Most organizations enter the change process hoping that it will fix everything so
that the organization runs smoothly. Yet, as change becomes incorporated into the organizational structure, the process eventually loses energy and passes quietly into history. Within a few years, the organization finds itself involved in the process once again.

So what is the problem? Why is it that we cannot make organizational change "stick" so that the process does not ever have to be repeated?

There are a number of issues that block effective organizational change: distrust of the change agenda; underestimation of the degree of personal change required; leaders who do not walk the talk; and inadequate support for implementation teams. Worst of all, we harbour unrealistic expectations about the nature of change.

When we say that we want to make change stick, we generally mean that we want a particular change-in-progress to become a permanent part of the organizational culture or operating style. We talk as if change will come to an end, after which we imagine a return to an idyllic state of stability.

Organizations, however, need to undertake managed change continuously for a variety of reasons. They may need to adapt to structural developments, such as mergers or the introduction of major systems or new products and services. They may need to respond to a crisis or a succession of problems - for example, poor financial performance, loss of staff, emergence of new competition or shareholder displeasure. Or the organization may simply want to improve effectiveness by getting everyone focussed on the same set of goals.

To meet these challenges, we need to start accepting change-in-progress as an ongoing part of corporate life. Kurt Lewin, a well-known change guru, describes change as a three-step process - unfreezing, changing and refreezing - a metaphor that has been sadly misunderstood. "Refreezing" implies a return to a previously frozen state, but this is clearly unrealistic and not what Lewin intended. He envisioned a continuous process of unfreezing, changing and refreezing, during which one set of changes is followed by another set of changes in a constantly evolving pattern.

Another block to effective organizational change is the language used to announce that it is taking place. It is often deceptive, suggesting that the primary goal is to change the organization. Usually, however, there is an underlying goal that is just as important: to change the way people behave. Efforts at organizational change are often precipitated by CEOs who have decided that such behaviour as rigidity, unresponsiveness or complacency can no longer be tolerated. They hope change will stimulate their people to develop new behaviour and ways of working together that will enhance the organization. In short, it is not only organizations that must change; people, too, must change.

The fact that organizational downsizing and staff reduction often - though not always - follow change is one of the reasons employees are suspicious of such initiatives. Since organizational change seeks to alter people's behaviour, it is a good idea to consult with those involved - customers, staff or both - in order to develop a strategy.

Effective organizational change demands not only the involvement of the employees but the whole-hearted commitment and active participation of senior leaders, particularly that of the CEO. In successful change processes, leaders are expected to create internal commitment to the new vision by modelling the new values and desired behaviour. Perhaps the leader's greatest role is to remain steadfast by keeping change high on the executive committee agenda, asking for progress reports, encouraging the people who are working on change and providing the necessary resources.

Actions speak louder than words, and exceptions are deadly. Staff members have zero tolerance for executives who make an exception to an agreement, or whose actions are inconsistent with a stated value or principle. Such high expectations can inhibit leaders from acknowledging that they do not know what to do or that they've done the wrong thing. However, when a leader acknowledges the difficulties of which everyone else is aware, the credibility of the change process can be enhanced instead of harmed.

Gwenlyn Setterfield, executive director of the Ontario Arts Council, was challenged by her management team because an organizational change was having negative as well as positive effects on their roles and job satisfaction. While acknowledging the validity of the complaints, Gwenlyn admitted that she was not sure how to resolve them, nor did she feel she was solely responsible. This led to a constructive discussion and, ultimately, a plan to manage the impact of change in a positive manner.

Much of the work of organizational change is done in teams that consult widely, consider options and develop recommendations for constructive change. These are typically presented to a steering committee or an executive group that can break down departmental barriers. In fact, teams are often the engine of change. Their success or failure tends to determine whether or not the larger change initiative will succeed. Few organizations, however, provide teams with the support they require to do their jobs well. For example, although the demands of the team impose an extra workload on each of its members, they receive no corresponding relief from normal day-to-day duties. No wonder there is growing resistance to being appointed as part of a change or process improvement team.

A framework of team support should include several key elements. Teams should be integrated with the organization's structure, and should have access to resources such as staff, technology, information and budget. In addition, a person's team contribution should be recognized and rewarded.

It is important for leaders to be open-minded about the information and recommendations provided by change teams. Teams sometimes produce flawed, biassed and disappointing recommendations, especially if they focus on relatively unimportant aspects of a situation. For example, when asked for ideas on improving communication, one team could do no better than to recommend a suggestion box (a popular but rarely successful strategy). On the other hand, senior executives can give team recommendations a rough ride - sometimes more so than they deserve. Leaders should work in partnership with teams by being open to information they may not immediately want to accept.

To be successful, change should be integrated with core business processes, especially those that most affect people: planning, budgeting, staff selection, compensation and communications. All must be absolutely consistent with the new direction and values, yet it is astounding how often we find that they are not. For instance, compensation plans that have a variable income component based on individual performance may be incompatible with a culture emphasizing teamwork and collaboration. Similarly, top-down planning processes may not fit with expectations that staff members will exercise judgment about how to satisfy customers.

Since changing people's behaviour is one of the fundamental objectives of organizational change, ongoing evaluation is important. Even though there is growing resistance to being "surveyed to death," it is a good idea to ask employees for their opinions about whether the change strategy is proving helpful. Problem areas that may have manifested themselves in the pre-change period are often surprisingly persistent.

Different employees adapt to change at different rates. Typically, the "missionaries" are in the forefront of the change process and are visibly identified with it. The majority of people are in the middle, initially experiencing reservations but ultimately deciding to give their support. The "late adapters" may never be able to provide whole-hearted support, and that can be a problem. Dealing with them is a matter of leadership and the organization's philosophy but, ultimately, resistance must cease.

Some organizations feel that those who continue to resist and torpedo change should be told, in the words of one CEO, to "catch the program or catch the bus." However, ending resistance does not necessarily require firing people. That should occur only as a last resort after other approaches have been tried. The late adapters can be told that their behaviour is destructive. Some employees will be surprised to learn that they are perceived as problems, and will adjust their behaviour accordingly. Others will argue that their actions are justifiable because they are convinced that the change initiative is misguided. These people can be asked whether they will be able to modify the destructive aspect of their behaviour. Ultimately, if a person cannot provide some constructive support to the organization's direction, departure is the only alternative.

In the business world of the 21st century, organizational change will likely continue to be a fact of corporate life. If organizations are to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances in the future, they should start incorporating the philosophy of continuous change today.