Five Reasons Why Change Management Fails

Change management is a crucial process for organisations to evolve and flourish in today's ever-changing world. But, change projects often don't meet expectations.

Here are five main reasons why change management attempts can fail, with real-life examples for each:

Lack of a Strong Case for Change

If a company doesn't establish a strong sense of urgency and a clear reason for change, people are less likely to get on board. This can happen when a company doesn't communicate the benefits of the change effectively, or the risks of keeping things the same. For example, a poorly written Change Case, which outlines the reasons for change, the expected benefits, and the consequences of not changing, can be a significant risk to the success of a change initiative.

Nokia's Failure to Adapt to the Smartphone Revolution. In the early 2000s, Nokia was the dominant player in the mobile phone market. However, they failed to recognize the impending shift towards smartphones and the growing threat from competitors like Apple and Samsung.

Poor Communication  

Open and regular communication throughout the change process is vital. Not communicating effectively can lead to uncertainty, worry, and opposition. For example, describes a common scenario where managers believe they've communicated frequently about changes, but their team remains confused. This is often because stress reduces people's capacity to process information, meaning communication needs to be much more frequent and detailed than managers initially expect.

Recent transition to a hybrid / remote work model due to changing business needs and employee preferences. The management team believes they've communicated this decision effectively through a series of emails, team meetings, and town hall sessions. However, many employees remain confused and anxious about the transition.

Insufficient Leadership Buy-In and Alignment 

Clear and active support from senior management is essential for change to work. If leaders don't actively champion the change, or their actions don't reflect their words, it suggests that the change isn't a priority. For example, a company is implementing a new CRM system, where dedicated resources were assigned for change management. However, top management was not fully onboarded with the change, leading to challenges in the implementation process.

In the late 2000s, Hewlett-Packard (HP) underwent a significant organizational restructuring and cultural transformation. The company aimed to streamline operations, reduce costs, and improve innovation. While the company invested heavily in change management initiatives and appointed dedicated change management teams, the full support and active participation of top management were lacking.   

Resistance to Change 

Resistance is a normal human reaction to change, and organisations must plan for and manage it well. If a company doesn't tackle the underlying causes of resistance, such as fear of what's to come, feeling out of control, or worries about job security, change efforts can be damaged. For example, managers initially support a change initiative. However, during implementation, top management withdrew support, leading to negative emotions among managers and resistance to the change.

Kodak, once a dominant force in the photography industry, faced significant resistance to the digital photography revolution. Despite early investments in digital imaging technology, the company's leadership and many employees were hesitant to embrace the shift.

Not Enough Focus on the Human Side of Change  

Change management isn't only about putting in place new processes or systems; it's about helping individuals through the shift. Overlooking the human aspect can result in people becoming disengaged, resentful, and ultimately, lead to failure. For example, managers often don't focus enough on the human side of change, instead prioritizing changing working practices. This can lead to resistance, as the human impact of the change is not addressed adequately.

Nokia's employees, accustomed to a successful and stable company, were resistant to the radical shift towards smartphones. The company's leadership, while focused on technological advancements, did not adequately address the emotional and psychological impact of the change on its workforce.