Choosing Strategies for Change PDF

Best of HBR JOHN P. KOTTER AND LEONARD A. SCHLESINGER Choosing Strategies for Change “IT MUST BE considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor m...

Best of HBR JOHN P. KOTTER AND LEONARD A. SCHLESINGER Choosing Strategies for Change “IT MUST BE considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dan- gerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.”1 In 1973, The Conference Board asked 13 eminent authori- ties to speculate what significant management issues and problems would develop over the next 20 years. One of the strongest themes that runs through their subsequent reports is a concern for the ability of organizations to EDITOR’S NOTE: A lot has respond to environmen- changed in the world of tal change. As one person management since 1979, when wrote: “It follows that an this article first appeared, but acceleration in the rate of one thing has not: Companies change will result in an in- the world over need to change creasing need for reorga- course. Kotter and Schlesinger nization. Reorganization provide a practical, tested way is usually feared, because to think about managing that it means disturbance of change. the status quo, a threat to people’s vested interests in their jobs, and an upset to es- tablished ways of doing things. For these reasons, needed Justine Beckett reorganization is often deferred, with a resulting loss in effectiveness and an increase in costs.”2 Subsequent events have confirmed the importance of this concern about organizational change. Today, more and more managers must deal with new government regula- tions, new products, growth, increased competition, tech- nological developments, and a changing workforce. In 130 Harvard Business Review | July–August 2008 | hbr.org 1320 Kotter.indd 130 6/5/08 7:33:49 PM  Best of HBR Choosing Strategies for Change response, most companies or divisions of ARTICLE AT A GLANCE presidents of marketing, engineering, major corporations find that they must and production had over new products. Change initiatives often back- undertake moderate organizational Inasmuch as new products were very im- fire because managers apply changes at least once a year and major one-size-fits-all approaches. portant in this organization, the change changes every four or five.3 For example, they attempt to also reduced the vice presidents’ status Few organizational change efforts combat resistance to change which, together with power, was very tend to be complete failures, but few by involving employees in the important to them. initiative’s design even when tend to be entirely successful either. During the two months after the employees don’t have the Most efforts encounter problems; they information needed to provide president announced his idea for a new often take longer than expected and de- useful input. product vice president, the existing sired, they sometimes kill morale, and To lead change, tailor your vice presidents each came up with six they often cost a great deal in terms of strategies to the types of re- or seven reasons the new arrangement managerial time or emotional upheaval. sistance you’ll encounter. For might not work. Their objections grew More than a few organizations have not instance, with employees who louder and louder until the president fear change, provide skills even tried to initiate needed changes shelved the idea. training. because the managers involved were A manufacturing company had Consider situational factors. afraid that they were simply incapable traditionally employed a large group For example, to avert an of successfully implementing them. imminent crisis, change of personnel people as counselors and In this article, we first describe vari- quickly – even if that intensi- “father confessors” to its production em- ous causes for resistance to change and fies resistance. ployees. This group of counselors tended then outline a systematic way to select a to exhibit high morale because of the strategy and set of specific approaches professional satisfaction they received for implementing an organizational number of different reasons, individu- from the “helping relationships” they change effort. The methods described als or groups can react very differently had with employees. When a new per- are based on our analyses of dozens of to change – from passively resisting it, formance appraisal system was installed, successful and unsuccessful organiza- to aggressively trying to undermine it, to every six months the counselors were tional changes. sincerely embracing it. required to provide each employee’s su- To predict what form their resistance pervisor with a written evaluation of the Diagnosing Resistance might take, managers need to be aware employee’s “emotional maturity,” “pro- Organizational change efforts often run of the four most common reasons peo- motional potential,” and so forth. into some form of human resistance. ple resist change. These are a desire not As some of the personnel people im- Although experienced managers are to lose something of value, a misunder- mediately recognized, the change would generally all too aware of this fact, sur- standing of the change and its implica- alter their relationships from a peer and prisingly few take time before an organi- tions, a belief that the change does not helper to more of a boss and evaluator zational change to assess systematically make sense for the organization, and a with most of the employees. Predict- who might resist the change initiative low tolerance for change. ably, the personnel counselors resisted and for what reasons. Instead, using past Parochial self-interest. One ma- the change. While publicly arguing that experiences as guidelines, managers jor reason people resist organizational the new system was not as good for the all too often apply a simple set of be- change is that they think they will lose company as the old one, they privately liefs – such as “engineers will probably something of value as a result. In these put as much pressure as possible on the resist the change because they are inde- cases, because people focus on their own personnel vice president until he signifi- pendent and suspicious of top manage- best interests and not on those of the cantly altered the new system. ment.” This limited approach can create total organization, resistance often re- Political behavior sometimes emerges serious problems. Because of the many sults in “politics” or “political behavior.”5 before and during organizational change different ways in which individuals and Consider these two examples: efforts when what is in the best interests groups can react to change, correct as- After a number of years of rapid of one individual or group is not in the sessments are often not intuitively obvi- growth, the president of an organiza- best interests of the total organization ous and require careful thought. tion decided that its size demanded the or of other individuals and groups. Of course, all people who are affected creation of a new staff function – New While political behavior sometimes by change experience some emotional Product Planning and Development – to takes the form of two or more armed turmoil. Even changes that appear to be headed by a vice president. Opera- camps publicly fighting things out, it usu- be “positive” or “rational” involve loss tionally, this change eliminated most of ally is much more subtle. In many cases, and uncertainty.4 Nevertheless, for a the decision-making power that the vice it occurs completely under the surface 132 Harvard Business Review | July–August 2008 | hbr.org 1320 Kotter.indd 132 6/5/08 7:34:00 PM  ARTICLE IN PRACTICE To lead change successfully, the of public dialogue. Although scheming company more attractive, particularly authors recommend: and ruthless individuals sometimes initi- to clerical and plant personnel. Analyzing Situational Factors ate power struggles, more often than not Shortly after the announcement, nu- Determine how much and what kind those who do are people who view their merous rumors begin to circulate among of resistance to expect. Assess your potential loss from change as an unfair plant employees – none of whom really power relative to resisters’. Identify violation of their implicit, or psychologi- knew what flexible working hours meant who has the most accurate informa- cal, contract with the organization.6 and many of whom were distrustful of tion to design the change initiative. Misunderstanding and lack of trust. the manufacturing vice president. One Decide how urgently the company People also resist change when they do rumor, for instance, suggested that flexi- must change. not understand its implications and per- ble hours meant that most people would ceive that it might cost them much more have to work whenever their supervisors Determining the Optimal than they will gain. Such situations of- asked them to – including evenings and Speed of Change ten occur when trust is lacking between weekends. The employee association, a Proceed slowly if you (1) anticipate in- the person initiating the change and the local union, held a quick meeting and tense resistance, (2) have less power employees.7 Here is an example: then presented the management with than resisters, or (3) need information When the president of a small mid- a nonnegotiable demand that the flex- from others to design and implement western company announced to his ible hours concept be dropped. The the change. managers that the company would im- president, caught completely by surprise, plement a flexible working schedule for complied. Considering Methods for all employees, it never occurred to him Few organizations can be character- Managing Resistance that he might run into resistance. He ized as having a high level of trust be- If resistance stems from employees’ had been introduced to the concept at tween employees and managers; conse- lack of information, use education to a management seminar and decided to quently, it is easy for misunderstandings communicate the reasons for the de- use it to make working conditions at his to develop when change is introduced. sired change. Once educated, people often become supportive, though this method can be time consuming if it involves large groups. If you want resisters to become more committed to the change, encourage their participation in its design or implementation. This method increases grassroots support for change but can cause problems if people lack the expertise to develop effective plans. If people fear they can’t make needed adjustments, provide skills training and emotional support. No other approach works as well with adjustment problems, but it can be time consuming and expensive. If powerful people or groups are resisting because they’ll lose out as a result of the change, use negotia- tion – offer incentives for complying with the change. This is a relatively easy, if expensive, way to defuse major resistance. If speed is essential, use coer- cion – threaten firing or transfer or loss of promotion opportunities. This can override resistance quickly but also spark intense resentment. hbr.org | July–August 2008 | Harvard Business Review 133 1320 Kotter.indd 133 6/5/08 7:34:05 PM  Best of HBR Choosing Strategies for Change Unless managers surface misunderstand- those who will be affected by the change ent job will require new and different ings and clarify them rapidly, they can have the same facts, when neither as- behavior, new and different relation- lead to resistance. And that resistance sumption is correct. In either case, the ships, as well as the loss of some satisfac- can easily catch change initiators by difference in information that groups tory current activities and relationships. surprise, especially if they assume that work with often leads to differences in If the changes are significant and the in- people only resist change when it is not analyses, which in turn can lead to resis- dividual’s tolerance for change is low, he in their best interest. tance. Moreover, if the analysis made by might begin actively to resist the change Different assessments. Another those not initiating the change is more for reasons even he does not consciously common reason people resist organiza- accurate than that derived by the ini- understand. tional change is that they assess the situ- tiators, resistance is obviously “good” for People also sometimes resist organi- ation differently from their managers the organization. But this likelihood is zational change to save face; to go along with the change would be, they think, an admission that some of their previ- Many managers underestimate the ous decisions or beliefs were wrong. Or they might resist because of peer group variety of reactions to change and their pressure or because of a supervisor’s attitude. Indeed, there are probably an power to influence those responses. endless number of reasons why people resist change.11 Assessing which of the many possibili- or those initiating the change and see not obvious to some managers who as- ties might apply to those who will be af- more costs than benefits resulting from sume that resistance is always bad and fected by a change is important because the change, not only for themselves but therefore always fight it.8 it can help a manager select an appropri- for their company as well. For example: Low tolerance for change. People ate way to overcome resistance. Without The president of one midsize bank also resist change because they fear an accurate diagnosis of possibilities was shocked by his staff’s analysis of they will not be able to develop the new of resistance, a manager can easily get the bank’s real estate investment trust skills and behavior that will be required bogged down during the change process (REIT) loans. This complicated analysis of them. All human beings are limited with very costly problems. suggested that the bank could easily lose in their ability to change, with some up to $10 million and that the possible people much more limited than others.9 Dealing with Resistance losses were increasing each month by Organizational change can inadvertently Many managers underestimate not only 20%. Within a week, the president drew require people to change too much, the variety of ways people can react to up a plan to reorganize the part of the too quickly. organizational change, but also the ways bank that managed REITs. Because of Peter F. Drucker has argued that the they can positively influence specific in- his concern for the bank’s stock price, major obstacle to organizational growth dividuals and groups during a change. however, he chose not to release the is managers’ inability to change their at- And, again because of past experiences, staff report to anyone except the new titudes and behavior as rapidly as their managers sometimes do not have an ac- REIT section manager. organizations require.10 Even when curate understanding of the advantages The reorganization immediately ran managers intellectually understand the and disadvantages of the methods with into massive resistance from the peo- need for changes in the way they oper- which they are familiar. ple involved. The group sentiment, as ate, they sometimes are emotionally un- Education and communication. articulated by one person, was: “Has able to make the transition. One of the most common ways to over- he gone mad? Why in God’s name is he It is because of people’s limited tol- come resistance to change is to educate tearing apart this section of the bank? erance for change that individuals will people about it beforehand. Communi- His actions have already cost us three sometimes resist a change even when cation of ideas helps people see the need very good people [who quit], and have they realize it is a good one. For exam- for and the logic of a change. The edu- crippled a new program we were imple- ple, a person who receives a significantly cation process can involve one-on-one menting [which the president was un- more important job as a result of an discussions, presentations to groups, or aware of] to reduce our loan losses.” organizational change will probably be memos and reports. For example: Managers who initiate change often very happy. But it is just as possible for As part of an effort to make changes assume both that they have all the rele- such a person to also feel uneasy and in a division’s structure and in measure- vant information required to conduct an to resist giving up certain aspects of the ment and reward systems, a division adequate organization analysis and that current situation. A new and very differ- manager put together a one-hour audio- 134 Harvard Business Review | July–August 2008 | hbr.org 1320 Kotter.indd 134 6/5/08 7:34:11 PM  visual presentation that explained the changes and the reasons for them. Over a four-month period, he made this pre- sentation no fewer than a dozen times to groups of 20 or 30 corporate and divi- sion managers. An education and communication program can be ideal when resistance is based on inadequate or inaccurate in- formation and analysis, especially if the initiators need the resisters’ help in im- plementing the change. But some man- agers overlook the fact that a program of this sort requires a good relationship be- tween initiators and resisters or that the latter may not believe what they hear. It also requires time and effort, particu- larly if a lot of people are involved. Participation and involvement. If the initiators involve the potential re- sisters in some aspect of the design and implementation of the change, they can often forestall resistance. With a partici- pative change effort, the initiators listen to the people the change involves and use their advice. To illustrate: The head of a small financial ser- vices company once created a task force to help design and implement changes in his company’s reward system. The task force was composed of eight second- and third-level managers from different When change initiators believe they viding training in new skills, or giving parts of the company. The president’s do not have all the information they employees time off after a demanding specific charter to them was that they need to design and implement a change, period, or simply listening and provid- recommend changes in the company’s or when they need the wholehearted ing emotional support. For example: benefit package. They were given six commitment of others to do so, involving Management in one rapidly grow- months and asked to file a brief progress others makes very good sense. Consider- ing electronics company devised a way report with the president once a month. able research has demonstrated that, in to help people adjust to frequent orga- After they had made their recommen- general, participation leads to commit- nizational changes. First, management dations, which the president largely ment, not merely compliance.12 In some staffed its human resource department accepted, they were asked to help the instances, commitment is needed for with four counselors who spent most company’s personnel director imple- the change to be a success. Nevertheless, of their time talking to people who ment them. the participation process does have its were feeling burnt out or who were hav- We have found that many managers drawbacks. Not only can it lead to a poor ing difficulty adjusting to new jobs. Sec- have quite strong feelings about partic- solution if the process is not carefully ond, on a selective basis, management ipation – sometimes positive and some- managed, but also it can be enormously offered people four-week minisabbati- times negative. That is, some managers time consuming. When the change must cals that involved some reflective or edu- feel that there should always be par- be made immediately, it can take simply cational activity away from work. And, ticipation during change efforts, while too long to involve others. finally, it spent a great deal of money others feel this is virtually always a Facilitation and support. Another on in-house education and training mistake. Both attitudes can create prob- way that managers can deal with poten- programs. lems for a manager, because neither is tial resistance to change is by being sup- Facilitation and support are most help- very realistic. portive. This process might include pro- ful when fear and anxiety lie at the heart hbr.org | July–August 2008 | Harvard Business Review 135 1320 Kotter.indd 135 6/5/08 7:34:16 PM  Best of HBR Choosing Strategies for Change Exhibit I Methods for dealing with resistance to change Approach Commonly used in situations Advantages Drawbacks Education + Where there is a lack of informa- Once persuaded, people will often Can be very time consum- communication tion or inaccurate information and help with the implementation of the ing if lots of people are analysis. change. involved. Participation + Where the initiators do not have all People who participate will be com- Can be very time consum- involvement the information they need to design mitted to implementing change, and ing if participators design the change, and where others have any relevant information they have will an inappropriate change. considerable power to resist. be integrated into the change plan. Facilitation + Where people are resisting because No other approach works as well with Can be time consuming, support of adjustment problems. adjustment problems. expensive, and still fail. Negotiation + Where someone or some group Sometimes it is a relatively easy way Can be too expensive in agreement will clearly lose out in a change, and to avoid major resistance. many cases if it alerts where that group has considerable others to negotiate for power to resist. compliance. Manipulation + Where other tactics will not work or It can be a relatively quick and Can lead to future co-optation are too expensive. inexpensive solution to resistance problems if people feel problems. manipulated. Explicit + Where speed is essential, and the It is speedy and can overcome any Can be risky if it leaves implicit change initiators possess consider- kind of resistance. people mad at the coercion able power. initiators. of resistance. Seasoned, tough managers other divisions from undermining his ef- Manipulation, in this context, normally often overlook or ignore this kind of re- forts, the division manager negotiated a involves the very selective use of infor- sistance, as well as the efficacy of facilita- written agreement with each. The agree- mation and the conscious structuring of tive ways of dealing with it. The basic ment specified the outcomes the other events. drawback of this approach is that it can division managers would receive and One common form of manipulation be time consuming and expensive and when, as well as the kinds of coopera- is co-optation. Co-opting an individual still fail.13 If time, money, and patience tion that he would receive from them in usually involves giving him or her a just are not available, then using sup- return during the change process. Later, desirable role in the design or imple- portive methods is not very practical. whenever the division managers com- mentation of the change. Co-opting a Negotiation and agreement. An- plained about his changes or the change group involves giving one of its leaders, other way to deal with resistance is to process itself, he could point to the nego- or someone it respects, a key role in the offer incentives to active or potential re- tiated agreements. design or implementation of a change. sisters. For instance, management could Negotiation is particularly appropri- This is not a form of participation, how- give a union a higher wage rate in return ate when it is clear that someone is going ever, because the initiators do not want for a work rule change; it could increase to lose out as a result of a change and yet the advice of the co-opted, merely his or an individual’s pension benefits in re- his or her power to resist is significant. her endorsement. For example: turn for an early retirement. Here is an Negotiated agreements can be a rela- One division manager in a large example of negotiated agreements: tively easy way to avoid major resistance, multibusiness corporation invited the In a large manufacturing company, though, like some other processes, they corporate human relations vice presi- the divisions were very interdependent. may become expensive. And once a man- dent, a close friend of the president, One division manager wanted to make ager makes it clear that he will negotiate to help him and his key staff diagnose some major changes in his organization. to avoid major resistance, he opens him- some problems the division was having. Yet, because of the interdependence, he self up to the possibility of blackmail.14 Because of his busy schedule, the corpo- recognized that he would be forcing some Manipulation and co-optation. In rate vice president was not able to do inconvenience and change on other divi- some situations, managers also resort much of the actual information gather- sions as well. To prevent top managers in to covert attempts to influence others. ing or analysis himself, thus limiting his 136 Harvard Business Review | July–August 2008 | hbr.org 1320 Kotter.indd 136 6/5/08 7:34:23 PM  own influence on the diagnoses. But his Explicit and implicit coercion. Fi- to their strengths and limitations (see presence at key meetings helped com- nally, managers often deal with resis- Exhibit I) and appraise the situation mit him to the diagnoses as well as the tance coercively. Here they essentially realistically. solutions the group designed. The com- force people to accept a change by ex- The most common mistake manag- mitment was subsequently very impor- plicitly or implicitly threatening them ers make is to use only one approach tant because the president, at least ini- (with the loss of jobs, promotion possi- or a limited set of them regardless of the tially, did not like some of the proposed bilities, and so forth) or by actually firing situation. A surprisingly large number of changes. Nevertheless, after discussion or transferring them. As with manipu- managers have this problem. This would with his human relations vice president, lation, using coercion is a risky process include the hard-boiled boss who often he did not try to block them. Under certain circumstances co-op- tation can be a relatively inexpensive and easy way to gain an individual’s or When speed is essential and the a group’s support (cheaper, for exam- ple, than negotiation and quicker than change is unpopular, using coercion – participation). Nevertheless, it has its drawbacks. If people feel they are being though risky – may be the only option. tricked into not resisting, are not being treated equally, or are being lied to, they because inevitably people strongly re- coerces people, the people-oriented man- may respond very negatively. More than sent forced change. But in situations ager who constantly tries to involve and one manager has found that, by his ef- where speed is essential and where the support his people, the cynical boss who fort to give some subordinate a sense changes will not be popular, regardless always manipulates and co-opts others, of participation through co-optation, he of how they are introduced, coercion the intellectual manager who relies created more resistance than if he had may be the manager’s only option. heavily on education and communica- done nothing. In addition, co-optation Successful organizational change ef- tion, and the lawyerlike manager who can create a different kind of problem if forts are always characterized by the usually tries to negotiate.16 those co-opted use their ability to influ- skillful application of a number of these A second common mistake that man- ence the design and implementation of approaches, often in very different com- agers make is to approach change in changes in ways that are not in the best binations. However, successful efforts a disjointed and incremental way that interests of the organization. share two characteristics: Managers em- is not a part of a clearly considered Other forms of manipulation have ploy the approaches with a sensitivity strategy. drawbacks also, sometimes to an even greater degree. Most people are likely to greet what they perceive as covert treat- Exhibit II ment or lies with a negative response. Strategic continuum Furthermore, if a manager develops a reputation as a manipulator, it can un- dermine his ability to use needed ap- Fast Slower proaches such as education/communica- Clearly planned. Not clearly planned at the beginning. tion and participation/involvement. At Little involvement of others. Lots of involvement of others. the extreme, it can even ruin his career. Nevertheless, people do manipulate Attempt to overcome any resistance. Attempt to minimize any resistance. others successfully – particularly when all other tactics are not feasible or have Key situational variables failed.15 Having no other alternative, and The amount and type of resistance that is anticipated. not enough time to educate, involve, or support people, and without the power The position of the initiators vis-à-vis the resisters (in terms of power, trust, or other resources to negotiate, coerce, or and so forth). co-opt them, managers have resorted to The locus of relevant data for designing the change and of needed energy manipulating information channels in for implementing it. order to scare people into thinking there The stakes involved (for example, the presence or lack of presence of a crisis, is a crisis coming that they can avoid the consequences of resistance and lack of change.) only by changing. hbr.org | July–August 2008 | Harvard Business Review 137 1320 Kotter.indd 137 6/5/08 7:34:30 PM  Best of HBR Choosing Strategies for Change Choice of Strategy people other than the change initiators. 1. The amount and kind of resistance In approaching an organizational change This type of strategy is designed to re- that is anticipated. All other factors be- situation, managers explicitly or implic- duce resistance to a minimum.18 ing equal, the greater the anticipated itly make strategic choices regarding the The further to the left one operates resistance, the more difficult it will be speed of the effort, the amount of pre- on the continuum in Exhibit II, the more simply to overwhelm it, and the more a planning, the involvement of others, and one tends to be coercive and the less manager will need to move toward the the relative emphasis they will give to one tends to use the other approaches – right on the continuum to find ways to different approaches. Successful change especially participation; the converse reduce some of it.19 efforts seem to be those where these also holds. 2. The position of the initiator vis-à- choices both are internally consistent Organizational change efforts that vis the resisters, especially with regard and fit some key situational variables. are based on inconsistent strategies to power. The less power the initiator The strategic options available to tend to run into predictable problems. has with respect to others, the more the managers can be usefully thought of For example, efforts that are not clearly initiating manager must move to the as existing on a continuum (see Exhibit planned in advance and yet are imple- right on the continuum.20 Conversely, II).17 At one end of the continuum, the mented quickly tend to become bogged the stronger the initiator’s position, the change strategy calls for a very rapid im- down because of unanticipated prob- more he or she can move to the left. plementation, a clear plan of action, and lems. Efforts that involve a large number 3. The person who has the relevant little involvement of others. This type of of people, but are implemented quickly, data for designing the change and the strategy mows over any resistance and, usually become either stalled or less energy for implementing it. The more at the extreme, would result in a fait ac- participative. the initiators anticipate that they will compli. At the other end of the contin- Situational factors. Exactly where a need information and commitment uum, the strategy would call for a much change effort should be strategically po- from others to help design and imple- slower change process, a less clear plan, sitioned on the continuum in Exhibit II ment the change, the more they must and involvement on the part of many depends on four factors: move to the right.21 Gaining useful infor- NOTES 1. Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince. 6. See Edgar H. Schein, Organizational 12. See, for example, Alfred J. Mar- 18. For a good discussion of an ap- Psychology (Prentice-Hall, 1965). row, David F. Bowers, and Stanley E. proach that attempts to minimize 2. Marvin Bower and C. Lee Walton, Seashore, Management by Participa- resistance, see Renato Tagiuri, Jr., “Gearing a Business to the 7. See Chris Argyris, Intervention tion (Harper and Row, 1967). “Notes on the Management of Future,” in Challenge to Leadership Theory and Method (Addison- Change: Implication of Postulating (The Conference Board, 1973). Wesley, 1970). 13. Zaltman and Duncan, Strategies a Need for Competence,” in Organi- for Planned Change. 3. For recent evidence on the 8. See Paul R. Lawrence, “How to zation, eds. John P. Kotter, frequency of changes, see Stephen Deal with Resistance to Change,” 14. For an excellent discussion of ne- Vijay Sathe, and Leonard A. A. Allen, “Organizational Choice HBR May–June 1954; reprinted as gotiation, see Gerald I. Nierenberg, Schlesinger (Irwin, 1979). and General Influence Networks for HBR Classic, January–February 1969. The Art of Negotiating (Cornerstone, 19. Jay W. Lorsch, “Managing Diversified Companies,” Academy of 1968). 9. For a discussion of resistance that Change,” in Organizational Behavior Management Journal, September 1978. is personality based, see Goodwin 15. See John P. Kotter, “Power, and Administration, eds. Paul R. 4. For example, see Robert A. Watson, “Resistance to Change,” in Dependence, and Effective Manage- Lawrence, Louis B. Barnes, and Jay Luke, Jr. ,“A Structural Approach The Planning of Change, eds. Warren ment,” HBR July–August 1977. W. Lorsch (Irwin, 1976). to Organizational Change,” Journal G. Bennis, Kenneth F. Benne, and 16. Ibid. 20. Ibid. of Applied Behavioral Science, Robert Chin (Holt, Rinehart, and 17. See Larry E. Greiner, “Patterns of September–October 1973. Winston, 1969). 21. Ibid. Organization Change,” HBR May– 5. For a discussion of power and 10. Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of 22. Michael Beer, Organization June 1967; and Larry E. Greiner politics in corporations, see Abra- Management (Harper and Row, 1954). Change and Development: A Systems and Louis B. Barnes, “Organization ham Zaleznik and Manfred F.R. Kets View (Goodyear, 1980). 11. For a general discussion of resis- Change and Development,” in Orga- de Vries, Power and the Corporate tance and reasons for it, see Gerald nizational Change and Development, Mind (Houghton Mifflin, 1975); and Zaltman and Robert Duncan, eds. Gene W. Dalton and Paul R. Robert H. Miles, Macro Organiza- Strategies for Planned Change (John Lawrence (Irwin, 1970). tional Behavior (Goodyear, 1978). Wiley, 1977). 138 Harvard Business Review | July–August 2008 | hbr.org 1320 Kotter.indd 138 6/5/08 7:34:35 PM  THE INSIDE STORY ABOUT INDIA AND mation and commitment requires time and the involvement of others. 2. Conducting an analysis of factors rel- evant to producing the needed changes. CHINA 4. The stakes involved. The greater This analysis should focus on questions the short-run potential for risks to orga- of who might resist the change, why, and nizational performance and survival if how much; who has information that is the present situation is not changed, the needed to design the change, and whose more one must move to the left. cooperation is essential in implement- Organizational change efforts that ing it; and what is the position of the ignore these factors inevitably run into initiator vis-à-vis other relevant parties problems. A common mistake some in terms of power, trust, normal modes managers make, for example, is to move of interaction, and so forth. too quickly and involve too few people 3. Selecting a change strategy, based despite the fact that they do not have on the previous analysis, that specifies all the information they really need to the speed of change, the amount of pre- design the change correctly. planning, and the degree of involvement Insofar as these factors still leave a of others; that selects specific tactics for manager with some choice of where to use with various individuals and groups; operate on the continuum, it is probably and that is internally consistent. best to select a point as far to the right 4. Monitoring the implementation as possible for both economic and social process. No matter how good a job one reasons. Forcing change on people can does of initially selecting a change strat- have just too many negative side effects egy and tactics, something unexpected over both the short and the long term. will eventually occur during implemen- Change efforts using the strategies on tation. Only by carefully monitoring the right of the continuum can often the process can one identify the unex- help develop an organization and its pected in a timely fashion and react to people in useful ways.22 it intelligently. In some cases, however, knowing the Interpersonal skills, of course, are the four factors may not give a manager a key to using this analysis. But even the comfortable and obvious choice. Con- most outstanding interpersonal skills sider a situation where a manager has a will not make up for a poor choice of weak position vis-à-vis the people whom strategy and tactics. And in a business he thinks need a change and yet is faced world that continues to become more with serious consequences if the change and more dynamic, the consequences is not implemented immediately. Such a of poor implementation choices will be- manager is clearly in a bind. If he some- come increasingly severe. how is not able to increase his power in the situation, he will be forced to choose “WELL WORTH READING.” Authors’ note: We wish to thank Vijay Sathe, some compromise strategy and to live a professor of management at Claremont Grad- through difficult times. uate University’s Drucker School, in California, THE ECONOMIST Implications for managers. A man- for his help in preparing this article. ager can improve his chance of success Understand the in an organizational change effort by: John P. Kotter is the Konosuke Matsu- entreprenurial forces 1. Conducting an organizational analy- shita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus, driving today’s fiercest sis that identifies the current situation, at Harvard Business School and the au- problems, and the forces that are possi- thor of A Sense of Urgency, forthcoming competitors—China ble causes of those problems. The analy- from Harvard Business Press. Leonard and India—and see sis should specify the actual importance A. Schlesinger has been named the 12th how they are reshaping of the problems, the speed with which president of Babson College, in Babson their future and ours. the problems must be addressed if ad- Park, Massachusetts. ditional problems are to be avoided, and Reprint R0807M the kinds of changes that are generally To order, see page 163. needed. AVAILABLE WHEREVER BOOKS ARE SOLD WWW.HARVARDBUSINESS.ORG/PRESS 1320 Khanna_third vert.indd 1 5/19/08 5:33:55 PM 1320 Kotter.indd 139 5/30/08 5:38:15 PM Copyright 2008 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your institution's librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations please visit hbsp.harvard.edu.