In the HBS blog, Change Management Needs to Change. (Retrieved from https://blogs.hbr.org/ashkenas/2013/04/change-management-needs-to-cha.html), Ashkenas contends:
"As a recognized discipline, change management has been in existence for over half a century. Yet despite the huge investment that companies have made in tools, training, and thousands of books (over 83,000 on Amazon), most studies still show a 60-70% failure rate for organizational change projects - a statistic that has stayed constant from the 1970's to the present.
Given this evidence, is it possible that everything we know about change management is wrong and that we need to go back to the drawing board? Should we abandon Kotter's eight success factors, Blanchard's moving cheese, and everything else we know about engagement, communication, small wins, building the business case, and all of the other elements of the change management framework?
While it might be plausible to conclude that we should rethink the basics, let me suggest an alternative explanation: The content of change management is reasonably correct, but the managerial capacity to implement it has been woefully underdeveloped. In fact, instead of strengthening managers' ability to manage change, we've instead allowed managers to outsource change management to HR specialists and consultants instead of taking accountability themselves - an approach that often doesn't work."
What are your thoughts? What do you think needs to change?