www.hbr.org BEST OF HBR Choosing Strategies for Change by John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger • Included with this full-text Harvard Business Review article: 1 Article Summary The Idea in Brief—the core idea The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work 2 Choosing Strategies for Change 11 Further Reading A list of related materials, with annotations to guide further exploration of the article’s ideas and applications Reprint R0807M Purchased by: Selena Tan [email protected] on October 04, 2013 B EST OF HBR Choosing Strategies for Change The Idea in Brief The Idea in Practice Faced with stiffer competition and dizzying The authors suggest these steps for managing 2. DETERMINE THE OPTIMAL SPEED OF technological advances, companies often change successfully: CHANGE must change course to stay competitive. Use your analysis of situational factors to 1. ANALYZE SITUATIONAL FACTORS But most change initiatives backfire. That’s decide how quickly or slowly your change because many managers take a one-size- Ask yourself: should proceed. Move quickly if the organiza- fits-all approach to change. They assume • “How much and what kind of resistance do tion risks plummeting performance or death if they can combat resistance, a notorious ob- we anticipate?” the present situation isn’t changed. But pro- stacle, by involving employees in the de- ceed slowly if: sign of the initiative. But that works only • “What’s my position relative to resisters—in when employees have the information terms of my power and the level of trust • Resistance will be intense and extensive they need to provide useful input. It’s disas- between us?” • You anticipate needing information and trous when they don’t. Also, managers • “Who—me or others—has the most accu- commitment from others to help design often don’t tailor the speed of their change rate information about what changes are and implement the change strategy to the situation. For instance, they needed?” may apply a go-slow approach even when • You have less organizational power than an impending crisis calls for rapid change. • “How urgent is our situation?” those who may resist the change To lead change successfully, Kotter and 3. CONSIDER METHODS FOR MANAGING RESISTANCE Schlesinger recommend: • Diagnosing the types of resistance Method How to Use When to Use Advantages Drawbacks you’ll encounter—and tailoring your Education Communicate the Employees lack Once persuaded, Time consuming countermeasures accordingly. To illus- desired changes and information about people often help if lots of people trate, with employees who fear the adjust- reasons for them the change’s implement the are involved ments the change will require, provide implications change training in new skills. Participation Involve potential Change initiators lack People feel more Time consuming, resisters in designing sufficient information committed to and employees • Adapting your change strategy to the and implementing to design the change making the may design situation. For example, if your company the change change happen inappropriate must transform to avert an imminent change crisis, accelerate your initiative—even if Facilitation Provide skills training People are resisting No other Can be time that risks greater resistance. and emotional because they fear approach works consuming and support they can’t make the as well with expensive; can needed adjustments adjustment still fail problems Negotiation Offer incentives for People will lose out It’s a relatively Can be expensive making the change in the change and easy way to and open have considerable defuse major managers to power to resist resistance the possibility of blackmail Coercion Threaten loss of Speed is essential It works quickly Can spark intense jobs or promotion and change initiators and can overcome resentment opportunities; fire possess considerable any kind of toward change or transfer those power resistance initiators who can’t or won’t change OPYRIGHT © 2008 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. OPYRIGHT © 2008 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. C page 1 Purchased by: Selena Tan [email protected] on October 04, 2013 BEST OF HBR Choosing Strategies for Change by John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger Editor’s Note: A lot has changed in the world of an upset to established ways of doing things. management since 1979, when this article first For these reasons, needed reorganization is appeared, but one thing has not: Companies the often deferred, with a resulting loss in effec- world over need to change course. Kotter and tiveness and an increase in costs.”2 Schlesinger provide a practical, tested way to Subsequent events have confirmed the im- think about managing that change. portance of this concern about organizational change. Today, more and more managers “It must be considered that there is nothing must deal with new government regulations, more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful new products, growth, increased competition, of success, nor more dangerous to handle, technological developments, and a changing than to initiate a new order of things.”1 workforce. In response, most companies or In 1973, The Conference Board asked 13 em- divisions of major corporations find that inent authorities to speculate what significant they must undertake moderate organizational management issues and problems would changes at least once a year and major develop over the next 20 years. One of the changes every four or five.3 strongest themes that runs through their sub- Few organizational change efforts tend to sequent reports is a concern for the ability of be complete failures, but few tend to be entirely organizations to respond to environmental successful either. Most efforts encounter change. As one person wrote: “It follows that problems; they often take longer than ex- an acceleration in the rate of change will re- pected and desired, they sometimes kill mo- sult in an increasing need for reorganization. rale, and they often cost a great deal in terms Reorganization is usually feared, because it of managerial time or emotional upheaval. means disturbance of the status quo, a threat More than a few organizations have not even to people’s vested interests in their jobs, and tried to initiate needed changes because the OPYRIGHT © 2008 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. OPYRIGHT © 2008 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. C harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 2 Purchased by: Selena Tan [email protected] on October 04, 2013 Choosing Strategies for Change•••BEST OF HBR managers involved were afraid that they were • After a number of years of rapid growth, simply incapable of successfully implement- the president of an organization decided ing them. that its size demanded the creation of a new In this article, we first describe various staff function—New Product Planning and causes for resistance to change and then outline Development—to be headed by a vice presi- a systematic way to select a strategy and set of dent. Operationally, this change eliminated specific approaches for implementing an orga- most of the decision-making power that the nizational change effort. The methods described vice presidents of marketing, engineering, and are based on our analyses of dozens of success- production had over new products. Inasmuch ful and unsuccessful organizational changes. as new products were very important in this organization, the change also reduced the vice Diagnosing Resistance presidents’ status which, together with power, Organizational change efforts often run into was very important to them. some form of human resistance. Although During the two months after the president experienced managers are generally all too announced his idea for a new product vice aware of this fact, surprisingly few take time president, the existing vice presidents each before an organizational change to assess sys- came up with six or seven reasons the new ar- tematically who might resist the change initia- rangement might not work. Their objections tive and for what reasons. Instead, using past grew louder and louder until the president experiences as guidelines, managers all too shelved the idea. often apply a simple set of beliefs—such as •A manufacturing company had tradition- “engineers will probably resist the change be- ally employed a large group of personnel peo- cause they are independent and suspicious of ple as counselors and “father confessors” to its top management.” This limited approach can production employees. This group of counse- create serious problems. Because of the many lors tended to exhibit high morale because of different ways in which individuals and groups the professional satisfaction they received from can react to change, correct assessments are the “helping relationships” they had with em- often not intuitively obvious and require ployees. When a new performance appraisal careful thought. system was installed, every six months the Of course, all people who are affected by counselors were required to provide each em- change experience some emotional turmoil. ployee’s supervisor with a written evaluation of Even changes that appear to be “positive” or the employee’s “emotional maturity,” “promo- “rational” involve loss and uncertainty.4 Nev- tional potential,” and so forth. ertheless, for a number of different reasons, As some of the personnel people immedi- individuals or groups can react very differ- ately recognized, the