Leadership Development Consulting

A Brief History of Change Management

Our understanding of change management has changed significantly over the last few decades. The first generation of change management began rather mechanistically. Once an organization’s leadership realized the need for change, they developed a strategy and ordered people to change. Internal or external experts told line management what to do. This approach did not work too well, and even when things changed the results could not be sustained.

The second generation recognized the need to involve the workforce. Most of these programs comprised broad, corporate-wide training and education initiatives. Employees were taught leadership’s strategy and given a set of tools to use. The underlying assumption was that changing people’s attitudes would modify people’s behavior, which would inevitably lead to some results.

This approach was very popular in the early days of Total Quality Management. Sponsorship of these efforts came from the corporate level, and effectiveness was measured by the number of training days per employee. However, many companies began to realize that teaching alone did not change behaviors. What seemed absolutely logical and rational in the training session was not always applicable in the real world. Often, the training did not help to improve bottom line results. Employees developed expectations but were frustrated when they could not apply their new knowledge and skills immediately. At best these programs were irrelevant; at worst they promoted cynical behavior and inoculated organizations against change.

The third generation of change management emphasized ideas that employees implemented themselves such as breakthrough improvement projects. This practical approach focused on solving concrete and specific business problems through teams, aiming for breakthrough results. Training was aimed specifically at those involved in the pilot projects. These projects were usually quite successful, at least during the pilot phase. However a narrow focus, such as on one particular piece of equipment, and the difficulty in involving the entire organization due to lack of resources, made it very difficult to roll out the projects successfully.