In ancient philosophy there were seven deadly sins: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.  Today, we have the seven deadly sins of current approaches to change management: (1)  Ignore current organizational reality, (2) Address single changes, (3) Emphasize activities, not results,(4) Scratch the surface, (5) Insult people, (6) Miss the real issue, (7) Prone to operator error.

1. Ignores the Reality of Current Organizations
The cornerstone piece of many organizational change models assumes a static view of organizations that is no longer appropriate; in particular, Kurt Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze model.  Organizations today are never frozen, static entities.  As Rosabeth Moss Kanter observes :
Organizations are fluid entities… it is more appropriate to view organizational motion as ubiquitous and multidimensional.
Even so the unfreeze-change-refreeze model is still pervasive in large part because it fits the key roles of management, creating order and coping with complexity.

2. Address Single Change
Most change management approaches focus primarily on implementing a single change.  Here too, the models are out of touch with what is going on in organizations today.  We have yet to find an organization that is not simultaneously implementing a variety of significant changes -- process reengineering, cell manufacturing, new information architecture, revised performance management systems, leadership development, restructuring, and so on. 

By treating change initiatives in one-off fashion, disconnected from each other for all practical purposes, these well meaning change management approaches have the unintended consequence of dramatically increasing complexity.  In fact, instead of helping people cope with complexity, multiple, uncoordinated changes are often overwhelming to most employees because of the multiple communiqués, contradictory signals, and changing priorities.  We know of one east coast manufacturer that has over 25 implementation planning teams to support their process reengineering initiative.  And reengineering is only one of four major initiatives that this firm is currently implementing.


3. Scratch The Surface
There is a heavy emphasis in virtually all change management models and approaches on how to deal with resistance to change. Here too the change management models are well meaning.  Many acknowledge that resistance is a valid and entirely appropriate self-protective response to a destabilizing change.  They then provide a variety of techniques for addressing and ultimately overcoming an employee’s resistance -- from communicating the personal benefits as well as the business case for the to involving employees in how to implement the change.

Typically, however, change management models only deal with the potential resistance to a specific change, as if resistance is an immutable and inescapable fact of human nature.  Yet how can we explain those firms where employees recommend and implement significant changes themselves. 

Change management models almost never address the more systemic, underlying causes of resistance, namely lack of trust and fear.   And in only treating the symptoms, while ignoring the disease, they do little to build an organization’s change capacity.

4. Emphasize Activities, Not Results
Like most of the fads that have passed out of the spotlight, change management tends to focus heavily on activities while paying little more than lip service to business results. The emphasis, at least in practice, shifts from what do we have to do to achieve results to huge up-front investments in getting ready -- training, consultants, new vocabulary, tools and techniques … in other words, the latest program. In so doing, the means, change management, becomes the end and people start to focus more on the change than results.
What happens all too frequently is that these change management programs are often kept separate from running the business.  Once again, this creates unintended complexity.   Often there are conflicting priorities between the line organization that is charged with producing the business results and corporate staff and consultants who are charged with implementing a major change.  Despite all of the attempts at communication, the line organization is usually at a loss to know how the change -- especially given the price THEY have to pay -- will help them achieve their objectives.
Even worse, by focusing so much on change and resistance to change, we may actually be making things worse.  Simply by mentioning it so often, we frame the process in ways that are aversive.  If instead we focused on results and broke the action plans into bite-sized steps (positively framing the initiative), people would tend to focus more on what they had accomplished, and less on what they had to give up or do differently to achieve the results.

5. Insult People
As well-meaning and as “people-oriented” as change management purports to be, some of the terminology and underlying premises are actually divisive.  They are based on largely untested and arrogant assumptions about people -- more to the point, other people and their presumed unwillingness to change.

Implicitly, most approaches to change management assume a “changer” and a “changee.”  The unspoken message this communicates is reminiscent of one of the major problems with the total quality management movement; namely that managers (the changers)  are OK and that the people lower in the hierarchy (the “changees” ) are not.  All this serves to do is reinforce the hierarchy and create an “us-them” relationship between people and levels.  It is certainly not the way to create a “boundaryless” enterprise, build a greater sense of shared ownership nor encourage the desired beliefs and behaviors -- commitment, passion, and personal accountability.

In the extreme, the terminology is actually demeaning and insulting.  For example, the term that is commonly used to refer to people involved in the change is “target”.    Here are some of the dictionary definitions of target:

an object, usually marked with concentric circles, to be aimed at in shooting practice or contests.
an object of abuse, scorn, derision, etc.; butt.
to make a target of (an object, person, city, etc.) for attack or bombardment.

Extending this militaristic metaphor, a soldier’s mission is to search and destroy the “target.”  And if we accept the notion that language plays a significant role in shaping our behavior, what implicit message is this term actually sending? 

6. Miss the Real Issue
The real issue is transition, not change. Change is not the same as transition.  Transition is the psychological process a person goes through in letting go of old habits before experimenting with and then committing to the new way of doing things.   Changes deal with objective phenomenon such as an office relocation, a transfer, a structural change, and so on.  If it were only a matter of managing changes, then managers could rely on the exercise of authority and simply demand that people make the changes. Timelines could be established and sound project management methods employed to achieve the desired change.  Typically this sort of strategy produces begrudging employee compliance, and with some changes it may be an entirely appropriate strategy. 

However, in those cases where genuine commitment is critical to success, leadership and the exercise of influence are required.  The subjective transition process requires a much higher degree of sensitivity to the “people issues” because genuine commitment is a decision that an employee voluntarily makes; it can not be forced.

7. Prone to Operator Error
Change management like most fads is prone to operator error.  In fact, it is prone to operator error at two levels:  The operator using the tools inappropriately and the wrong operator.   If managers are looking for easy answers to tough challenges, if they are not willing to put in more than minimal effort, and if they rely too heavily on tools & techniques blindly following checklists, the results are predictable.

Often the wrong “operator” is doing the change management work.  Too many managers have handed over major change initiatives to external consultants and internal staff groups, in effect abdicating their responsibility for running an important part of their business.  While both of these groups can be useful resources, they should not assume responsibility for implementing major changes.