Recently, a potential consulting client scheduled a free consultation for him and his team to discuss a project to “improve change management” in his organization. When I asked them to tell me more about what they had been tasked to do, they offered many different answers.

Some indicated they were working on improving communication between departments or trying to reduce embarrassing mistakes with clients. Others suggested they just needed to roll out a spreadsheet used in one department to all other departments. Others felt everyone needed training in change management; others weren’t sure. Some saw clear, simple solutions; others saw problems. Still others thought they needed to take a deeper look at all of it. Confusion was in the air. Frustrations grew.

This is common.

When we use the terms change and change management, we give the impression they are singular concepts or practices. In reality, these terms represent systems with many parts. Think of it like the jumble of cords and adapters behind a computer. When the computer, video camera, speakers, and monitor work well together, we don’t give much thought to the individual pieces and parts of the system. But when we first set it up — or when there is a problem — we must untangle the mess of cords and identify which does what to get things working.

Likewise, the first step in any change effort is to untangle the jumble of ideas, concepts, problems, solutions, and requirements into comprehensible parts we can work with.  

Use three questions as a guide

Fortunately, change researchers offer us a framework for doing that. Different thinkers refer to these concepts differently, but I often use the ideas provided by Achilles Armenakis and colleagues. They indicate that we should view successful change as composed of three interrelated components — content, process, and context.

From this, we can garner the three questions that enable us to start the process of designing and implementing an organizational change effort. Importantly, it often takes time and effort to clarify the answers to these questions — and the answers are interdependent. So be prepared for some iteration.

The three questions, in no particular order, are:

Content: What change solution are we implementing and why?

Content relates to what we are implementing —the process, system, policy, structure, or strategy — in general, and, eventually, specific terms. It also includes why we are changing. What is the problem we are trying to solve? What will be materially different if this change is successful? Clear answers to these questions are essential to design the change effort and communicate it effectively.

Process: How will we support the adoption and successful use of the change to create the results we desire?

Process speaks to how we will go about creating the change in the organization. Change management practices fall into this area — everything from measurement, training, and coaching to stakeholder management and decision-making. Process is the difference between “letting it happen” versus “making it happen,” to quote the folks a NIRN. (Guess which one regularly leads to better results?)

The content and process of the change should be selected and design to fit the organization. This requires investigating the third question.

Context: What are the critical internal and external factors that do/should influence our decisions about the content and process?

Context represents a variety of factors related to the organization — current level of performance, trust of leadership, managers and peers, history with change — and those within it — level of relevant technical skill, adaptiveness to change, job satisfaction. It also reflects external factors, such as competitive, regulatory, or economic forces.

Identifying the most significant contextual factors for any given change is critical because they can impact both the specific solution we choose to implement and why we are implementing it.  Let’s consider a few examples.

• A shift in regulatory requirements or increased competition may leave an organization with little choice but to change. The ‘why’ of the change in such contexts may be evident. However, a 'burning platform’ doesn’t always exist. Sometimes there are internal drivers motivating organizations to institute changes.

• An organization with a low level of existing skill in a relevant technical area, or limited time, may need to select a change solution that is less comprehensive than an organization that has spent years attracting talent with advanced skills to support the adoption or use of a more complex solution.

• The change management approach taken in an organization with low trust and high-risk aversion may be quite different than that designed in a more agile organization with a history of change success.

Whenever we start a new change effort, it’s worthwhile to document answers to these three questions. Better yet, it to facilitate a group discussion or interview leaders to ask their views. Be prepared to receive various perspectives — unifying these into a coherent conceptualization of the change is the first step in preparing an organization to create meaningful change successfully. 

This article was originally published on March 22, 2017. It was updated on June 24, 2021.

References

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.

Walker, H. J., Armenakis, A. A., & Bernerth, J. B. (2007). Factors influencing organizational change efforts: An integrative investigation of change content, context, process, and individual differences. Journal of Organizational Change Management.