Choosing Strategies

for Change
DO
NO
by John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger
T
CO
PY

Harvard Business Review

Reprint 79202
HarvardBusinessReview
DO
MARCH-APRIL 1979

REPRINT NUMBER
NO
STANLEY M. DAVIS; IDEAS FOR ACTION N.A.
WILLIAM RUDELIUS AND
ROGENE A. BUCHHOLZ

NICHOLAS WOLFSON; FROM THE BOARDROOM 79212

DONALD S. PERKINS

CAMPBELL R. MCCONNELL WHY IS U.S. PRODUCTIVITY SLOWING DOWN? 79205

T
JOHN BROOKS; FOR THE MANAGER’S BOOKSHELF N.A.
MARY V. CHATFIELD

JOHN F. ROCKART CHIEF EXECUTIVES DEFINE THEIR OWN DATA NEEDS 79209

JAMES O’TOOLE WHAT’S AHEAD FOR THE BUSINESS-GOVERNMENT 79207

CO
RELATIONSHIP

JOHN P. KOTTER AND CHOOSING STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE 79202

LEONARD A. SCHLESINGER

RICHARD L. NOLAN MANAGING THE CRISES IN DATA PROCESSING 79206

ROBERT H. HAYES AND THE DYNAMICS OF PROCESS-PRODUCT LIFE CYCLES 79201

STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
PY
MICHAEL E. PORTER HOW COMPETITIVE FORCES SHAPE STRATEGY 79208

RICHARD J. MATTEIS THE NEW BACK OFFICE FOCUSES ON CUSTOMER SERVICE 79204

KENNETH D. WALTERS AND STATE-OWNED BUSINESS ABROAD: 79210

R. JOSEPH MONSEN NEW COMPETITIVE THREAT

JAY W. LORSCH MAKING BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE MORE USEFUL 79203

GROWING CONCERNS 79211

AN INTERVIEW WITH SBA ADMINISTRATOR
A. VERNON WEAVER
In a rapidly changing world managers need to increase their skills
at diagnosing resistance to change and at choosing the appropri-
ate methods for overcoming it.
DO
Choosing Strategies
for Change
NO
by John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger
T
“It must be considered that there is nothing more sponse, most companies or divisions of major cor-
difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, porations find that they must undertake moderate
nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a organizational changes at least once a year and
new order of things.”1 major changes every four or five.3
In 1973, The Conference Board asked 13 eminent Few organizational change efforts tend to be
authorities to speculate what significant manage- complete failures, but few tend to be entirely suc-
CO
ment issues and problems would develop over the cessful either. Most efforts encounter problems;
next 20 years. One of the strongest themes that they often take longer than expected and desired,
runs through their subsequent reports is a concern they sometimes kill morale, and they often cost a
for the ability of organizations to respond to envi- great deal in terms of managerial time or emotional
ronmental change. As one person wrote: “It follows upheaval. More than a few organizations have not
that an acceleration in the rate of change will result even tried to initiate needed changes because the
in an increasing need for reorganization. Reorgani- managers involved were afraid that they were sim-
zation is usually feared, because it means distur- ply incapable of successfully implementing them.
bance of the status quo, a threat to people’s vested In this article, we first describe various causes for
PY
interests in their jobs, and an upset to established resistance to change and then outline a systematic
ways of doing things. For these reasons, needed re- way to select a strategy and set of specific ap-
organization is often deferred, with a resulting loss proaches for implementing an organizational
in effectiveness and an increase in costs.”2
Subsequent events have confirmed the impor- Mr. Kotter is associate professor of business administra-
tion at the Harvard Business School. His most recent
tance of this concern about organizational change. books include Self Assessment and Career Development
Today, more and more managers must deal with (with Victor Faux and Charles McArthur, Prentice-Hall,
new government regulations, new products, 1978), as well as Power in Management (AMACOM,
growth, increased competition, technological 1979). Mr. Schlesinger is assistant professor in organiza-
developments, and a changing work force. In re- tional behavior at the Harvard Business School. He
and Mr. Kotter are coauthors, with Vijay Sathe, of
Authors’ note: This article is adapted from a chapter in a forth- Organization (Richard D. Irwin, to be published in
coming Dow Jones-Irwin book. We wish to thank Vijay Sathe 1979) and Managing the Human Organization (Dow
for his help in preparing the article. Jones-Irwin, 1979).

Copyright © 1979 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW March-April 1979
change effort. The methods described are based on During the two months after the president an-
our analyses of dozens of successful and unsuccess- nounced his idea for a new product vice president,
ful organizational changes. the existing vice presidents each came up with six
or seven reasons the new arrangement might not
Diagnosing Resistance work. Their objections grew louder and louder until
the president shelved the idea.
Organizational change efforts often run into M A manufacturing company had traditionally em-
DO
some form of human resistance. Although experi- ployed a large group of personnel people as coun-
enced managers are generally all too aware of this selors and “father confessors” to its production em-
fact, surprisingly few take time before an organiza- ployees. This group of counselors tended to exhibit
tional change to assess systematically who might high morale because of the professional satisfaction
resist the change initiative and for what reasons. they received from the “helping relationships” they
Instead, using past experiences as guidelines, man- had with employees. When a new performance ap-
agers all too often apply a simple set of beliefs – praisal system was installed, every six months the
such as “engineers will probably resist the change counselors were required to provide each employ-
because they are independent and suspicious of top ee’s supervisor with a written evaluation of the
management.” This limited approach can create employee’s “emotional maturity,” “promotional
serious problems. Because of the many different potential,” and so forth.
NO
ways in which individuals and groups can react to As some of the personnel people immediately
change, correct assessments are often not intuitive- recognized, the change would alter their relation-
ly obvious and require careful thought. ships from a peer and helper to more of a boss and
Of course, all people who are affected by change evaluator with most of the employees. Predictably,
experience some emotional turmoil. Even changes the personnel counselors resisted the change.
that appear to be “positive” or “rational” involve While publicly arguing that the new system was
loss and uncertainty.4 Nevertheless, for a number of not as good for the company as the old one, they
different reasons, individuals or groups can react privately put as much pressure as possible on the
very differently to change – from passively resisting personnel vice president until he significantly al-
T
it, to aggressively trying to undermine it, to sin- tered the new system.
cerely embracing it. Political behavior sometimes emerges before and
To predict what form their resistance might take, during organizational change efforts when what
managers need to be aware of the four most com- is in the best interests of one individual or group is
mon reasons people resist change. These include: a not in the best interests of the total organization or
desire not to lose something of value, a misunder- of other individuals and groups.
CO
standing of the change and its implications, a belief While political behavior sometimes takes the
that the change does not make sense for the organi- form of two or more armed camps publicly fighting
zation, and a low tolerance for change. things out, it usually is much more subtle. In many
Parochial self-interest. One major reason people cases, it occurs completely under the surface of
resist organizational change is that they think they public dialogue. Although scheming and ruthless
will lose something of value as a result. In these individuals sometimes initiate power struggles,
cases, because people focus on their own best inter- more often than not those who do are people who
ests and not on those of the total organization, re- view their potential loss from change as an unfair
sistance often results in “politics” or “political be- violation of their implicit, or psychological, con-
PY
havior.”5 Consider these two examples: tract with the organization.6
M After a number of years of rapid growth, the pres- Misunderstanding & lack of trust. People also re-
ident of an organization decided that its size de- sist change when they do not understand its impli-
manded the creation of a new staff function – New cations and perceive that it might cost them much
Product Planning and Development – to be headed more than they will gain. Such situations often
by a vice president. Operationally, this change occur when trust is lacking between the person ini-
eliminated most of the decision-making power that tiating the change and the employees.7 Here is an
the vice presidents of marketing, engineering, and example:
production had over new products. Inasmuch as M When the president of a small midwestern com-
new products were very important in this organiza- pany announced to his managers that the company
tion, the change also reduced the vice presidents’ would implement a flexible working schedule for
status which, together with power, was very impor- all employees, it never occurred to him that he
tant to them. might run into resistance. He had been introduced

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW March-April 1979 5

 STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE

to the concept at a management seminar and decid- to conduct an adequate organization analysis and
ed to use it to make working conditions at his com- that those who will be affected by the change have
pany more attractive, particularly to clerical and the same facts, when neither assumption is correct.
plant personnel. In either case, the difference in information that
Shortly after the announcement, numerous ru- groups work with often leads to differences in anal-
mors begin to circulate among plant employees – yses, which in turn can lead to resistance. More-
none of whom really knew what flexible working over, if the analysis made by those not initiating the
DO
hours meant and many of whom were distrustful of change is more accurate than that derived by
the manufacturing vice president. One rumor, for the initiators, resistance is obviously “good” for the
instance, suggested that flexible hours meant that organization. But this likelihood is not obvious to
most people would have to work whenever their some managers who assume that resistance is al-
supervisors asked them to – including evenings ways bad and therefore always fight it.8
and weekends. The employee association, a local Low tolerance for change. People also resist
union, held a quick meeting and then presented the change because they fear they will not be able to
management with a nonnegotiable demand that develop the new skills and behavior that will be re-
the flexible hours concept be dropped. The presi- quired of them. All human beings are limited in
dent, caught completely by surprise, complied. their ability to change, with some people much
Few organizations can be characterized as having more limited than others.9 Organizational change
NO
a high level of trust between employees and man- can inadvertently require people to change too
agers; consequently, it is easy for misunderstand- much, too quickly.
ings to develop when change is introduced. Unless Peter F. Drucker has argued that the major obsta-
managers surface misunderstandings and clarify cle to organizational growth is managers’ inability
them rapidly, they can lead to resistance. And that to change their attitudes and behavior as rapidly as
resistance can easily catch change initiators by sur- their organizations require.10 Even when managers
prise, especially if they assume that people only intellectually understand the need for changes in
resist change when it is not in their best interest. the way they operate, they sometimes are emotion-
Different assessments. Another common reason ally unable to make the transition.
T
people resist organizational change is that they as- It is because of people’s limited tolerance for
sess the situation differently from their managers change that individuals will sometimes resist a
or those initiating the change and see more costs change even when they realize it is a good one. For
than benefits resulting from the change, not only example, a person who receives a significantly
for themselves but for their company as well. For more important job as a result of an organizational
example: change will probably be very happy. But it is just as
CO
M The president of one moderate-size bank was possible for such a person to also feel uneasy and to
shocked by his staff’s analysis of the bank’s real es- resist giving up certain aspects of the current situa-
tate investment trust (REIT) loans. This complicat- tion. A new and very different job will require
ed analysis suggested that the bank could easily new and different behavior, new and different rela-
lose up to $10 million, and that the possible losses tionships, as well as the loss of some satisfactory
were increasing each month by 20%. Within a current activities and relationships. If the changes
week, the president drew up a plan to reorganize are significant and the individual’s tolerance for
the part of the bank that managed REITs. Because of change is low, he might begin actively to resist the
his concern for the bank’s stock price, however, he change for reasons even he does not consciously
PY
chose not to release the staff report to anyone ex- understand.
cept the new REIT section manager. People also sometimes resist organizational
The reorganization immediately ran into mas- change to save face; to go along with the change
sive resistance from the people involved. The group would be, they think, an admission that some of
sentiment, as articulated by one person, was: “Has their previous decisions or beliefs were wrong. Or
he gone mad? Why in God’s name is he tearing apart they might resist because of peer group pressure
this section of the bank? His actions have already or because of a supervisor’s attitude. Indeed, there
cost us three very good people [who quit], and have are probably an endless number of reasons why peo-
crippled a new program we were implementing ple resist change.11
[which the president was unaware of] to reduce our Assessing which of the many possibilities might
loan losses.” apply to those who will be affected by a change is
Managers who initiate change often assume both important because it can help a manager select an
that they have all the relevant information required appropriate way to overcome resistance. Without

6 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW March-April 1979

an accurate diagnosis of possibilities of resistance, a tions, which the president largely accepted, they
manager can easily get bogged down during the were asked to help the company’s personnel direc-
change process with very costly problems. tor implement them.
We have found that many managers have quite
Dealing with Resistance strong feelings about participation – sometimes
positive and sometimes negative. That is, some
Many managers underestimate not only the vari- managers feel that there should always be partic-
DO
ety of ways people can react to organizational ipation during change efforts, while others feel this
change, but also the ways they can positively influ- is virtually always a mistake. Both attitudes can
ence specific individuals and groups during a create problems for a manager, because neither is
change. And, again because of past experiences, very realistic.
managers sometimes do not have an accurate un- When change initiators believe they do not have
derstanding of the advantages and disadvantages of all the information they need to design and imple-
the methods with which they are familiar. ment a change, or when they need the wholeheart-
Education & communication. One of the most ed commitment of others to do so, involving others
common ways to overcome resistance to change is makes very good sense. Considerable research has
to educate people about it beforehand. Communi- demonstrated that, in general, participation leads
cation of ideas helps people see the need for and the to commitment, not merely compliance.12 In some
NO
logic of a change. The education process can in- instances, commitment is needed for the change to
volve one-on-one discussions, presentations to be a success. Nevertheless, the participation pro-
groups, or memos and reports. For example: cess does have its drawbacks. Not only can it lead
M As a part of an effort to make changes in a divi- to a poor solution if the process is not carefully
sion’s structure and in measurement and reward managed, but also it can be enormously time con-
systems, a division manager put together a one- suming. When the change must be made immedi-
hour audiovisual presentation that explained the ately, it can take simply too long to involve others.
changes and the reasons for them. Over a four- Facilitation & support. Another way that manag-
month period, he made this presentation no less ers can deal with potential resistance to change is
T
than a dozen times to groups of 20 or 30 corporate by being supportive. This process might include
and division managers. providing training in new skills, or giving employ-
An education and communication program can ees time off after a demanding period, or simply lis-
be ideal when resistance is based on inadequate or tening and providing emotional support. For example:
inaccurate information and analysis, especially if M Management in one rapidly growing electronics
the initiators need the resistors’ help in implement- company devised a way to help people adjust to
CO
ing the change. But some managers overlook the frequent organizational changes. First, manage-
fact that a program of this sort requires a good rela- ment staffed its human resource department with
tionship between initiators and resistors or that the four counselors who spent most of their time talk-
latter may not believe what they hear. It also re- ing to people who were feeling “burnt out” or who
quires time and effort, particularly if a lot of people were having difficulty adjusting to new jobs. Sec-
are involved. ond, on a selective basis, management offered peo-
Participation & involvement. If the initiators in- ple four-week minisabbaticals that involved some
volve the potential resistors in some aspect of the reflective or educational activity away from work.
design and implementation of the change, they can And, finally, it spent a great deal of money on in-
PY
often forestall resistance. With a participative house education and training programs.
change effort, the initiators listen to the people the Facilitation and support are most helpful when
change involves and use their advice. To illustrate: fear and anxiety lie at the heart of resistance. Sea-
M The head of a small financial services company soned, tough managers often overlook or ignore
once created a task force to help design and imple- this kind of resistance, as well as the efficacy of
ment changes in his company’s reward system. The facilitative ways of dealing with it. The basic draw-
task force was composed of eight second- and third- back of this approach is that it can be time consum-
level managers from different parts of the company. ing and expensive and still fail.13 If time, money,
The president’s specific charter to them was that and patience just are not available, then using sup-
they recommend changes in the company’s benefit portive methods is not very practical.
package. They were given six months and asked to Negotiation & agreement. Another way to deal
file a brief progress report with the president once with resistance is to offer incentives to active or
a month. After they had made their recommenda- potential resistors. For instance, management

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW March-April 1979 7

 STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE

could give a union a higher wage rate in return for subsequently very important because the presi-
a work rule change; it could increase an individual’s dent, at least initially, did not like some of the pro-
pension benefits in return for an early retirement. posed changes. Nevertheless, after discussion with
Here is an example of negotiated agreements: his human relations vice president, he did not try
M In a large manufacturing company, the divisions to block them.
were very interdependent. One division manager Under certain circumstances co-optation can be
wanted to make some major changes in his organi- a relatively inexpensive and easy way to gain an in-
DO
zation. Yet, because of the interdependence, he rec- dividual’s or a group’s support (cheaper, for exam-
ognized that he would be forcing some inconve- ple, than negotiation and quicker than participa-
nience and change on other divisions as well. To tion). Nevertheless, it has its drawbacks. If people
prevent top managers in other divisions from un- feel they are being tricked into not resisting, are not
dermining his efforts, the division manager negoti- being treated equally, or are being lied to, they may
ated a written agreement with each. The agreement respond very negatively. More than one manager
specified the outcomes the other division managers has found that, by his effort to give some subordi-
would receive and when, as well as the kinds of nate a sense of participation through co-optation,
cooperation that he would receive from them in re- he created more resistance than if he had done
turn during the change process. Later, whenever nothing. In addition, co-optation can create a differ-
the division managers complained about his ent kind of problem if those co-opted use their abil-
NO
changes or the change process itself, he could point ity to influence the design and implementation of
to the negotiated agreements. changes in ways that are not in the best interests
Negotiation is particularly appropriate when it of the organization.
is clear that someone is going to lose out as a result Other forms of manipulation have drawbacks al-
of a change and yet his or her power to resist is sig- so, sometimes to an even greater degree. Most peo-
nificant. Negotiated agreements can be a relatively ple are likely to greet what they perceive as covert
easy way to avoid major resistance, though, like treatment and/or lies with a negative response. Fur-
some other processes, they may become expensive. thermore, if a manager develops a reputation as a
And once a manager makes it clear that he will ne- manipulator, it can undermine his ability to use
T
gotiate to avoid major resistance, he opens himself needed approaches such as education/communica-
up to the possibility of blackmail.14 tion and participation/involvement. At the ex-
Manipulation & co-optation. In some situations, treme, it can even ruin his career.
managers also resort to covert attempts to influ- Nevertheless, people do manipulate others suc-
ence others. Manipulation, in this context, normal- cessfully – particularly when all other tactics are
ly involves the very selective use of information not feasible or have failed.15 Having no other alter-
CO
and the conscious structuring of events. native, and not enough time to educate, involve, or
One common form of manipulation is co-opta- support people, and without the power or other re-
tion. Co-opting an individual usually involves sources to negotiate, coerce, or co-opt them, man-
giving him or her a desirable role in the design or agers have resorted to manipulating information
implementation of the change. Co-opting a group channels in order to scare people into thinking
involves giving one of its leaders, or someone it re- there is a crisis coming which they can avoid only
spects, a key role in the design or implementation by changing.
of a change. This is not a form of participation, Explicit & implicit coercion. Finally, managers
however, because the initiators do not want the ad- often deal with resistance coercively. Here they
PY
vice of the co-opted, merely his or her endorsement. essentially force people to accept a change by ex-
For example: plicitly or implicitly threatening them (with the
M One division manager in a large multibusiness loss of jobs, promotion possibilities, and so forth) or
corporation invited the corporate human relations by actually firing or transferring them. As with ma-
vice president, a close friend of the president, to nipulation, using coercion is a risky process be-
help him and his key staff diagnose some problems cause inevitably people strongly resent forced
the division was having. Because of his busy sched- change. But in situations where speed is essential
ule, the corporate vice president was not able to do and where the changes will not be popular, regard-
much of the actual information gathering or analy- less of how they are introduced, coercion may be
sis himself, thus limiting his own influence on the the manager’s only option.
diagnoses. But his presence at key meetings helped Successful organizational change efforts are al-
commit him to the diagnoses as well as the solu- ways characterized by the skillful application of a
tions the group designed. The commitment was number of these approaches, often in very different

8 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW March-April 1979

Exhibit I
Methods for dealing with resistance to change

Approach Commonly used in situations Advantages Drawbacks

Education + communication Where there is a lack of information Once persuaded, people with often Can be very time-consuming if lots
or inaccurate information and help with the implementation of the of people are involved.
analysis. change.
DO
Participation + involvement Where the initiators do not have all People who participate will be Can be very time-consuming if
the information they need to design committed to implementing change, participators design an
the change, and where others have and any relevant information they inappropriate change.
considerable power to resist. have will be integrated into the
change plan.
Facilitation + support Where people are resisting because No other approach works as well Can be time-consuming, expensive,
of adjustment problems. with adjustment problems. and still fail.
Negotiation + agreement Where someone or some group will Sometimes it is a relatively easy Can be too expensive to many
clearly lose out in a change, and way to avoid major resistance. cases if it alerts others to negotiate
where that group has considerable for compliance.
power to resist.
Manipulation + co-optation Where other tactics will not work, or It can be a relatively quick and Can lead to future problems if
are too expensive. inexpensive solution to resistance people feel manipulated.
problems.
NO
Explicit + implicit coercion Where speed is essential, and the It is speedy, and can overcome any Can be risky if it leaves people mad
change initiators possess kind of resistance. at the initiators.
considerable power.

combinations. However, successful efforts share change strategy calls for a very rapid implementa-
two characteristics: managers employ the ap- tion, a clear plan of action, and little involvement
proaches with a sensitivity to their strengths and of others. This type of strategy mows over any resis-
limitations (see Exhibit I) and appraise the situa- tance and, at the extreme, would result in a fait
tion realistically. accompli. At the other end of the continuum, the
The most common mistake managers make is to strategy would call for a much slower change pro-
T
use only one approach or a limited set of them re- cess, a less clear plan, and involvement on the part
gardless of the situation. A surprisingly large num- of many people other than the change initiators.
ber of managers have this problem. This would This type of strategy is designed to reduce resis-
include the hard-boiled boss who often coerces peo- tance to a minimum.18
ple, the people-oriented manager who constantly The further to the left one operates on the
tries to involve and support his people, the cynical continuum in Exhibit II, the more one tends to be
CO
boss who always manipulates and co-opts others, coercive and the less one tends to use the other ap-
the intellectual manager who relies heavily on edu- proaches – especially participation; the converse
cation and communication, and the lawyerlike also holds.
manager who usually tries to negotiate.16 Organizational change efforts that are based on
A second common mistake that managers make inconsistent strategies tend to run into predictable
is to approach change in a disjointed and incremen- problems. For example, efforts that are not clearly
tal way that is not a part of a clearly considered planned in advance and yet are implemented quick-
strategy. ly tend to become bogged down owing to unantici-
pated problems. Efforts that involve a large number
PY
of people, but are implemented quickly, usually
Choice of Strategy become either stalled or less participative.
In approaching an organizational change situa- Situational factors. Exactly where a change effort
tion, managers explicitly or implicitly make strate- should be strategically positioned on the continu-
gic choices regarding the speed of the effort, the um in Exhibit II depends on four factors:
amount of preplanning, the involvement of others, 1. The amount and kind of resistance that is an-
and the relative emphasis they will give to different ticipated. All other factors being equal, the greater
approaches. Successful change efforts seem to be the anticipated resistance, the more difficult it will
those where these choices both are internally con- be simply to overwhelm it, and the more a manager
sistent and fit some key situational variables. will need to move toward the right on the continu-
The strategic options available to managers can um to find ways to reduce some of it.19
be usefully thought of as existing on a continuum 2. The position of the initiator vis-à-vis the resis-
(see Exhibit II).17 At one end of the continuum, the tors, especially with regard to power. The less pow-

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW March-April 1979 9

 STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE

weak position vis-à-vis the people whom he thinks

Exhibit II
need a change and yet is faced with serious conse-
Strategic continuum
quences if the change is not implemented immedi-
ately. Such a manager is clearly in a bind. If he
somehow is not able to increase his power in the
Fast Slower
situation, he will be forced to choose some compro-
Clearly planned. Not clearly planned at
mise strategy and to live through difficult times.
DO
the beginning.
Little involvement of others. Lots of involvement of others. Implications for managers. A manager can im-
Attempt to overcome any Attempt to minimize any resistance. prove his chance of success in an organizational
resistance. change effort by:
Key situational variables 1. Conducting an organizational analysis that
The amount and type of resistance that is anticipated. identifies the current situation, problems, and the
The position of the initiators vis à vis the resistors (in terms of power, forces that are possible causes of those problems.
trust, and so forth). The analysis should specify the actual importance
The locus of relevant data for designing the change, and of needed of the problems, the speed with which the problems
energy for implementing it.
must be addressed if additional problems are to be
The stakes involved (e.g., the presence or lack of presence of a crisis,
avoided, and the kinds of changes that are generally
the consequences of resistance and lack of change.)
needed.
NO
2. Conducting an analysis of factors relevant to
producing the needed changes. This analysis should
er the initiator has with respect to others, the more focus on questions of who might resist the change,
the initiating manager must move to the right on why, and how much, who has information that is
the continuum.20 Conversely, the stronger the ini- needed to design the change, and whose coopera-
tiator’s position, the more he or she can move to tion is essential in implementing it, and what is the
the left. position of the initiator vis-à-vis other relevant par-
3. The person who has the relevant data for de- ties in terms of power, trust, normal modes of inter-
signing the change and the energy for implement- action, and so forth.
T
ing it. The more the initiators anticipate that they 3. Selecting a change strategy, based on the previ-
will need information and commitment from oth- ous analysis, that specifies the speed of change, the
ers to help design and implement the change, the amount of preplanning, and the degree of involve-
more they must move to the right.21 Gaining useful ment of others; that selects specific tactics for use
information and commitment requires time and with various individuals and groups; and that is in-
the involvement of others. ternally consistent.
CO
4. The stakes involved. The greater the short-run 4. Monitoring the implementation process. No
potential for risks to organizational performance matter how good a job one does of initially selecting
and survival if the present situation is not changed, a change strategy and tactics, something unexpect-
the more one must move to the left. ed will eventually occur during implementation.
Organizational change efforts that ignore these Only by carefully monitoring the process can one
factors inevitably run into problems. A common identify the unexpected in a timely fashion and
mistake some managers make, for example, is to react to it intelligently.
move too quickly and involve too few people de- Interpersonal skills, of course, are the key to us-
spite the fact that they do not have all the informa- ing this analysis. But even the most outstanding
PY
tion they really need to design the change correctly. interpersonal skills will not make up for a poor
Insofar as these factors still leave a manager with choice of strategy and tactics. And in a business
some choice of where to operate on the continuum, world that continues to become more and more dy-
it is probably best to select a point as far to the right namic, the consequences of poor implementation
as possible for both economic and social reasons. choices will become increasingly severe.
Forcing change on people can have just too many
negative side effects over both the short and the References
long term. Change efforts using the strategies on 1. Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince.
the right of the continuum can often help develop 2. Marvin Bower and C. Lee Walton, Jr., “Gearing a Business to the Fu-
an organization and its people in useful ways.22 ture,” in Challenge to Leadership (New York: The Conference Board,
1973), p. 126.
In some cases, however, knowing the four factors
3. For recent evidence on the frequency of changes, see Stephen A. Allen,
may not give a manager a comfortable and obvious “Organizational Choice and General Influence Networks for Diversified
choice. Consider a situation where a manager has a Companies,” Academy of Management Journal, September 1978, p. 341.

10 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW March-April 1979

4. For example, see Robert A. Luke, Jr. “A Structural Approach to Organi- 13. Zaltman and Duncan, Strategies for Planned Change, Chapter 4.
zational Change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, September-
14. For an excellent discussion of negotiation, see Gerald I. Nierenberg,
October 1973, p. 611.
The Art of Negotiating (Birmingham, Ala.: Cornerstone, 1968).
5. For a discussion of power and politics in corporations, see Abraham Za-
15. See John P. Kotter, “Power, Dependence, and Effective Management,”
leznik and Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries, Power and the Corporate Mind
HBR July-August 1977, p. 125.
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975), Chapter 6; and Robert H. Miles, Macro
Organizational Behavior (Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear, 1978), 16. Ibid., p. 135.
Chapter 4.
17. See Larry E. Greiner, “Patterns of Organization Change,” HBR May-
6. See Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, June 1967, p. 119; and Larry E. Greiner and Louis B. Barnes, “Organization
DO
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 44. Change and Development,” in Organizational Change and Develop-
ment, eds. Gene W. Dalton and Paul R. Lawrence (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin,
7. See Chris Argyris, Intervention Theory and Method (Reading, Mass.:
1970), p. 3.
Addison-Wesley, 1970), p. 70.
18. For a good discussion of an approach that attempts to minimize resis-
8. See Paul R. Lawrence, “How to Deal with Resistance to Change,” HBR
tance, see Renato Tagiuri, “Notes on the Management of Change: Impli-
May-June 1954, p. 49; reprinted as HBR Classic, January-February 1969,
cation of Postulating a Need for Competence,” in John P. Kotter, Vijay
p. 4.
Sathe, and Leonard A. Schlesinger, Organization (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin,
9. For a discussion of resistance that is personality based, see Goodwin to be published in 1979).
Watson, “Resistance to Change,” in The Planning of Change, eds. Warren
19. Jay W. Lorsch, “Managing Change,” in Organizational Behavior and
G. Bennis, Kenneth F. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Administration, eds. Paul R. Lawrence, Louis B. Barnes, and Jay W. Lorsch
and Winston, 1969), p. 489.
(Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1976), p. 676.
10. Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management (New York: Harper and
20. Ibid.
Row, 1954).
21. Ibid.
11. For a general discussion of resistance and reasons for it, see Chapter 3
in Gerald Zaltman and Robert Duncan, Strategies for Planned Change 22. Michael Beer, Organization Change and Development: A Systems
NO
(New York: John Wiley, 1977). View (Pacific Palisades, Calif., Goodyear, to be published in 1979).
12. See, for example, Alfred J. Marrow, David F. Bowers, and Stanley E.
Seashore, Management by Participation (New York: Harper and
Row, 1967). Reprint 79202
T
CO
PY

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW March-April 1979 11

 PY
CO
T
NO
DO
Harvard Business Review
DO
HBR Subscriptions Harvard Business Review
Subscription Service
P.O. Box 52623
Boulder, CO 80322-2623

Telephone: U.S. and Canada (800) 274-3214

NO
Outside U.S. 44-85-846-8888
Fax: (617) 496-8145
American Express, MasterCard, VISA accepted. Billing available.

HBR Article Reprints Harvard Business Review

HBR Index Operations Department
Soldiers Field
Boston, MA 02163

Telephone: (800) 545-7685

T
Fax: (617) 496-8145

HBR Custom Reprints Inquire about HBR’s custom service for quantity orders.
Imprint your company’s logo on reprint covers, select articles
for custom collections or books. Color available.
CO
Telephone: (617) 495-6198
Fax: (617) 496-2470

Permissions For permission to quote or reprint on a one-time basis:

Telephone: (800) 545-7685
Fax: (617) 495-6985

For permission to re-publish please write or call:

PY
Permissions Editor
Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation
Soldiers Field
Boston, MA 02163

(617) 495-6849