.

• Each change management practice has strengths and drawbacks: Like any tool, you need to learn how and when to use these practices in order to optimize their effectiveness.

• The key to success is to develop a tailored change management strategy using a mix of these practices: A successful change strategy involves a careful mix of these practices versus taking a one-size-fits-all approach. Such a strategy is developed by first engaging with stakeholders to identify what is supporting and challenging them, and then selecting the most appropriate practices to address these factors.

Navigating organizational change can be quite a challenge. Employees often face uncertainties, unclear demands, and stress during these transitions. To successfully guide your team through these changes, it's crucial to have an effective strategy in place. In this article, we provide an overview of five research-backed techniques that you can use to enable change, and one that is often used but likely shouldn’t be. We'll review pros and cons of each practice and how they can be integrate into a holistic change management strategy.

What are the Six Key Change Management Practices?

Change management practices, sometimes referred to as changed manage interventions, are deliberate activities undertaken by change agents or leaders to facilitate organizational change. They are essential the tools we use to influence employees' responses to change and encourage the adoption of new practices, programs, policies, or systems. 

In 2023, a team of researchers reviewed 119 studies of change management to identify specific techniques that “manage change.”  They categorized the practices into six buckets.  Five of these are useful in many situations — communication, support, involvement, reinforcement, social influence. However, one — pressure or coercion — is often not as effective as we may think, and likely best to be avoided in most change situations. 

What are the Pros and Cons of the Six Key Change Management Practices?

A hammer is great if you are working with a nail, but not a screw. But if you don’t know how to use the hammer,  you may find it’s not good for much of anything.  The same holds true for change management practices. We need to understand what they are best suited to do and how to use them effectively for them to be truly useful.

To that end, I summarize what different change practices entail, where they might work well, and what to watch out for, informed by the findings this 2023 review.

Communication: Exchanging information about the change to build shared understanding.

• Purpose: Communication aims to inform and persuade employees about the change.

• Actions: Providing timely and accurate one-way information, framing messages compellingly, and engaging dialog with impacted stakeholders. .

• Best for: Addressing gaps in understanding or misinformation.

• Be mindful: Research offers a mixed view on the most effective timing, amount, and degree of transparency in communications needed to achieve positive results from change communications. To navigate your way, consider getting feedback on communications for those they are meant to serve — and adjusting accordingly.

Support: Providing assistance, resources, and encouragement to facilitate adoption of change.

• Purpose: To equip employees with the necessary resources and skills for change.

• Actions: Offering training programs, coaching, and organizational support like resources, time and managerial help and assistance (lending a hand).

• Best for: Bridging ability gaps and building competence or providing resources to overcome obstacles that are hindering participation in the change.

• Be mindful: Support comes in many forms. Dial in your efforts to meet the specific needs of the groups and individuals you are working with. One-size-fits-all is likely not the best strategy. 

 Involvement: Engaging stakeholders in change decisions and the change process.

• Purpose: Involvement aims to engage employees actively in the change process.

• Actions: Including employees in decision-making (co-deciding), seeking their input (consulting), and collaborative problem-solving (co-creating).

• Best for: Enhancing buy-in and addressing motivational gaps.

• Be mindful: Research tends to focus on positive outcomes of involvement — of which there are many. However, there is some evidence to suggest that tailoring involvement to focus on tactical aspects of change (vs. strategic) and avoiding giving “veto power” to a broad group, may lead to greater acceptance and efficient achievement of change goals.

Recommended Reading

• Influence and Organizational Change: Getting Your Way the Right Way

• Understanding Change Commitment: A Manager’s Guide

• How to Create Shared Understanding During Organizational Change

Reinforcement:  Clarifying and incentivizing alignment with change-related objectives.

• Purpose: To motivate employees towards change-related behaviors.

• Actions: Setting change-related goals and providing rewards for meeting them.

• Best for: Motivating employees and reinforcing desired behaviors.

• Be mindful: Rewards can come in forms beyond money or prizes — tapping into internal motivators such as values, sense of purpose, and belonging, can also work well. In addition, while we are often encouraged to set specific goals, for large-scale changes that require collaboration from many different actors across the organization, challenging and directional goals may create more space for people to see themselves as important contributors to the cause.

Social Influence: Leveraging personal power of key stakeholders to influence attitudes about a change.   

• Purpose: To leverage social dynamics in facilitating change.

• Actions: Using role models, credible experts, promoting peer exchange, championing behaviors, leveraging existing networks.

• Best for: Creating a social environment supportive of change.

• Be mindful: Influence can be positive or negative. Ensure leaders are walking-the-talk, by modeling behaviors that align with the desired outcomes of the change. Check-in with stakeholder groups to gauge sentiments and actively address gossip before it gains momentum.

The practice, pressure or coercion, is likely best to AVOID. While many leaders may feel pressure is their most expedient tool, it is unlikely to create the type of enduring support that is required for organizational change to take hold.

 Pressure: Using coercive tactics to encourage alignment with change objectives.

• Purpose: To enforce change compliance.

• Actions: Employing managerial demands, directives, threats, or frequent checks or reminders.

• Best for: Crisis situations requiring immediate compliance.

• Be mindful: Research on influence indicates that this tactic does not often work and can reduce commitment to change. Think twice prior to using.

Develop an organizational change management strategy, tailored to your situation

These practices on their own won’t necessarily lead to success. The key is to integrate them into an overall change management strategy, tailored to your change situation.

First, avoid taking a one-size-fits all approach, or using just one practice, or aiming to use them all.  Rather, figure out what’s driving people’s responses to the change so that you can emphasize interventions suited to address those issues. You can use a framework such as — ability, motivation, and opportunity change framework—to help you pinpoint where people have a high degree of readiness and where they have gaps, so you can invest your efforts where they are most needed. 

For example, if people are excited about the change, but concerned they don’t have skills or background required to be successful, training is appropriate. What about those who have relevant skills and are supportive of the change but are overwhelmed with other priorities.  For them, more training is not going to make much of a difference. What they may most need is organizational support in the way of additional resources, reprioritization or manager encouragement.  Still others may have the necessary skills and time to invest but are not sold on the benefits.  In such cases, it can be worthwhile to emphasize involvement, social influence and reinforcement.

References

Hagl, C., Kanitz, R., Gonzalez, K., & Hoegl, M. (2024). Change management interventions: Taking stock and moving forward. Human Resource Management Review, 34(1), 101000.

Photo Credit: Ketut Subiyanto

• Embedding organizational change successfully often requires the efforts of a dedicated implementation team. Relying on a single or leader, or the hope that “everyone” will simply play their part, is unrealistic for all but the smallest changes.

• The change implementation team should have a well-defined mandate focused solely on successfully executing a specific change. It should clarify how the team engages in design and execution of the change, and differentiate it from governance bodies and end-user groups.

• The team should consist of members with diverse skills such as project management, technical expertise, training, measurement, and communication. It should also represent various organizational perspectives and levels, promoting a comprehensive understanding of the change.

• Implementation teams can be structured in various ways. What’s consistent is the need for the structure enable productive collaboration and representation and remain manageble in size. Keep in mind, change is dynamic and so are such teams. You can aim for stability by standardizing functional roles on the team, rather than aiming to retain specific individuals, particularly for multi-year efforts.

Implementation teams have been conceptualized and labeled differently, e.g., change agents, integrators, coordinators, change teams, change management teams, or management groups. However, despite these differences in terms, one review of 25 implementation frameworks found that nearly 70% of them included the development of an implementation team as a key step. Studies investigating change efforts with and without such teams have found that those with change teams can more efficiently and effectively embed change in an organization. Given that, establishing a team of people responsible for the change implementation's success seems pretty important.

In this two-part post, adapted from my book, The Implementer's Starter Kit, I review three areas to consider when creating your implementation team: 

• Mandate: The purpose, boundaries, and accountability of the implementation team. (Part I)

• Skills and Perspectives: The mix of capabilities and viewpoints necessary to support the implementation effort. (Part I)

• Structure: How the team is organized and positioned within the larger organizational context to best execute the implementation. (Part II)

  
  

Mandate

The roles and responsibilities of the implementation team relate directly to its mandate.

Focused on the successful execution of a particular change

Implementation teams are differentiated from other types of teams by their mandate or purpose. Fundamentally, the implementation team's role is to support the successful execution of a specific change — full stop.  Members of the implementation team often have responsibilities beyond their work on the team; however, the focus of their efforts on the implementation team should relate to a specific and defined change.

Address responsibilities for design and management of the implementation

Some researchers conceptualize these teams as solely for change execution management. However, in practice, all implementation teams are involved to some degree in both the design of the innovation being implemented and the management of efforts to embed the innovation in the organization. For example, teams created only after a decision has been made on what to implement will still be involved in design tasks when they refine and improve the effort based on initial implementation results.

Not a governance body or steering committee

The implementation team should not be confused with a governance body, steering committee, or management team.  While the team will likely have some decision-making authority, it often relies on others for major decisions. What's more, this is not a team that does the majority of its work around a conference room table. It’s a team that is on its feet, working shoulder to shoulder with leaders and end-users. It is a roll-up your sleeves and dig in the dirt group of people. 

Not a group of adopters or end-users

That said, the implementation team is distinct from end-users. The best implementation teams often include representatives of the adopter or end-user community; however, a change implementation team is not simply an organized group of adopters. Rather, it brings to bear specific skills and perspectives to support the management of change implementation, as outlined in the next section. 

Is this article helpful to you?

Get our latest articles and other research-based change tips in our monthly-ish newsletter.

Sign up today!

Membership

In order to fulfill its mandate, the change team must include members that offer a variety of capabilities as well as insights. For this reason, when creating the implementation team, it's important to consider both requirements for hard skills, as well as diverse organizational perspectives.  

Skills

Specific skills often represented on an implementation team include: 

• Project Management: This includes skills that support effective planning, budgeting, scheduling, execution management and liaising with the governance body and other key stakeholders.

• Technical skills specific to the innovation and implementation effort: Expertise related to the innovation being implemented, (e.g., a software tool, process or practice), is necessary to inform design, planning, training, and coaching. This is often provided by external consultants or vendors, but may also be sourced internally. Including folks who have experience and knowledge of good practice in implementation is also a good idea!

• Training and Coaching: Training is more than developing and reviewing PowerPoint presentations with a group end users. For this reason, each team should include members skilled in the design and delivery of effective training and ongoing technical support.

• Measurement & Analysis: Measurement skills are critical to enable the change team to monitor the implementation, gather feedback, assess outcomes, and identify necessary improvements.

• Communication & Engagement: The ability to effectively tell the story of the implementation throughout its lifespan is critical— why it's being done, what it is, who's involved, how it will be implemented and what's been learned and achieved.

In order to avoid assembling a group of experts who act independently, rather than as an interdependent team, it can also be useful to consider skills in teamwork and collaboration.  Further, as the leader of the team, it's a good idea to a) ensure all members are clear on their role and how it contributes to the shared mandate of the team and b) design team interactions to highlight the interdependence of members and shared goals.

Perspectives

Workplace change is often viewed differently at different levels of the organization. Executives and frontline staff will have unique concerns and hopes for the innovation being implemented — they may also anticipate and be able to help mitigate distinct types of challenges. 

For this reason, several researchers have highlighted the importance of ensuring diverse organizational representation on the implementation team. They suggest members reflect a “diagonal slice” of the organization hierarchy. This helps to ensure that the full variety of perspectives on the effort — from executive management to line staff — informs design, planning, and execution. 

In addition, research from a variety of domains suggests that selecting members based on their degree of influence with impacted stakeholders groups, is also a wise move.

A note about the stability of membership

The literature on teams often indicates that the stability of members is essential. If people are constantly cycling in and out of the team, it can be hard to develop a rhythm or even to know who’s on the implementation team. 

Given that organizational change efforts are often long-term — lasting 1-3 years — the ideal of stability of individuals on the team may seem hard to attain. In their work on implementation teams, Monica Higgins and colleagues suggest focusing on functional or role stability, rather than the stability of specific individuals.  For example, aim to ensure that project management and front-line staff functions are represented, rather than that Bob from the PMO and Kathy from customer service are always on the team. 

Up Next: Structuring your team for success

You've got a clear mandate.  You've got the right skills and perspectives represented on your team.  How do you structure the team to ensure both inclusivity and manageability?  I cover that in Part II of this post, where I provide a general implementation team structure and discuss how this structure plays out when applied, through three examples of real-world implementation teams. 

This article was originally published on July 17, 2017. It has been updated with additional information and sources.

References

Hackman, J. Richard, and Ruth Wageman. "When And How Team Leaders Matter." Research in Organizational Behavior 26 (2004): 37-74. Web.

Hackman JR, Edmondson AE. "Groups as agents of change." In: Cummings T Handbook of Organization Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage ; 2006. pp. 167-186.

Higgins, Monica C., Jennie Weiner, and Lissa Young. "Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational change." Journal of Organizational Behavior 33.3 (2012): 366-88. Web.

Implementation Teams Overview. Implementation teams overview. Active Implementation Hub. (2015).

Lam, S. S., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). A field experiment testing frontline opinion leaders as change agentschology, 85(6), 987.

Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2020). Implementation teams: A stakeholder view of leading and sustaining change. In Implementation Science 3.0 (pp. 199-225). Springer, Cham.

Meyers, D. C., JA, D., & Wandersman, A. (2012). "The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process." American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3-4), 462-480.

• Change commitment reflects a person’s level of determination to follow a course of action related to an organizational change — hopefully aligned with the direction we’d like them to head!

• Researchers Herscovitch and Meyer suggest that there is a continuum of change commitment, reflected as three types — emotion-based, values/obligation-based and cost-avoidance. Each is associated with a different types of actions supportive of a workplace change — championing, cooperation, and compliance.

• Leaders and managers can influence change commitment by fostering trust, competently managing change, and building change readiness amongst stakeholders. Read on for tips on how to do it!

Change is inevitable, yet sometimes it can feel like trying to push a boulder uphill when your team isn't on board. Understanding change commitment and how to foster it, can help.

What is change commitment?

Commitment to change refers to a person's determination to take actions that they believe are necessary to successfully carrying out a change. It’s a way of thinking that motivates them to stick to a course of action. Those of us leading change want that course of action to be aligned with the direction of the change!

Three types of change commitment

Herscovitch and Meyer developed a model that defines three types of change commitment, which can be helpful to demystify the concept. These different types of commitment are driven by beliefs about the change or the broader change context and are associated with different kinds of behaviors or actions related to the change.

Affective Change Commitment (Emotion-based)

Affective change commitment is based on emotions. When someone has affective commitment to a change, they genuinely want to be a part of it. It is driven by a sense that the change is beneficial and essential. It is often associated with championing and cooperation during change. People who feel an emotional commitment to the change are often willing to make sacrifices to make the change happen.

For example, if an organization is introducing a new customer relationship management (CRM) system, employees who feel an emotional commitment to the change would be excited about the potential benefits of the system, such as improved customer service, increased sales, and better data management. They would be willing to invest time and effort into learning the new system and helping others in the organization to do the same.

Examples of questions that surface affective commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002)

1. This change is a good strategy for the organization.

2. I believe in the value of this change.

 Normative Commitment (Values-based)

Normative commitment is driven by personal or professional values. When someone has normative commitment, they feel a sense of obligation to support the change because they believe it is the right thing to do. They see supporting the change as part of their job or being a team player. We might expect to see staff who feel a sense of obligation to cooperate during change. These employees are willing to make small sacrifices to ensure the change succeeds.

For example, if an organization is implementing a new safety policy, employees who feel a normative commitment to the change would support it because they believe it is important to keep their colleagues safe. They would be willing to follow the new policy, even if it meant making changes to their work routine or taking additional safety measures.

Examples of questions that surface normative commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002)

1. I feel a sense of duty to work toward this change.

2. It would be irresponsible of me to resist this change.

Continuance Commitment (Cost-avoidance)

Continuance commitment is based on the perceived costs of not supporting the change. Someone with continuance commitment may not necessarily be excited about the change, but they feel that they have no other choice but to support it. These folks may feel they are risking their job, or a promotion if they don’t go along with the change — which is not a cost they want to pay. People in this category may be compliant — willing to do the minimum amount asked to support the change.

For example, if an organization is downsizing and employees are asked to take on additional responsibilities, those who feel a continuance commitment to the change would go along with it because they think they have no other choice. They may not be enthusiastic about the change, but they would comply because of the consequences of not doing so.

Examples of questions that surface continuance commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002)

1. I have no choice but to go along with this change.

2. I have too much at stake to resist this change.

Are the types of change commitment mutually exclusive?

It's possible to simultaneously feel different types of commitment toward a change. You can be excited about some of its benefits, feel a sense of duty to go along with the change as part of my job, and worry that if you don't, I could be penalized somehow.

What about people who are committed to ensuring the change doesn't happen?

People can also have a negative commitment to the change — meaning they are committed to ensuring the change doesn't happen. This takes two forms. One is simply not going along with the change. This might look like quiet non-compliance and is often referred to as passive resistance. On the other hand, those that actively take steps to work against or sabotage the change can be thought of as being actively resistant. 

How do we influence people’s change commitment?

Some individuals may be more likely to feel a sense of commitment to organizational change just based on who they are.

Beyond that, the broader organizational context can also influence commitment. For instance, if trust in leaders and supervisors is high or there is a history of positive experiences with organizational change in the company. Alternatively, if people feel that their jobs are at risk or roles are unclear because of the change, that will likely dampen commitment. Addressing such topics head-on can help.

In addition, we can aim to influence commitment by increasing change readiness – willingness and capability to undertake the change. Armenakis and colleagues offer a readiness framework that provides a helpful guide:

• Clarify the Need for Change. Demonstrate why the change is necessary/important and explain the vision for the change. Engage stakeholders to share why the change is important to them.

• Specify the Change Solution: Explain the change's scope, why this change solution was chosen, and who was involved in the decision-making.

• Demonstrate Change Capability:  Show the organization has what it takes to manage the change effectively. Share how the organization will provide the support that staff may need to learn new skills and competencies to succeed with the change.

• Show Your Commitment: Readily reflect in your actions the importance of the change to you personally and to the organization at large.

• Clarify Impact: Specify how the change will affect what people do, who they work with, or their compensation or other benefits. Acknowledge losses. Engage with stakeholders to hear their perspectives on impacts — both benefits and costs. 

How much change commitment do we really need?

Size your efforts to build stakeholders’ change commitment based on your situation. Not all changes require people to be rabid fans — for minor changes that don't greatly impact what people do, how they do it, or how they are compensated, compliance may be enough. However, for major shifts that require new priorities, where people are likely to experience a sense of loss and ambiguity about the future, investing in efforts to build readiness and increase commitment will likely lead to more successful change outcomes.

In sum

Understanding the different components of commitment to change can help leaders and managers to effectively navigate organizational change. By identifying the type of commitment people feel towards a change, organizations can better support them and address potential barriers. Additionally, by understanding the factors that influence change commitment, leaders can take proactive steps to increase change readiness and foster a culture that embraces change.

References

Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational change recipients' beliefs scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 43(4), 481-505. 

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., Cole, M. S., Lawrence Fillmer, J., & Self, D. R. (2007). A top management team's reactions to organizational transformation: The diagnostic benefits of five key change sentiments. Journal of Change Management, 7(3-4), 273-290.

Bouckenooghe, D., M. Schwarz, G., & Minbashian, A. (2015). Herscovitch and Meyer’s three-component model of commitment to change: Meta-analytic findings. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(4), 578-595.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474.

• Six influence tactics are good bets if you want to foster the cooperation necessary to enable organizational change: rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, apprising, collaboration, ingratiation, and consultation.

• Pressure is one tactic to avoid because it has been found to be counterproductive to both timely task completion as well as fostering strong work relationships.

• Four tactics might not make much of a difference in influencing people at work —  personal appeals, legitimating, coalition, and exchange.

• Context is key – adjust tactics used to your situation and always use them ethically and respectfully.

Influence is a powerful tool, especially when it comes to organizational change. Whether you are trying to get your team to adopt a new process, persuade your boss to fund a transformational project, or convince your colleagues to adopt a new mindset, understanding the most effective influence tactics can help you achieve your goals while maintaining positive work relationships.

Researchers have studied the influence tactics used in organizations for decades. They often focus on identifying those tactics that are most effective in persuading people to undertake requested actions efficiently and effectively (task-orientation) as well as those that foster positive relationships and work culture (people-orientation). In a 2016 study that reviewed 49 previous studies, six influence tactics were identified as the most effective from both a task and people perspective.

Before diving into the tactics themselves, it's important to note that context is key when it comes to influence. When choosing tactics, it’s important to understand the nuances of your situation and adjusting accordingly. Finally, and importantly, influence tactics should be used ethically and respectfully — the aim is not manipulation or forcing people to act. Rather, influence is about effective persuasion.

Best Bet Strategies

Similar to findings in previous reviews, Soojin Lee and colleagues found six tactics, out of 11 reviewed, that seemed to work best to persuade people both to take efficient action to support change, while also fostering a positive change environment. They are:

•  Rational Persuasion: Using logical arguments and explanations to convince someone that a request or proposal will help achieve important goals for the organization, team or individual. To be effective it’s important that the person using the tactic is seen as trustworthy and credible. This tactic has been found to be effective when used by both managers seeking to influence employees and vice versa.

• Inspirational Appeal: Inspiring someone's enthusiasm for a request or proposal by appealing to their values and ideals, or by boosting their confidence, is a great way to build positive relationships and motivate people. Of course, to use this, you must have insight into the values that motivate the people you are trying to persuade.

•  Apprising: Explaining how fulfilling a request or supporting a proposal will personally create personal benefits or career advancement is a powerful motivator. This is like rational persuasion in that you often use facts, data and logic; however, it is specifically focused on illustrating the tangible benefits that the person will realize as a result of their cooperation with the organizational change.

• Collaboration: Gaining someone's cooperation in an organizational change by offering to provide resources and help is what collaboration tactics are all about.  For example, offering to demonstrate how to undertake a task (e.g., training)  or to assist in troubleshooting or solving problems that arise when people begin to undertake desired behaviors or actions aligned with the change.  Unlike the exchange tactic (see below), collaboration involves providing resources or help directly related to requests being made as part of the organizational change.

• Ingratiation: Making someone feel good by complimenting or praising them can also encourage them to cooperate with you. This tends to be more of a long-term strategy for building positive relationships which can influence future cooperate, rather than immediate action. Ingratiation has been shown to be effective for influencing both up and down the organizational hierarchy — so don’t shy away from offering honest flattery!

• Consultation: Seeking someone's input and ideas about a proposed organizational change may encourage them view it more favorably. This tactic can provide people with a greater sense of control and autonomy during times of change, which are positively associated with support for change. In addition, decision-making research indicates that gathering diverse perspectives leads to better outcomes.

Pressure is the tactic to avoid

While six influence tactics were found to be effective in supporting the achievement of goals of a workplace change and fostering positive work relationships, the study also identified one tactic that should be avoided: pressure. Using demands, threats, constant checking, and reminders to get someone to comply with your request, even if they don't want to, was found to be detrimental to both task completion and work relationships.

Four strategies that might not hurt, but might not help much either

In addition, the study also identified four influence tactics that were found to be neutral – they didn't hurt, but they didn't help either. These could be useful in some situations, but you may wish to consider the top six prior to using these:

• Personal appeals involve promoting a sense of friendship with another person or inspiring a sense of loyalty to gain their support.

• Legitimating involves showing that you have the authority or legitimacy to make the request or proposal, such as by noting official policies or your position in the hierarchy.

• Coalition as a tactic involves seeking help from others in the organization to persuade someone to do something. While some research indicates the effectiveness of using peer influencers, and coalitions of people to garner support for change, others suggest you use this tactic with caution to avoid appearing to “gang up” on those from whom you are seeking collaboration.

• Exchange involves offering rewards or benefits to someone in exchange for support the organizational change you are proposing. These findings align with broader research on motivation, which indicates that rewards or material incentives may not be the most powerful incentives; rather we should seek to tap into people’s internal drivers.

Ultimately, the goal of using influence tactics in organizational change should be to create a positive work culture where employees feel motivated to contribute to the organization's success. By understanding the most effective influence tactics and using them ethically you can increase your chances of doing just that.

You may also like…

Sources

Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). A field experiment testing frontline opinion leaders as change agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 987–995

Lee, S., Han, S., Cheong, M., Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2017). How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on influence tactics. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 210-228.

Slemp, G. R., Lee, M. A., & Mossman, L. H. (2021). Interventions to support autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs in organizations: A systematic review with recommendations for research and practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 427-457.

• To encourage people to regularly use something new in your organization, you need to consider their experience using it —whether it be a process, practice, system, or even mindset,  

• Research indicates between 50-90% of people’s adoption choices are explained by five aspects of a change — relative advantage, compatibility, ease of use, trialability, and observability.

• Strategies for enhancing each of these attributes in your change solution and process and are offered.

As a middle manager or change agent, you always look for ways to improve your organization. But even the best ideas can fall flat if people don't adopt them. So what makes people choose to adopt new things? Turns out, there are a few key factors. In this article, we'll explore those factors and show you how to use them to increase the adoption of your change initiatives.

Consider five attributes of a change

Decades of research indicate that five things seem to impact whether or not people accept innovations — from new agricultural practices to seat belts to cell phones. In fact, studies show about 50-90% of adoption choices can be explained by people’s perceptions of these five aspects of a change. So, we can predict some reasons that people accept change, but not all of them. Context and individual disposition always play a role.

The five characteristics are:  

• Relative Advantage: How much better is this than what I am doing/using now? This is one of the strongest predictors of adoption.

• Compatibility: How well does the change align with the organization and my team related to our perceived needs, ways of working, and values?

• Ease of Use: How easy is this innovation to use?

• Observability: Are the benefits and results of using this change obvious or easy to see and explain? Can I see the difference directly, or do I have to wait for a report or for someone up the hierarchy to tell me it's working?

• Trialability: Can I experiment/try out the change solution before full adoption?

Let’s explore each attribute and consider strategies to enhance it when developing your change innovation and organizational change management process.

Relative Advantage

People adopt new things for a variety of reasons, but the biggest driver is that it's better than what they are doing now

People want to understand what they will gain by doing something new or doing it in a new way. Why? Because change comes with costs and risks. It’s fair to ask — will the benefits of changing be worth the costs?

In evaluating the relative advantage of an organizational change, staff members may consider whether they gain or lose power, money, time, influence, or comfort.

To improve the relative advance of your chosen change solution, you can:

• Identify the clear advantages of this solution over current practice. Communicate how this change will positively influence the efficiency or effectiveness of people's work. Share what alternate options were considered and why they were NOT chosen. Highlight what made this change solution stand out.

• Ask: How could we make the change solution a lot better than the current practice? What options do we have to improve it? (End users are often a great source of ideas on this).

• Identify future improvements or iterations that may be planned or possible to further improve the benefits of making the change. Be sure to communicate there is "more to come!"

• Communicate if circumstances require the change solution to be used, e.g., legal requirements, rising costs of the current practice, or a crisis such as COVID. Especially if the change will not directly enhance individual employees' work experiences, help them to understand why the change is necessary.

Compatibility

People want to understand how the change aligns with what's important to them

People are often looking to identify aspects of stability within a change.  So when considering adoption, people want to understand how the organizational change aligns with their/their team's existing values, current ways of working, and perceived needs.

To ensure the compatibility of your chosen change solution, you can:

• Engage end-users to understand their perceptions of the change and how it does/doesn't align with what's important to them — their values, needs, and ways of working. Use this information to inform the development of the change solution, implementation efforts, or communications.

• Explain why shifts in values or priorities are central to the change. For example, if a team is being asked to focus on efficiency after years of focusing on quality as the highest priority, you can say something like: "We are marrying our long-term focus on quality with greater efficiency. We aim to identify a workable balance between these, but intend to make tradeoffs to increase our efficiency."

• Where applicable, link with trialability and explain how rollout and adoption will be informed by direct experience with the change and where adjustments can be made to address areas of incompatibility.

Ease of Use

People are more likely to adopt changes that are simple to use

Organizational change innovations that are relatively easy to adopt or learn may face less resistance than those that are complex and hard to master. Ease of use is relative — what may be simple to a highly experienced group of staff members may seem quite complicated to those newer to the job.

To reduce the complexity of your change solution, you can:

• Engage with end users when developing the change solution to pressure test for ease of use.

• Plan and resource time, training, and coaching to support end-users to be successful with the new solution.

• Establish learning goals to allow adopters time to grow their familiarity and skill with the change solution. Over time, you can add outcome or performance goals to measure proficiency to certain standards.

• Gather and communicate tips, tricks, and insights from staff that find success with the change solution.

• Make improvements over time, particularly if staff members invent workarounds for deficiencies in the change solution.

Trialability

People like to try before they buy

Trialability reflects the degree to which people can experiment with the change before full adoption.

In the case of an organizational change, this may look like involving impacted staff in the testing of a new system or practice or conducting pilots of a new process with selected teams to learn as you go.

To improve the trialability of your organizational change, you can:

• Identify areas that can and cannot be tested or piloted before adoption and communicate why. Where testing or a pilot is possible, explain how this will be done, who will be involved, and how the results will be used.

• Make plans for continuous improvement. What opportunities will end users have to provide feedback that informs improvements? It can be helpful to set expectations for when this will happen.

• Identify aspects of the change that are optional and open to adaptation or customization to meet group/individual needs. Differentiate those clearly from aspects of the change that are standard and should be adopted "as is."

Observability

People want to see evidence that the change has created benefits

People want to know that the change is worth their effort. Consider how you might make the benefits of the change more apparent to more people. Importantly, benefits can sometimes be more obvious or meaningful to an experienced user than to a novice. Consider the average user when evaluating your solution for observability of benefits.

To support greater observability, you can:

• Widely communicate stories and quantitative measures of benefit from using the change solution. Consider highlighting case studies or providing opportunities for those who have experienced success with the change to share their perspectives directly with others.

• Encourage staff members who do see the benefits of the change solution to informally share their perspectives with their peers.

• If the change solution is more conceptual — such as shifts in culture or values — clarify how you will track progress to help people recognize the benefits in their experience of the organization.

• Identify and communicate ancillary benefits that the use of the solution may make possible. For example, if you are adopting a lower-cost solution, this may free up resources for another improvement, which may be more desired by staff.

Try it out

If you're looking to introduce a change in your organization, it's important to consider how people will experience it. By keeping these five characteristics in mind, you can increase the chances of adoption and create a more successful change management process.

You may also be interested in…

References

Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2014). Diffusion of Innovations. In An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 432-448). Routledge.

• Change management is the intentional process of transitioning an organization (or part of it) from its current state to a desired future state to achieve meaningful results.

• Most change management methods fall into one of three categories—psychological, leadership/management, or technical—and each offers unique strengths and limitations.

• To address the complexity of organizational change, an integrated approach that blends these perspectives and leverages evidence-based practices is most effective.

What is Change Management?

Change management involves intentionally transitioning an organization—or specific parts of it—from where it is now to where it wants to be. While the concept seems straightforward, it encompasses a range of activities, perspectives, and disciplines that support this transformation.

The Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP) defines change management as:

"[The] practice of applying a structured approach to transition an organization from a current state to a future state to achieve expected benefits."

This definition highlights three key aspects of change management:

• First, it reinforces that change is about moving intentionally from the current to a desired future state.

• Second, it clarifies that this movement is purposeful—aimed at realizing meaningful results, not just making progress for progress's sake.

• And finally, it emphasizes that change management requires a structured, though not prescriptive, process. It’s wise to ensure your choice of approach is appropriate for the type of change you are implementing and your business environment.

Three Perspectives on Change Management

There are countless approaches and change management models outlined in academic literature and the popular business press. Below, we review three major categories or perspectives to which many of these change management approaches align. Different approaches tend to emphasize one of these perspectives more than others, rather than being exclusive to a single perspective. In my experience it’s useful to leverage all three, which is why I have integrated them in my change implementation framework.

Psychological Perspective: Influencing and Motivating People to Change

What Psychological Change Management Focuses On

Change management approaches informed by psychology, or organizational development theory, tend to focus on human dynamics, such as changing an individual's behaviors and beliefs or overcoming resistance to change.

There are many theories that inform these approaches, which are generally similar. They can help us to understand what's going on when employees resist change and what it takes to motivate staff to adopt an organizational change.

For example, the ability, motivation, and opportunity framework helps us to understand that we can't simply increase people's knowledge about the change and skills to do it (ability). Although training to build relevant capability is important, we also need to understand how the change aligns with individuals’ goals and beliefs (motivation) and ensure they have the resources necessary to undertake the change (opportunity).

Why Psychology Alone Isn’t Enough

Supporting behavior change and influencing beliefs are essential parts of any change and can be overlooked if we simply focus on developing and delivering the solution on time and on budget. However, while attending to individual or group motivations is important, it's not sufficient. The change needs to be developed, resourced, managed, and sustained competently. We need a more holistic approach to effectively implement change in organizations.

Examples of Psychology-based Approaches to Change

• AMO — Ability, Motivation, Opportunity

• Kurt Lewin Model — Unfreeze, Move, Refreeze

• PROSCI ADKAR Method — Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement

Management & Leadership: Planning, Mobilizing, and Resourcing Change

What Management and Leadership Perspectives Focus On

Change management approaches that draw on management and leadership scholarship focus on things such as planning, organizing, directing, and resourcing change. These approaches tend to focus more on the organization's perspective as a whole rather than that of the individual within the organization. They highlight the required change skills for leadership and top management and often focus on transformational change.

To make change happen and create results, it does need to be competently managed. Such competence ensures that the change effort is on time, on schedule, and on budget — and that there are clarity, alignment, and commitment across the organization about the purpose and priority of the change.

Why Management & Leadership Alone Isn’t Enough

Some of the most popular change management methods in this category are not backed by strong academic evidence. In addition, they may emphasize the role of leaders so much that they leave a false impression that leadership from the top is all it takes to successfully bring about sustained change. It's necessary, but not in itself sufficient. There are other resources needed to create and maintain organizational change.

Successful change is a team effort that cuts across all levels of the organization. To be successful, we must often draw on the expertise of a skilled change management team, as well as contributions from managers at all levels, in addition to the input and support of impacted staff members.

Examples of Management & Leadership Change Approaches

• John Kotter — 8 Steps

• Heifitz — Adaptive Change

• Kanter, Jick and Stein — 10 Steps

Industrial Engineering: Systematic approaches to change

What Systematic Change Management Focuses On

Technical approaches drawn from industrial engineering provide detailed and consistent methods for organizational change management. They are often systematic approaches or continuous improvement efforts focused on improving the quality or efficiency of current processes.

Many of these methods focus on "defining the problem" as an initial step. This sets these apart from other organizational change approaches, which do not address that essential aspect of change explicitly.

These methods are also grounded in the idea that organizational change requires continuous effort and incremental improvements over time. Regardless of the type of change we are implementing, iterative improvement is almost always part of successful change efforts. Therefore, to some degree, the mindset and some of the tools designed for use in more methodical change management approaches have broad applicability.

Why Systematic Approaches Alone Aren’t Enough

Not all organizational changes are planned or involve predictable or controllable processes. Some organizational changes demand more flexible and creative approaches to managing change.

Examples of Systematic Approaches to Change

• Lean Six Sigma

• Plan, Do, Check, Act

• Total Quality Management

Benefits of an Integrated Approach

While each of these perspectives is useful, in reality, none by itself will help us meet the complexity we face in most periods of organizational change. To navigate that complexity demands an integrated change management approach that brings the best of many disciplines to the table.

When managing organizational change, you should expect that you, or more likely your broader change management team, will be called on to demonstrate competence in all of the following areas:

• Project management

• Stakeholder engagement

• Leadership & General Management

• Training and Coaching

• Teaming (High functioning temporary change management teams)

• Technical expertise related to change solution being implemented

• Communication

• Performance Management

What the Research Says

It can be helpful to think of change management as not so much a separate, unique discipline but more as an expert ability to apply and adapt tools and methods from various disciplines. In fact, research indicates successful change management processes include elements that are:

• Complementary — Suggests that all disciplines are necessary, and none by itself is sufficient — they complement one another.

• Compensatory — Strengths in some change competencies can make up for weaknesses in others (but not their complete absence.)

• Scalable — Approaches should be adaptive to meet the needs of the specific changes you are implementing (scale, type, impact).

Do Change Management Approaches Work?

Rather than asking whether change management as a whole works, it's more effective to evaluate the specific practices within it. Evidence consistently supports the efficacy of change practices when they are applied thoughtfully and in alignment with the organization’s goals and context.

For instance, management research indicates that:

• Goal Clarity & Monitoring Increase Performance: Clarity of vision and goals, as well as ongoing goal monitoring, are linked with improved performance, but it matters that you use the right type of goals for your situation.

• Fair Processes Matter: Fair processes are linked with more openness and acceptance of the change and can mitigate, to an extent, negative outcomes of change experienced by staff.

• Communication Influences Perceptions: Explanations, engagement, and communication influence how people perceive the organization, leaders, and organizational changes.

• Trust as a Performance Driver: Trust between team members and leadership is linked to productive risk-taking, going above and beyond, and overall task performance. So it's important to use change practices that support trust building (e.g., engagement, communication, walking the talk.)

• Training + Coaching = Results: Training supports more effective adoption of a change than providing written materials alone. When training is matched with coaching, it supports even better learning outcomes.

• Power of Cross-Functional Teams: Creating teams to develop, lead, and manage change is an effective strategy because only through a team can you deliver the diversity of skills and perspectives necessary to competently and legitimately lead a change.

• Perceived Change Competence & Commitment: People's perceptions of change are linked to their belief that the organization can competently manage the change and the demonstrated commitment of the organization to the change and supporting staff to navigate it.

The evidence outlined above, and much more, indicates that using an intentional approach that leverages evidence-based practices that support learning, engagement, effective management of resources, and performance is effective. In addition to the change management process used, it's also important to recognize that change success is impacted by two other factors: the quality of the change solution (content), as well as the environment in which the change is implemented (context).

Key Takeaways

• Change management is about moving from a current state to a future state, intentionally and effectively.

• Three major perspectives—psychological, leadership/management, and technical—each provide value.

• A successful change strategy often requires integrating insights and practices from all three.

• Evidence supports using a blended, evidence-based approach tailored to your unique situation.

Want to learn more about our integrated change management framework? Click here to explore.

References

Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blase, K., Friedman, R., Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tamps, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network.

Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

• Organizational change, at its simplest, is the transition between two points — where you are now (current state) and where you want to be (future state). A good understanding of both is necessary to manage any change.

• The success of an organizational change is influenced by three interrelated but distinct factors: content, context, and change management process.

• It’s important to recognize that a single change can play out differently at the organizational, group, and individual levels. What happens at each of these levels impacts how the change takes hold in the company as a whole.

What is Organizational Change?

Change is the transition of a person or organization from its current state to its desired future state.

If we break down that statement, we can see it has a lot of implications for our understanding of organizational change.

For instance, in order to transition between two points, we have to have a good understanding of each of these points — where we are now (current state) and where we want to go (future state). Only when we define the starting and ending place for our journey can we gauge the distance between them, which is the gap we need to fill by implementing a change.

It's common to have some uncertainty about these points, particularly about the future state. But we must at least define future success in broad terms to clarify why changing is worth the effort.

The Three Components of Change Success

Success in bridging the gap between our current and future state depends on a variety of things, which we can summarize in terms of three influencing factors:

• Content — Why we are changing and what the change solution is

• Context — The internal & external environment in which we develop and implement the change

• Process — The change management approach we use to implement & sustain the change

Because these three factors have been found to influence the success of any change initiative, we can use these components to develop a comprehensive change management approach and to troubleshoot when things go awry (which they often do!) Let’s review each of them in greater detail.

Change Content — What and Why

Content reflects two things:

• Why we need to change, including the rationale and strategic vision for the change

• What the change is (e.g., a process, policy, system, practice, etc.)

Rationale and Vision — Why

The rationale and vision in organizational change management are our way of explaining the need for change or why the company must change. 'The Why' of the change defines the gap between the current and future states.

It explains two things:

• The problem we need to address by changing (the rationale for changing)

• The benefits we will see by changing (the vision for the change)

'The Why' of change is essential because it provides the requirements for developing the change solution. For example, if the goal of the change is to reduce costs, the solution we develop may be quite different than if the goal is to increase quality.

Usually, the rationale and vision for the change are developed as part of the change initiation process. 'The Why' is also a key message in change communication— the one question we will hear more than any other during organizational change implementation is "Why are we doing this?"

The Change Solution — What

"The What" of change is the innovation or solution that we implement to bridge the gap between the current and future states.

The change solution addresses the problems identified with the current state and produces the results or benefits associated with the desired future state.

When identifying the solution(s) we will implement through the change management process, it's important to consider the capacity of the organization, which relates to our context (see below).

Research in decision-making suggests it's a good idea to identify several options for our change solution rather than assuming there is only one.

Change Context — Where

Context reflects where we are implementing the change. It is made up of a variety of internal and external factors that can affect our ability to successfully change our company. Contextual factors include things such as the level of expertise of end-users, the recent history of the organization with changes, the resources available to support the change management process, as well as external factors such as regulations or the health of the economy.

The factors that are most significant will vary with each organizational change. What will be consistent is the importance of identifying the most significant contextual factors for any given change so that we can use them to inform our efforts. This is generally done through a context or readiness assessment at the start of the change but can also be conducted when troubleshooting a change that has gone off course.

Process of Change Management — How

The process of change is essentially about change management. What is change management? In short, it's the processes, people, and tools we use to develop and implement our change solution so that it creates the benefits we desire in our future state.

Defining our change management approach includes how we'll structure the effort (e.g., governance, change team, etc.) and core components we'll use to support all phases of the change: decide, prepare, execute, improve, and maintain.

(Want to learn more about what change management is? Explore our in-depth article here.)

Thinking across levels when managing change

Finally, if you are involved in implementing a large-scale change, it’s helpful to recognize that change is not a single thing that happens uniformly across the entire organization. Rather, it plays out in different ways at different levels. What happens at each of these levels then impacts how the change takes hold in the organization as a whole. 

Conceptualizing the change process as being enacted at different levels reveals a few things that can inform our practical approaches. They include:  

• There is often a time lag between activities at each level, which has implications for the total timeframe necessary for the change process. For instance, an individual may first hear of a change only months after those leading the change started discussing it. For this reason, those most deeply involved in implementing the change at the organizational level may need to make a concerted effort not to get too far ahead of other levels. Patience is a requirement. Each level needs time to digest and work through the change.

• The vision for and communication of the change needs to be clear and powerful enough to carry across these levels. Key messages will likely be translated and modified at each level; simplicity and clarity can help to ensure the core message withstand this translation across levels and groups. Feedback between levels can also help to improve the messages over time, ensuring messages are relevant at all levels, not just to those who initially created them.

• We all experience the individual level of change. As individuals, we process change in different ways due to our personality, job type, and current circumstances. No one expects change leaders to attend to the specific needs of each person impacted by the change. However, at a minimum, it’s important to be aware and acknowledge that there will be a diversity of individual reactions to change. It can also be worthwhile to include in your change approach practical tools to assist individuals in coping with a change.

• These levels are also relevant outside of the construct of organizational hierarchy. For example, while top management often directs change, executives are usually also affected by the change. Top management is comprised of individuals who have to go through the personal process of change. Regardless of where one sits in the organization, she will likely contribute to and be affected by the dynamics of change at each of these levels.

If you’re looking to make an organizational change, it’s important to understand what change is and the three factors that will influence its success. Change is difficult, but with the right tools and knowledge, it can be done.

References

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.)

Pettigrew, A., & Whipp, R. (1992). Managing change and corporate performance. In European industrial restructuring in the 1990s (pp. 227-265). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Walker, H. J., Armenakis, A. A., & Bernerth, J. B. (2007). Factors influencing organizational change efforts: An integrative investigation of change content, context, process, and individual differences. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. (2003). Strengthening organizational change processes: Recommendations and implications from a multilevel analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(2), 186-207.

Psychological safety gets another look.   

Although the concept of psychological safety has been around since the 1960s, it recently came storming into the mainstream through research by Amy Edmonson at Harvard, as well as Google's research on high-performing teams.  In this article, however, I'll summarize findings from a new meta-analysis on the topic by Lance Frazier and colleagues (2017). They reviewed samples from 117 studies representing over 22,000 individuals and nearly 5,000 groups.

Specifically, I’ll review the answers to six important questions about psychological safety in light of these findings. Keep in mind, most of the studies included in the meta-analysis were cross-sectional, so we cannot make causal conclusions from these findings. However, we can better understand some of the factors that may contribute to psychological safety, as well as its potential outcomes.

One: What is psychological safety?

Psychological safety relates to a person’s perspective on how threatening or rewarding it is to take interpersonal risks at work. For instance, is this a place where new ideas are welcomed and built upon? Or picked apart and ridiculed? Will my colleagues embarrass or punish me for offering a different point of view, or for admitting I don’t understand something?

You might be thinking, “Is this just a fancy way of saying trust?” Although trust and psychological safety have a lot in common, they are not completely interchangeable concepts. A key difference is that psychological safety is thought to be experienced at the group level — most people on a team tend to have the same perceptions of it. While trust usually relates to interactions between two individuals or parties (Edmondson, 2004).

Two: What benefits might arise when psychological safety exists?

Psychological safety may help to create an environment conducive to learning. Frazier and colleagues found it was strongly linked to information sharing as well as learning behaviors. Practically speaking, this might look like a team where members are more likely to discuss mistakes, share ideas, ask for and receive feedback and experiment. Sounds like a great team! Perhaps, then, it shouldn’t be surprising that psychological safety is also strongly linked to employee satisfaction!

Three: What might help to cultivate psychological safety?

Psychological safety is strongly associated with role clarity and peer support. You can probably see the logic in this. If you have a good understanding of what’s expected of you on the job and feel encouraged by your colleagues, you may feel more confident speaking up, as well as be more supportive when others do so. Additionally, the degree of interdependence on a team may play a role. For instance, if the team is one where you must count on your colleagues to get the job done, psychological safety may be more likely to develop, than on a team where most folks can complete their tasks without much help from others.

Four: Does national culture make a difference?

If you work outside your home country, or in a culturally diverse team, should you think about psychological safety differently? Frazier and colleagues offer initial evidence that suggests, “Yes!” Specifically, they looked at how the role of psychological safety may differ based on “uncertainty avoidance”(UA), i.e., how much people prefer a structured and defined environment. People in high UA cultures tend to value stability, formal rules and social norms (e.g., Germany and Japan). Those in low UA cultures tend to be relatively more informal and unstructured (e.g., US and Denmark). In sum, this study indicates that psychological safety may be even more important in high UA cultures, where individuals may be culturally predisposed to avoid the type of risk-taking required to ask questions, contribute ideas and offer productive challenge to their colleagues.

Five: Can you have too much psychological safety?

Unfortunately, research to date has not yet adequately investigated if there are potential downsides to psychological safety. For instance, could it be linked with an increased likelihood of unethical behavior? Are there potential consequences for individuals, beyond what they may experience as part of their team, that should be accounted for when taking interpersonal risks? Although there is a growing body of support for the productive role of psychological safety, it’s also important to keep in mind such unanswered questions.

Six: How do you gauge a team’s level of psychological safety?

There are a variety of ways to evaluate the level of psychological safety of a group or team. The six survey questions used by Amy Edmonson in her research are used widely and have been validated.

Psychological Safety Survey Questions (7 pt scale — Very Inaccurate to Very Accurate)

1. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.

2. Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.

3. People on this team sometimes reject others for being different.

4. It is safe to take a risk on this team.

5. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help.  

6. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.

7. Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized. 

In addition to psychological safety itself, many tools also ask questions about related factors that tend to influence psychological safety — such as goal clarity, team leader behaviors — and outcomes associated with psychological safety — team learning behavior or a team’s sense of its ability to get the job done (efficacy). Examples are below; the full survey is available here.

• Clear Direction: This team has invested plenty of time to clarify our goals.

• Organizational Supportiveness: This team gets all the information it needs to do our work and plan our schedule.

• Team Leader Coaching: The team leader initiates meetings to discuss the team’s progress.

• Team efficacy: With focus and effort, this team can do anything we set out to accomplish.

• Team learning behaviors: In this team, someone always makes sure that we stop to reflect on the team’s work process.

In sum

Are you interested in building a team where people ask questions, seek feedback, are willing to experiment, and aim to learn from mistakes? Then make sure it feels rewarding rather than threatening for team members to do so. To cultivate psychological safety on your team, you may want to consider:

• Clarifying roles. Ensure team members understand their respective roles and responsibilities, as well as how they contribute to the team’s purpose.

• Modeling the way. Leaders can help set the tone by being curious, asking questions, and exhibiting tolerance for mistakes.

• Considering national culture. A sense of peer and organizational support may be particularly relevant in developing psychological safety in cultures that value stability and rules.

• For more ideas, you may want to check out this guide from Google’s re:Work.

This article was originally published on November 17, 2017; it was updated on July 21, 2022.

You may also like…

 References 

Edmondson, A. C., Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, 12, 239-272.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165.

Guide: Understand team effectiveness. (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2017, from https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/steps/identify-dynamics-of-effective-teams/

Kim, S., Lee, H., & Connerton, T. P. (2020). How psychological safety affects team performance: mediating role of efficacy and learning behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1581.

• Trust reflects how willing a person is to give up some control or accept vulnerability related to another person or group. It’s best to think of levels of trust along a continuum, rather than all-or-nothing conditions.

• Three things influence how trustworthy you seem to others: ability, benevolence, and integrity. Integrity, in particular, is important for building trust between leaders and staff.

• Effective change management, including communicating, providing staff opportunities for input, and exhibiting fairness — is essential to avoid potentially damaging effects of organizational change on trust.

Leading change in an organization can sometimes feel like being on one side of a vast chasm, with everyone else on the other side. The challenge is to inspire people to take the leap to join us. While a variety of factors may influence people’s willingness to take the leap and commit to an organizational change, trust is one of the most critical.

What is trust and how does it “work”? 

Some researchers differentiate between trust, and the things that may enable or support it, as follows :

• Trust: A belief that if one gives up some degree of control to another person(s) it will not result in loss or harm.

• Trust Propensity: One’s general disposition towards relying on others.

• Trustworthiness: Characteristics of a person that inspire or inhibit trust.

Clearly, some of the factors that enable trust are unique to individuals — some people are simply more likely to trust others (trust propensity).

However, the decision to trust another can also be influenced by how that other person acts (trustworthiness).   

Are you a trustworthy leader? 

There are a variety of ways to look at what makes us trustworthy, but we’ll focus on the model put forth by Roger Mayer and colleagues (1995), the merits of which have been supported by various intensive reviews. Mayer identified three characteristics that people use to evaluate trustworthiness. I’ve adapted them below. 

• Ability: Are you good at what you do? (Skills, competencies, technical knowledge)

• Benevolence: Are you looking out for my best interests? (Caring, openness, loyalty)

• Integrity: Do you uphold principles that are important to me? Do you do what you say? (Consistency, reliability, fairness)

Others have found that all three of these dimensions — ability, benevolence, and integrity — were strongly and uniquely related to trust levels. Interestingly, they found the relationship to be similar whether they were looking at interactions amongst co-workers or between staff and leaders/managers, except in one regard.

The link between integrity and trust was much stronger for relationships between employees and managers. Walking the talk, following up, and being fair-minded may matter even more for senior leaders. 

Experts in the field suggest thinking of trustworthiness, and its dimensions, as a continuum, rather than an all-or-nothing condition. Given that, it’s possible to be somewhat trustworthy. For instance, if I have a high degree of technical ability and am well respected for it, but struggle with follow-through, people may trust that I know what I am doing, but not trust that will do it in a timely manner.

Does trust matter for team performance? 

In general, research shows that trust is positively linked with a variety of work-related outcomes, including more risk-taking and going above and beyond (citizenship behavior). Trust is also related to decreases in counter-productive behaviors (e.g, theft, sabotage, withdrawal.)

Specifically, amongst teams, trust is more important for teams with centralized decision-making — where people depend on one another to get the job done. Further, a review of more than 100 studies shows that trust between team members is linked to better team performance. This is even the case when you take into account other factors, such as trust in a team leader and past team performance. So it’s not enough that everyone trusts the leader of the team, they also need to trust one another.

What’s more, teams that develop an overall environment of psychological safety, in which people feel comfortable asking for help, making mistakes, and sharing their opinions openly, also have been found to outperform other teams.

Conversely, when trust is lacking in a team, people tend to focus their effort and energy on defending their personal interests, rather than supporting the collective goals of the team. (To learn more about the impact of trust on teams, check out my article at Science for Work.)

What role does trust play in the success of organizational change?

Employees’ experience at work influences the level of trust they put in the organization, managers, and team members. In as much as organizational change shifts that experience — by, for example, increasing or decreasing a sense of job vulnerability, competence, or power — it can also impact levels of trust. Some studies suggest that all organizational changes in some way threaten trust, at least early on in the change process.

Various studies have found that communication during change, or lack thereof, can influence staff members’ perceptions of the organization as a place that is honest and trustworthy. In fact, one study reflected that perceptions of the organization as trustworthy took a hit amongst all employees when a merger was announced, but only recovered among groups that received explanations and engaged with managers and leaders throughout the change.

The key lesson here is that organizational change in and of itself may threaten the trust staff has for leaders and the organization, however, effective change management can mitigate that risk, and may, over time diminish it.

How do you measure the level of trust in leaders or between peers?

Given the critical role trust plays during organizational change, it’s often considered a key element of change context. When it’s high, it can be an enabler, but when it’s low it’s an obstacle.

But how do you tell how much trust exists in the organization or team?

Researchers use a variety of measurement scales to assess trust levels. Most are not perfect but have been found to accurately and consistently measure aspects of trust. Many measure the factors that reflect trustworthiness discussed above (ability, benevolence, integrity) as well as trust itself. Importantly, it’s essential to specify who is the trustee (being trusted) — peers, subordinates, supervisors, or top management. If you are interested in the general trust climate in the organization, some research suggests trust in supervisors is a good proxy. (When there is trust in supervisors, there tends to also be trust in subordinates and amongst peers.)

Examples of questions from Mayer and Davis (1999) are below. Studies indicate their integrative trust model is appropriate to use when gauging trust in supervisors, leaders, top management, subordindates, or peers.

TRUSTWORTHINESS

Ability

• [X] is very capable of performing [their] job.

• X is well qualified.

• I feel very confident in [X’s} skills.

Benevolence

• [X] really looks out for what is important to me.

• [X] will go of [their] way to help me.

Integrity

• [X] tried hard to be fair in [their] dealings with others.

• [X] behaviors are not very consistent. (Reverse)

• I never have to wonder whether [X] will stick to [their] word.

TRUST

• I could be comfortable giving [X] a task or problem which was critical to me, even if I could not monitor their actions.

• If I had my way, I wouldn’t let [X] have any influence over issues that are important to me. (Reverse)

Steps you can take to build trust (and repair it) during times of change

In any leadership context, but particularly for management of strategic or operational change, it can be worthwhile to consider how others view you and how your actions may be shaping these views.  Consider taking the following steps to build change during organizational change:

• Demonstrate your change competence. This could be technical skills related to the specific change you are putting in place, or a broader ability to manage uncertainty and transitions within the organization. Explaining how you and the organization are resourcing and planning the change and identifying and mitigating risks are all ways to communicate change competence.

• Show you care. Balancing your commitment to making the change happen, with a commitment to addressing the needs and concerns of staff is critical for change success. Make yourself more available to staff, in small groups or one-on-one meetings, to allow an opportunity to hear staff perspectives and address problems where possible. This is a particularly effective strategy for middle managers involved in change management.

• Provide opportunities for employee participation in decisions. Creating avenues for staff members to have some level of input into change decisions may increase their motivation to change, their perceptions of the change as fair, and their perceptions of the organization as trustworthy.

• Make sure your actions align with your words. Making promises is relatively easy to do — following through can be another story. Take stock of how well your actions align with your words. Do your colleagues have confidence that they can rely on you to keep your word and act with fairness, most of the time? If not, what steps can you take to ensure better follow-through?

• Foster psychological safety in teams/groups: Model asking for help and risk-taking. Provide time and space for learning and demonstrate curiosity by asking lots of questions.

Trust is hard to repair, so your best bet is to invest in building and maintaining trust in all situations. However, when trust has been broken with groups or individuals, research suggests that:

• If a lack of competence has led to decreased trust, apologizing may be the most effective means of rebuilding trust, rather than denying responsibility.

• If a perceived lack of integrity has led someone or a group to distrust you, denial has been shown to be more effective (!) It’s thought that if you apologize you are essentially admitting your lack integrity, which will make it difficult for people to trust you moving forward.

Trust is a critical part of our lives, and it’s especially important in the workplace. Leaders who want to be successful during organizational change must build and maintain trust with their teams. The three factors that influence how trustworthy someone seems — ability, benevolence, and integrity — are essential for leaders looking to create a trusting environment. Trust also encourages risk-taking and going above and beyond what’s expected, two things that are often necessary during times of change. If you want to further explore and build your effectiveness as a change leader, consider change management coaching.

This article was originally published on June 7, 2017. It was updated and republished July 9, 2022.

Keep learning

References 

Colquitt, Jason A., Brent A. Scott, and Jeffery A. Lepine. "Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk-taking and job performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 92.4 (2007): 909-27. Web.  

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.

Fuoli, M., van de Weijer, J., & Paradis, C. (2017). Denial outperforms apology in repairing organizational trust despite strong evidence of guilt. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 645-660.

Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2013). Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 1-14.

Knoll, D. L., & Gill, H. (2011). Antecedents of trust in supervisors, subordinates, and peers. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. "An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust." Academy of Management Review 20.3 (1995): 709-34. Web.

Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), “The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 123-36.

Morgan, D., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change, and trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55-75.

Weber, P. S., & Weber, J. E. (2001). Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadership & organization Development Journal.

• Middle managers do three things to effectively lead change: interpret, engage & explain, and coordinate & execute.

• Interpretation is a pivotal, but often overlooked, aspect of middle manager change leadership. It is through the interpretation process that mid-level managers make sense of and form a perspective on the organizational change, which influences all other aspects of their involvement in it.

• Middle managers who balance their commitment to the change and commitment to staff are more likely to enable sustained change while also maintaining business continuity.

Organizational change challenges middle managers to become masters of complexity. They balance demands from staff and leaders, maintain performance while instituting change, and adapt to shifts in their own roles, responsibilities, and influence due to the change. In sum, during workplace change, middle managers are called on to simultaneously synthesize, champion, support, and adapt. How do they do it?

Several researchers have conducted in-depth studies of middle manager actions and mindsets during periods of workplace change to identify those that are most likely to lead to lasting shifts in organizations.  

From these studies, we can see that middle managers lead change through three types of actions. They interpret, engage & explain, and coordinate & execute. Further, those that are most effective actively balance conflicting demands that arise in each of these areas. We explore these ideas below, highlighting middle manager perspectives on each of them, as shared via a variety of case studies.

Interpret: How does the change impact me?

Although often overlooked, middle managers first engage with change by interpreting it for themselves. They need to make sense of how the change impacts them as individuals.

This is particularly important because middle managers often implement changes initiated by others. They need time to understand what the change is about and process how it might shift their priorities, power, and responsibilities before being asked to "make it happen" in the organization.

How middle managers interpret the change — positively or negatively — will influence their personal commitment to the change and how they undertake other aspects of their change leadership.  

Interpretation often happens through a highly social process. Time and opportunity to dialog about the change and its impacts are essential for middle managers, particularly in the early phases of a change effort. Gossip, critical questions, and productive pushback are all expected as part of the interpretation process.

Case Study Snapshot — A committee interprets its role in a change

Chair: Our charge is to examine the alternative levels of analysis. We are conducting strategic planning. (pause) I don't understand what that means. (pause) I don't understand "alternative levels" either.

Second Member: We were hoping you would explain!

Third Member: I just don't understand. What are we supposed to do?¹

Such reactions from mid-level managers should not be automatically labeled as change resistance but rather understood for what they are — people trying to understand a new idea and its consequences for them. It's essential to recognize that those who initiate a change, often senior leaders, often go through interpretation as part of the decision-making process to create the change. Top-level leaders need to provide others the same opportunity to make sense of things before expecting them to act. 

Beyond providing time and opportunities for questions, top-level leaders can also help middle managers by offering specific information about the change, such as the vision, rationale, and organizational commitment to it. Such information is also valuable to inform the second type of middle manager action — engage and explain.

Engage and Explain: How do I support staff through the change?

Middle managers are uniquely positioned to communicate the change in ways that resonate with staff. Their insights into what works for their team allow them to turn broad messages into tailored ideas that are more likely to motivate. Adapting how changes are framed to staff can include shifting language to be more familiar or aligning corporate-wide benefits and priorities with those most relevant in their function.

In addition to explaining the change, middle managers are also on the front line of engaging with staff about the change. This often involves supporting staff as they process emotional reactions to change. Opportunities for staff to share and discuss their perspectives and leaders who acknowledge and address concerns have been found essential for effective change by a variety of researchers.

Case Study Snapshot — On staff engagement

Often, it's like 'ta-dah' we've got this new thing '...versus saying, 'ok, we're going to implement this, we're all going to own it, what do you think about it?...before the system is in place... ²

Coordinate and Execute: How do I make this change happen?

Middle managers are often responsible to guide the day-to-day actions that bring the change to life in an organization. They mobilize and coordinate the resources necessary to adopt new practices, adjust new processes, or emphasize new ways of working, while also ensuring continuity of performance. This is often referred to as running the business while changing the business. 

Case Study Snapshot — Coordinating resources for change

Originally, I was skeptical [about the new program] because I know asking people to come in on their days off is a real hit or miss proposition. Then I realized I have some power over when we schedule these things.

So, we started adjusting schedules so that we always trained people during the hours that they were there to work anyway. And that really made a lot of sense. I kind of turned things around.³

To be successful, middle managers must be adept at navigating paradoxes — balancing the tension and tradeoffs required to hit ongoing performance targets, while also ushering staff through the learning curve of change. To support middle managers’ effectiveness in this regard, senior leaders can ensure the change is adequately resourced and near-term performance targets are adjusted to allow for learning.

The Key: Balancing commitments

In his studies of middle managers engaged in transformational change, Quy N. Huy found that mid-level leaders who balanced their commitment to the change and commitment to staff were the most successful at maintaining performance and achieving change outcomes.   

Huy's work illustrates that middle managers who focus solely on getting the change done, without gaining buy-in or acknowledging impacts on staff, are more likely to fail. They may create surface change, such as putting in place a new structure or system, but lack the requisite staff support and learning required to be effective for the long-term. What's more, in such circumstances the change can become so disruptive to staff that performance in areas not affected by change also declines.

Case Study Snapshot: Chaos scenario

We had an open line for [staff] questions. Ninety percent of them were basically the same: how was it going to affect my work scheduling, my vacation. Not about the business structure or how customer segmentation works. In the future should we take these calls? No!

I feel angry: why can't they see the future? Why is everybody dragging their heels? I feel frustrated that things are not changing as fast as we want them to.⁴

Conversely, when middle managers largely focus on maintaining current models and performance, investing limited effort in executing the change, they generally retain the status quo, regardless of how much or little attention they pay to staff concerns. 

Case Study Snapshot: Intertia scenario

…I could easily just do the ordinary run of the mill work which puts you under enough pressure as it is and doesn't take the job forward. I could easily say with these meetings and seminars that instead you spend three hours keeping your [inbox] down…but at the end of the day you don't take the job forward.⁵ _______________

The whole process is losing momentum. ... I am afraid that everything is going back to where it was before. We [have yet to complete] the administrative tools that were required to help the [professionals] do their jobs.... The development of these tools has been delayed or dropped. .... Nobody continues with the training. ⁴

However, adaptation happens when middle managers match their commitment to change with commitment to their staff. Practically, this looks like providing staff opportunities to express their thoughts, emotions, and concerns about the change and acknowledging those perspectives. When managers invest time and effort in supporting employees personally, day-to-day work is less likely to be interrupted and the goals of change are more likely to be achieved and sustained. 

 Case Study Snapshot: Adaptive scenario

Over time, I learned to avoid mass meetings. I used to meet a large group where everything seemed to go well and then I got all kinds of surprising feedback later. I realized that one could not deal effectively with emotions when one was with a crowd. So, I began to set up smaller meetings in groups of seven or eight, and I told them I would be available for private meetings after the group discussion. ... It was a winning formula.

We have to do more than giving employees technical training only. We have to prepare them to cope with psychological issues, to help them overcome the fear and change during this transition period.⁴

The recipe for success for middle managers during organizational change involves investing time to understand and process their own reaction to the change, and then balancing their commitment to staff and the organization to create the necessary conditions for change to come about. Throughout the process, middle managers must be provided the time and support necessary to navigate the conflicting demands of change to ward off burnout. Attending to difficult emotions and technical challenges can be draining. Senior leaders can support middle managers by providing clear information about and adequate resources for the change, recognizing small wins, and helping middle managers to process their own emotions and frustrations throughout the implementation of the change.     

Related Articles

Sources

Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69-83.

 Bryant, M., & Stensaker, I. (2011). The challenges of middle management change agents: How interactionism can provide a way forward. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 353-373.

 Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448.

 Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363-383.

 Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.

 Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325-345.

 Pagel, C., Bates, D. W., & Goldmann, D. (2020). How to Avoid Common Pitfalls of Health IT Implementation. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 1(5).

Case Study Snapshots sourced from:

¹Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363-383. 

²Pagel, C., Bates, D. W., & Goldmann, D. (2020). How to Avoid Common Pitfalls of Health IT Implementation. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 1(5).

³Bryant, M. & Stensaker, I. (2011), The challenges of middle management change agents: How interactionism can provide a way forward. Journal of Change Management. 11 (3), pp. 353-373.. Journal of Change Management. 11. 353-373.

⁴Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.

⁵Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69-83.

• Anchor your change communications plan around the five topics staff must understand about any organizational change: The Need for Change, Change Solution, Change Capacity, Change Commitment, and Change Impact.

• By engaging with employees around these five key topics in your change management efforts, you not only support employees’ readiness for change but also pressure test your readiness to implement.

• Which of these messages you should prioritize depends on your change and organizational context. Change readiness assessments related to these five areas can help you to identify strengths and gaps to inform your way forward.

Anchor your Change Communication Plan around Five Messages

Preparing your communications as part of your change management approach may seem daunting. A good starting point is to organize your communications plan using five topics:

• The Need for Change: Why the change is necessary/important at this time.

• Change Solution: What the focus and scope of the change are, and why this solution was chosen.

• Change Capability: The ability of the organization to manage the change and provide support to individuals to succeed with the change.

• Change Commitment: Demonstrated commitment of leaders at all levels to make the change successful.

• Impact: The ways the change will affect individuals’ and teams’ experience at work.

A large body of research suggests these five topics are related to the key sentiments or beliefs that people need to demonstrate in order for the change to be successful.

People need to agree that there is a true need for the organization to change and that the solution that is being implemented will be effective.

Staff needs to believe that the company is capable of managing the change. They also need to believe that they personally have what it takes — or will be supported to learn what it takes — to deliver what’s asked of them as part of the change. Finally, people need to believe that will personally benefit from changing and that leaders at all levels are committed to the change.

As you plan your change communications, thinking about the information you will share and who will share it is necessary but not sufficient. In addition, consider how you will engage staff to share their perspectives and concerns and garner their input as you develop the way forward. Doing so not only bolsters employees’ understanding but is likely to increase their motivation and willingness to support the change.

Suggestions and Examples for Communicating the Five Change Messages

Below we review each of the five change messages, provide suggestions of the type of content to include, and share examples from real-world change communications from top companies.

It’s useful to develop a core set of broad messages in these five areas that is relevant for all audiences, as well as to create tailored content for specific stakeholder groups. Be sure to get informal feedback from middle managers and staff to help you sharpen your messages, and periodically measure the effectiveness of your change communications throughout the change implementation process.

THE NEED: Explain the rationale for the organizational change.

What is the specific problem you are trying to solve? What is your vision for the future (what will the organization achieve by solving the problem?) Research suggests it’s wise to use both data and motivational messaging when explaining the need for change. Senior leaders are best suited to deliver such messages.

• Example: "Rapid headcount growth has led to some duplicate roles and job functions, and more layers and complexity than are optimal.....”

• Example: "We are collectively living through the most harrowing crisis of our lifetime, and as it began to unfold, global travel came to a standstill. Airbnb’s business has been hit hard, with revenue this year forecasted to be less than half of what we earned in 2019. In response, we raised $2 billion in capital and dramatically cut costs that touched nearly every corner of Airbnb. While these actions were necessary, it became clear that we would have to go further…." 

CHANGE SOLUTION: Explain why this solution (change) is the best fit for the problem and the organization.

What is “the change” you are implementing (e.g., policy, org structure, system, practice, etc.)? Why have you chosen it? How was the decision made? What’s fixed and what’s flexible about the change? What’s not changing?

• Example: "Today we made the difficult announcement that we are letting go approximately 9% of our full-time employees."

• Example: "Out of our 7,500 Airbnb employees, nearly 1,900 teammates will have to leave Airbnb, comprising around 25% of our company. Since we cannot afford to do everything that we used to, these cuts had to be mapped to a more focused business."

Decades of research suggest that people decide whether or not they will adopt a change based on several factors such as ease of use, relative advantage, and whether or not they can try it out. Sharing information related to these factors is a good idea.

CHANGE CAPABILITY: Demonstrate that the organization is capable of taking on this change.

What is the plan for the change? Who is leading the effort? What support (training, coaching) will be provided to individuals, teams, and managers? Consider also the context of past changes. What lessons from the past (successes or failures) have informed your plans?

• Example: "I’ve never been more certain that we will win. But it’s going to demand the best of our DNA: hustle, grit, and category-defining innovation. In some places, we’ll have to pull back to sprint ahead. We will absolutely have to do more with less. This will not be easy, but it will be epic."

• Example: "To take care of those that are leaving, we have looked across severance, equity, healthcare, and job support and done our best to treat everyone in a compassionate and thoughtful way.”

COMMITMENT: Articulate the organization’s level of commitment to the change.

How high a priority is this change initiative compared to other efforts? How is the change being resourced? How are you ensuring leaders at all levels are aligned around this change? People will look to see if leaders’ actions, in addition to their words, demonstrate their level of commitment.

• Example: "We will treat hiring as a privilege and be deliberate about when and where we add headcount. We will be even more hardcore about costs across the board."

• Example: "I remain steadfast in my commitment to you, to our customers, and our mission and I will not rest until everyone in the world has access to simple, low-cost financial services."

IMPACT: Help people understand how the workplace change will impact them.

How will this alter what people do, how they do it, or the pay or benefits they receive? What specifically are you asking people to do? Acknowledge — don’t ignore — any negative impacts that some might experience. Being realistic and honest is important for maintaining trust. Finally, follow up with specific groups to provide details most relevant to their experience — middle managers are particularly well-positioned to share tailored information on impact.

• Example: "I want to provide clarity to all of you as soon as possible. We have employees in 24 countries, and the time it will take to provide clarity will vary based on local laws and practices. Some countries require notifications about employment to be received in a very specific way. While our process may differ by country, we have tried to be thoughtful in planning for every employee."

How can we tell which change messages are most relevant for any given change?

All five of these topics relate to beliefs that people need to have about organizational change in order for it to be successful. However, in any given organization, at any given time, some may be a higher priority than others.

For instance, it’s not uncommon for organizations to undertake a suite of changes, not fulling understanding their cumulative impact. Under such conditions, the commitment to change and relative priority of different changes may be high on people’s list of things to understand.

An assessment can help you to gauge employees’ views in relation to these five areas and inform where you need to improve your change communications or overall change management approach.

Several researchers have developed survey tools directly related to these five change sentiments, which can be useful for these purposes. Some examples from one questionnaire, developed by Armenakis and colleagues, are provided below. (Note: Technical terms for each topic used in the assessment are provided in parentheses.)

Need for Change (Discrepancy)

• We need to improve the way we operate in this organization.

Change Solution (Appropriateness)

• This organizational change will prove to be best for our situation.

Change Capability (Efficacy)

• I can implement this change in my job.

• [As an organization], we have the capability to successfully implement this change.

Change Commitment (Principal Support)

• Influential Peer: The majority of my respected peers are dedicated to making this change work.

• Supervisor: My immediate manager is in favor of this change.

• Top Leader: The top leaders in this organization are “walking the talk.”

Impact (Valence)

• This change will benefit me.

Words are not enough

Clearly, engaging with staff about these topics is only one dimension of a successful change management effort. These topics also represent critical areas of work for the change team involved in developing, planning, and enabling change in the company. That said, the very act of creating communication messages for these topics is a way to pressure test your readiness to implement. If you find you don’t have adequate information or there is a lack of clarity about the organization’s plans and positions in these areas, then you know you have work to do.

Change management can be overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be. By focusing on the five key messages we know staff are interested in during any organizational change, we can better support employees through the transition. If you feel like you could use some help getting your change management efforts off the ground, Wendy Hirsch Consulting is here to help. Check out our change management coaching for more information on how we can help you successfully navigate your next big change.

You may also be interested in…

References

Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational change recipients' beliefs scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 43(4), 481-505. 

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., Cole, M. S., Lawrence Fillmer, J., & Self, D. R. (2007). A top management team's reactions to organizational transformation: The diagnostic benefits of five key change sentiments. Journal of Change Management, 7(3-4), 273-290.

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3), 192-222.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135.

Example Sources

A message from co-founder and CEO Brian Chesky. Airbnb Newsroom. (2020, May 6). Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://news.airbnb.com/a-message-from-co-founder-and-ceo-brian-chesky/

Dosani, S., & Westbrook, A. (2020, May 05). The leader we wish we all had. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000007111965/coronavirus-ohio-amy-acton.html?action=click>ype=vhs&version=vhs-heading&module=vhs®ion=title-area&cview=true&t=11

Our commitment to human transformation through coach quality. (2022, April 27). Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.betterup.com/blog/human-transformation-coach-quality

Team, R. (2022, April 26). A message from our CEO and co-founder Vlad Tenev. Under the Hood. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2022/4/26/a-message-from-our-ceo-and-co-founder-vlad-tenev

• Identify the right leaders, at the right levels, to deliver aspects of workplace change communication

• Differentiate between various change management messages. Consider those that are strategic versus practical and standard versus tailored for specific audiences

• Leverage the strong relationships of communicators with specific audiences to build credibility for the workplace change

When it comes to change management communication, it's not just about what you say, but who is saying it. A key question to ask is: who will people most listen to?

That's a challenging question to answer because change is complex. You need people at all levels of your organization to take on communication roles; each is better suited to different types of messages. This article discusses the different kinds of change messages and who can most credibly deliver them.

Organization-wide change messages are best delivered by leaders with broad influence and power

Senior leaders can most credibly speak to strategic change vision and organizational commitment

Some aspects of a change, such as its strategic importance and the organization's commitment to it, need to be delivered with authority to be taken seriously by employees. Often top-level leaders are the best people to deliver these messages. They can speak influentially about what's driving the need for change  — why it's worth the effort —and why the status quo is not sustainable.* This is a critical change leadership competency for professionals at this level.

Additionally, top-level leaders are the best pick to help employees understand the vision for the change. Employees expect to hear this from those at the head of the organizational hierarchy. This helps employees understand why the change is taking place and the difference it will make in the company. While leaders at this level may not fully understand the specific impact of the change on various teams or individuals, they can acknowledge the costs of the change initiative and the effort it will take to carry out.

Employees are much more likely to buy into a change when they understand its purpose and how it will benefit the business — and when they feel seen in the process. Executive leaders, not project managers, the change team, or middle management, are the most credible voices to articulate these high-level messages of "vision, passion, and care." (Through not only their words but also their actions.)

Common change communication mistakes senior leaders should avoid:

• Failure to articulate a clear rationale or commitment to change

• A mismatch between senior leader words and actions

• Sole focus on benefits; failure to acknowledge losses that the change may bring

Change teams are the experts on rollout plans and technical aspects of change implementation

Change messages delivered by executives can often come across as being too focused on the big picture rather than the details of the organizational change process. This can be frustrating for employees trying to understand what they can expect and their role in the change.

That's where the change or project team comes in. Those tasked with managing change rollout are most effective at communicating how the change will be executed, when and how it will impact staff, and how employees will be supported to effectively use the change solution. Change team members are also the most informed about technical aspects of the change and are a good source of accurate information on details of the change solution (e.g., process, practices, tool, system being implemented.)

Common change communication mistakes change teams should avoid:

• Assuming big picture information is all employees need to understand the organizational change;

• Viewing employee questions or concerns as a sign of resistance

• Asking top leaders to deliver detailed, technical information with which they are not comfortable

• Sharing details once and assuming they are understood

Mid-level leaders, team leads, and peers shine with tailored messages

Middle managers speak in a language the team understands

An organizational change can impact functions, departments, or geographies differently — nuances that those focused on the organization as a whole can frequently miss.

Mid-level leaders are best at translating organization-wide messages into specifics relevant to their function or teams. They can give meaning to a broad vision by showing how it relates to the work and goals that resonate with those in their functional area. They can also more accurately identify the specific impacts the workplace change may have on the priorities, processes, and practices that make up the day-to-day experiences of staff who report to them.

Given that middle managers and direct supervisors often have a close relationship with their staff, they are often called on to attend to the emotions that come up with change. Helping a team process how they feel about the change and giving them space to share their perspectives and raise concerns is an essential role of this management level — and key to developing motivation for change.

Common change communication mistakes middle managers should avoid:

• Trying to “fill in the blanks” when the organizational change rationale and vision are not articulated by the executives of the change team. Ask for clarity instead developing

• Feel pressure to make everyone happy. Middle managers are most successful when they strike a balance between addressing staff concerns and making the change happen.

To be successful mid-level leaders need to be supported

The change management demands on middle managers are complex — they can only succeed when supported. That's why it's essential to brief mid-level managers in advance and provide them time and space to understand the change — what is the vision, what is the need, how might this impact us — before asking them to explain it to their staff. 

Beyond sufficient information, supervisors also need opportunities to process the impacts of the change for themselves, share frustrations and challenges, and be supported in their development. It's not clear that this happens enough in many companies.

In 2020 and 2021, Gallup found that self-reported anxiety, stress, and work burdens have increased for managers while decreasing for leaders and individual contributors. Bottom-line — there is a cost to bridging the needs and demands of staff and leadership, which mid-level managers should not be required to bear alone.

Common change management communication mistakes for mid-level leaders to avoid

• Not taking time to reflect or ask questions to understand the change and its impacts prior to trying to explain it to others

• Trying to address all challenging questions and frustrations alone; communicate feedback provided by staff upward and advocate for executives to acknowledge or respond to staff perspectives

Tips, tricks, and endorsements are the realm of team leads and influential peers

If you aren't identifying influential staff to be part of your change communication efforts, you may be missing out. Studies show that leveraging internal influencers as change agents— rather than those who may volunteer — can lead to better change outcomes. 

These employees are often able to sway those in their peer group. When knowledgeable about the change project, they can also become an essential source of practical information such as lessons learned, tips, and advice on how to be successful with the given change solution.

Common change communication mistakes to avoid with peer influencers

• Underestimating the power and influence of peers

• Assuming that those who volunteer or who are assigned as change agents have the trust and credibility to be effective

Relationships matter at all levels

Trust is essential for effective change communication. For that reason, it’s important to understand your context when planning your communications. When trust is high, staff may be more open to change and willing to listen and engage with change communications. A lack of trust, on the other hand, can be a significant barrier to a successful change rollout.

When leaders communicating about the change are new to the organization or are not well known (or liked) in pockets of the organization, you can mitigate related risks to effective communication by pairing these leaders with those who may have established credibility.

If trust across the business has eroded, that may need to be addressed as a prerequisite to successful organizational transformation. The good news is the way to build trust is clear — there just needs to be a willingness to do it.

Change communication is a critical part of any workplace transformation, but it can be difficult to know where to start. When crafting change messages, it’s important to differentiate between what is strategic versus practical, and standard versus tailored for specific audiences. Doing so can help you to better identify the leaders at various levels who are best suited to deliver each of these messages. Finally, don’t underestimate the power of relationships in change communication – communicators with strong relationships with their target audience can build credibility for workplace change.

*Not all workplace changes affect the entire organization. Adjust your messengers to the scope of your change. For instance, for a department-level change, the top-level leader may be the VP or Director; a middle-level manager may be a supervisor or team lead. 

References

Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during organizational change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of change management, 7(2), 187-210.

Harter, J. (2022, January 25). Manager Burnout is only getting worse. Gallup.com. Retrieved April 13, 2022.

Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative science quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.

Lam, S. S., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). A field experiment testing frontline opinion leaders as change agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 987.

Men, L. R., Yue, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2020). "Vision, passion, and care:" The impact of charismatic executive leadership communication on employee trust and support for organizational change. Public Relations Review, 46(3), 101927.