Change Is Hard

Frameworks can help

Change is hard. Whether we are trying to eat healthier, exercise more, or stop an unhealthy habit, we all personally know the challenges that come with change. Most of us have also been part of organizations that have tried to change and know how difficult that can be as well. People and organizations have inertia. We want to keep doing the same things we’ve always done. Newton's first law of motion states that an object at rest or in motion will stay that way, unless acted upon by a net external force and describes this phenomenon for physical objects. However, it can also be applied to abstract concepts such as processes and organizations. Let’s start by looking at a company that has been in the headlines for years because of its failure to change.

Boeing’s legacy as a pioneer in aviation was the stuff of legends. Known for its commitment to safety and engineering excellence, the company produced aircraft that became benchmarks for reliability. But by the 2010s, Boeing found itself in turbulence. Airbus had taken the lead with its A320neo, a fuel-efficient, cost-saving marvel. Airlines loved it, and orders poured in. Boeing, caught off guard, scrambled for a response. Rather than develop a new plane from scratch, Boeing opted for a quicker, cheaper fix: upgrading its best-selling 737. The 737 MAX was pitched as a seamless upgrade that delivered efficiency without the need for additional pilot training. It sounded perfect but the push to deliver quickly and cheaply would soon reveal cracks in Boeing’s approach.

While designing the 737 MAX, Boeing was undergoing a cultural shift. For decades, engineering had been king, but by the 2010s, financial priorities began to dominate. The focus on shareholder value eclipsed the company’s historic emphasis on safety and quality. Engineers were pushed to deliver cost-effective solutions fast. Safety concerns were sometimes dismissed, and a “don’t rock the boat” mentality began to creep in.

This cultural shift led to a series of decisions that prioritized speed and profit over rigor. The most notable of these was the design of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a software solution meant to counteract aerodynamic changes caused by the MAX’s larger engines. Relying on input from a single sensor, MCAS could automatically force the plane’s nose down, a potentially catastrophic flaw if the sensor malfunctioned.

The consequences of these compromises became tragically clear in 2018 and 2019. Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 both crashed, killing 346 people. Investigations revealed that faulty MCAS activations overpowered the pilots’ efforts to stabilize their planes. Compounding the tragedy, Boeing had failed to adequately inform pilots about MCAS or include it in training materials, insisting that the MAX was just like earlier 737 models.

These disasters exposed deep flaws in Boeing’s processes. Internal emails and whistleblower accounts painted a picture of a company cutting corners to save time and money, with safety concerns silenced in favor of meeting deadlines. The 737 MAX was grounded worldwide, costing Boeing billions of dollars, tarnishing its reputation, and shaking public trust.

Even after the 737 MAX returned to service in 2021 with safety updates, Boeing's troubles were far from over. In January 2024, an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX experienced a terrifying incident shortly after takeoff. A door plug blew off the aircraft due to missing bolts that were meant to secure it in place. Astonishingly, the plane had left the factory without these critical fasteners. While the plane managed to land safely, the incident reignited fears about Boeing’s quality control and its ability to implement meaningful cultural change.

This latest failure revealed that Boeing’s problems extended beyond software flaws and regulatory lapses. It underscored a systemic issue with the company's manufacturing and inspection processes. How could a plane, built under the intense scrutiny that followed the earlier MAX disasters, leave the factory with such a glaring defect? It was a question that sent shockwaves through the aviation industry.

The Boeing 737 MAX saga demonstrates how a failure to transform can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Boeing’s inability to adapt its culture from one of engineering excellence to one balancing innovation with safety and quality ultimately sabotaged its efforts. The company’s push for speed and cost efficiency overrode its historical commitment to safety, leaving it ill-equipped to handle the demands of modern aviation. Decisions such as the flawed MCAS design and insufficient pilot training reflected a deep resistance to change, an insistence on prioritizing past practices and profits over meaningful transformation. Even after the return of the MAX, the missing bolts in the 2024 Alaska Airlines incident highlighted Boeing’s ongoing struggle to implement lasting improvements.

For leaders, the case illustrates how a failure to transform culture can erode an organization from within. Boeing’s disregard for its safety-first ethos silenced employees who might have raised critical concerns. This resistance to change not only endangered passengers but also undermined the company’s reputation and financial health. By clinging to outdated priorities while facing a rapidly changing industry, Boeing demonstrated the risks of failing to evolve.

One way to understand how to help organizations change is by leveraging frameworks. There are a number of established frameworks for driving transformational change in organizations. These frameworks focus on various aspects such as culture, process, leadership, and strategy. Here are some notable examples:

Kotter’s 8-Step Process - John Kotter’s framework is widely regarded as a foundational model for managing organizational transformation. Rooted in years of research on leadership and change, it offers a clear, step-by-step guide to drive change effectively, emphasizing the importance of building momentum and sustaining improvements. Kotter’s process is particularly suited to large-scale changes that require buy-in across multiple levels of an organization.

1. Establish a Sense of Urgency: Highlight the necessity for change by identifying threats or opportunities. Create a compelling narrative that motivates employees to act now.

2. Build a Guiding Coalition: Form a team of influential stakeholders who can champion the change effort. This group should include people with authority, expertise, and credibility.

3. Develop a Vision and Strategy: Craft a clear vision of what the change will achieve and outline the strategies to get there. A well-articulated vision aligns efforts and motivates action.

4. Communicate the Vision: Use every possible medium to share the vision and strategy. Ensure that the message resonates with employees at all levels of the organization.

5. Empower Broad-Based Action: Remove obstacles, such as outdated processes or resistant individuals, and enable employees to contribute to the change effort.

6. Generate Short-Term Wins: Achieve visible, meaningful results quickly to build momentum and demonstrate the benefits of the change.

7. Consolidate Gains and Produce More Change: Use the credibility of early wins to push for deeper changes. Tackle systems, structures, and policies that could hinder progress.

8. Anchor New Approaches in the Culture: Ensure that the changes become ingrained in the organization’s culture by aligning them with core values and hiring, training, and leadership practices.

Lewin’s Change Management Model - Developed by Kurt Lewin, this model is one of the earliest and simplest frameworks for understanding and implementing organizational change. It views change as a process of overcoming resistance, implementing new behaviors, and solidifying them into the organizational culture. Lewin’s three-stage model is particularly effective for cultural transformations and process changes.

1. Unfreeze: Prepare the organization for change by breaking down existing norms, behaviors, or practices. This stage often involves communicating why change is necessary and creating dissatisfaction with the status quo.

2. Change: Implement the new processes, behaviors, or structures. This is the transition phase where people begin adopting the desired changes. It requires training, communication, and strong leadership.

3. Refreeze: Stabilize the organization after the change by embedding new practices into the culture. Reinforce these changes through policies, incentives, and consistent behaviors to prevent a return to old habits.

ADKAR - The ADKAR model, developed by Prosci, focuses on managing individual change to drive broader organizational transformation. It is built on the premise that successful change occurs when individuals transition effectively through specific stages. This framework is particularly useful for managing employee adoption of new systems, processes, or strategies.

1. Awareness: Ensure that individuals understand the need for change. Clearly articulate the challenges or opportunities driving the initiative to foster understanding and acceptance.

2. Desire: Build a personal desire among employees to support and participate in the change. Address resistance by linking the change to individual and organizational benefits.

3. Knowledge: Provide employees with the information and training needed to implement the change. This includes understanding what to do differently and why.

4. Ability: Enable employees to act on the knowledge provided. This may involve hands-on training, coaching, and support to develop the necessary skills and confidence.

5. Reinforcement: Sustain the change by reinforcing new behaviors and practices through recognition, feedback, and rewards. Address any lapses promptly to prevent backsliding.

Appreciative Inquiry - Unlike traditional change models that focus on problem-solving, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) takes a positive approach by identifying and amplifying an organization’s strengths. Developed by David Cooperrider, AI is particularly effective for cultural transformation and fostering engagement by involving employees in envisioning and creating a shared future.

1. Discover: Identify the organization’s strengths and areas of excellence. This step involves exploring what works well and what employees value about the organization.

2. Dream: Envision a compelling future by building on the organization’s strengths. This is a collaborative step where stakeholders imagine possibilities and align around shared aspirations.

3. Design: Create actionable strategies and systems to move toward the envisioned future. This involves developing plans that leverage the organization’s core strengths.

4. Destiny: Implement and sustain the change. This phase focuses on embedding the new practices into the organization’s culture and ensuring ongoing alignment with the vision.

Transtheoretical Model - The Prochaska and DiClemente model, also known as the transtheoretical model (TTM) or stages of change model, is a model that helps people understand how to change their behavior. The model describes five stages of change:

• Pre-contemplation: The person doesn't recognize a problem

• Contemplation: The person acknowledges a problem but isn't ready to change

• Preparation: The person is getting ready to change

• Action: The person is changing their behavior

• Maintenance: The person is maintaining the behavior change

While originally designed originally for individual behavioral interventions, TTM has been applied to organizational change. An article in the journal Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research published in March 2001 applies the transtheoretical model (TTM) of behavior change to organizational transformation. The authors propose a staged approach for facilitating and sustaining change within organizations, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies aligned with distinct phases such as pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. By identifying an organization's readiness to change and aligning interventions to its current stage, the model provides a structured framework for overcoming resistance, promoting employee engagement, and embedding sustainable practices. This integrative method underscores the dynamic, iterative nature of change processes, advocating for adaptive, evidence-based strategies to navigate complex organizational challenges.

Each of these frameworks provides a distinct approach to driving transformation, tailored to different organizational needs and contexts. Here is a high level comparison:

• Kotter’s 8-Step Model: This is a structured, step-by-step framework ideal for large-scale transformations that require strong leadership and widespread buy-in. Its focus on building urgency, achieving quick wins, and anchoring changes into the culture makes it effective for organizations dealing with significant strategic shifts or industry disruptions.

• Lewin’s Change Management Model: With its simple three-phase approach, Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze, this model is best suited for cultural and process changes where the organization needs to break old habits, adopt new behaviors, and stabilize these changes. It excels in situations where resistance is strong, and clarity is needed.

• ADKAR Model: This framework zeroes in on individual behavior change as the foundation for organizational transformation. Its emphasis on personal Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement ensures that employees are ready and equipped to adapt. ADKAR is especially useful for introducing new technologies, processes, or policies that require active participation at all levels.

• Appreciative Inquiry (AI): Focusing on a strengths-based and collaborative approach, AI shifts the narrative from fixing problems to building on what already works. It is particularly effective for cultural transformations or initiatives where engagement, vision-building, and positivity are critical to success.

• Transtheoretical Model (TTM): Originally designed for individual behavior change, TTM applies well to organizational transformation by recognizing that different parts of an organization are at varying stages of readiness. With stages like Pre-contemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance, TTM emphasizes tailoring interventions to meet teams or departments where they are in their readiness to change. This makes it effective for long-term transformations that require gradual, stage-based progress across diverse organizational units.

The choice of framework depends on the nature of the change, the organizational culture, and the specific challenges at hand. Kotter’s model works well for urgency-driven transformations, Lewin’s model provides clarity for process-focused changes, ADKAR addresses the people-side of change, AI energizes organizations through positivity, and TTM offers flexibility for navigating varying levels of readiness within a complex organizational structure. Combining insights from these frameworks can often create the most robust strategy for lasting transformation.

Let’s wrap up with a case study of a company that successfully transformed using a framework to aid in the change. In the early 1990s, IBM was teetering on the brink of irrelevance. The company that had once dominated the computing world was hemorrhaging money, losing market share, and struggling to compete in a rapidly evolving technology landscape. Revenues from its traditional hardware business were declining as customers shifted toward integrated solutions and services. To address this existential crisis, IBM brought in a new CEO, Lou Gerstner, who rejected the idea of breaking up the company, a proposal favored by many industry analysts, and instead embarked on a bold mission to reinvent IBM as a customer-focused solutions provider.

Gerstner used John Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model, albeit not by name, to steer the transformation. He created a sense of urgency by openly confronting the company’s dire financial situation and rallied employees around the need for immediate change. Building a guiding coalition of trusted leaders, Gerstner articulated a vision for IBM’s future: a shift from selling hardware to delivering integrated solutions and services tailored to customer needs. This strategic pivot required not just new business processes but a cultural overhaul, as IBM's famously bureaucratic structure stifled innovation and agility. Gerstner communicated the vision relentlessly, empowering employees to take ownership of the change and removing obstacles that had long hindered progress.

The transformation yielded remarkable results. Early wins, such as securing lucrative service contracts and gaining traction in emerging markets, built momentum and proved the viability of the new strategy. Over time, IBM consolidated these gains by embedding customer-centric practices into its corporate DNA, reshaping its workforce, and continuously refining its service offerings. By the end of the 1990s, IBM had not only returned to profitability but also re-established itself as a leader in technology services, demonstrating how a clear vision, strategic leadership, and cultural alignment could revitalize even the most troubled organizations.

Transformation is challenging, yet possible with the right tools and frameworks. From Boeing's struggles with cultural inertia to IBM's revitalization through clear vision and strategic leadership, the lessons are clear: change demands deliberate action. Frameworks like Kotter’s 8-Step Model, Lewin’s Change Management Model, ADKAR, Appreciative Inquiry, and the Transtheoretical Model offer structured paths to navigate complex transitions. Each provides insights into addressing resistance, aligning processes, and engaging people effectively. Organizations that embrace these principles, adapt strategies to their unique contexts, and foster a culture of continuous improvement can not only survive disruption but thrive in the face of it. Change is hard, but with the right approach, it can also be transformative.