For many years, studies have suggested that most change initiatives don’t reach expected outcomes or realize desired results. Studies by IBM, McKinsey, and others have quoted rates at near 70 percent failing. There are probably many reasons for such a poor record. But some of the more common from my experience include:

Slow to move from old methods of changing, based in an older environment, to new ways of working with emergent change in a new, more complex, and volatile environment. In the past, change was more episodic and disrupted relative stable periods. Occasionally, more strategic and significant disruptions occur and require more than normal planned change models.

As the environment has shifted more dramatically in the past decade, change has become continuous and the new normal—requiring a different kind of change capability, rapid adaptation, and continuous learning. Our older models and practices are just too linear and slow.

Lack of systems thinking in design and implementation. This is an interdependent system with numerous moving parts that mostly influence each other poses unique change planning and execution issues. First, there is including all relevant stakeholders. Second, stakeholders must understand the patterns and dynamics within the system to better anticipate direct and indirect changes. Third, remember that complex organization systems can still operate in unpredictable ways and necessitate emerging designs, methods, and change management.

Lack of understanding the human system in change. Organization change happens through individuals changing, and the behavioral sciences are needed to understand and work effectively with the human system. We attempt many changes without much attention to adult learning, motivations, fears, skills, and commitment—nor sufficient time for people to get on board before they are expected to behave differently.

Inadequate alignment of learning and change. Learning is necessary for change. Yet, we often expect people to just go along without understanding the what, why, and how of changes, nor have opportunities for learning to occur. This is one of the reasons why participation is so important for building understanding, ownership, and commitment. Change is always hard. It’s foolish to expect so much from them with little human considerations in the design.

Poor front-end preparation. Before change is initiated, a solid diagnosis of reality, an assessment of the “business case,” and contracting with appropriate stakeholders is needed—but often shortchanged. Other front-end preparations involve ensuring necessary resources are available, readiness is ascertained, and the capability to change is contained within the organization.

Lack of good change structures, processes, and practices. Many changes have struggled at the implementation stage when people need to learn to do things differently. Sometimes we haven’t provided the necessary resources, tools, or skills. Other times, we asked for too much too fast, ignoring learning and motivation.

Poor institutionalization when appropriate. Some changes need to become the new normal while others have a shorter useful life. To sustain change, we need reinforcement, support, and cultural embedding. When we need to serve immediate purposes only, organizations must develop faster change capabilities and move into new changes that are demanded by the shifting environment.

This is just a beginning in discussing the field of organization change. We have many theories and practices that do work well and are not always used. We also need to keep inventing new ways to change, when the world delivers unknown, volatile, complex situations.

Join me at ATD 2015 International Conference & Expo May 17-20 in Orlando, Florida. I will be co-facilitating session “TU302 - Getting a Seat at the Table: Influencing Organization-Wide Change Management.”