What can change management contribute, and where do common approaches fall short? This page discusses six tensions. Each shows both sides, a practical consequence and a question to ask yourself.
Statements with a citation come from that source. The other reflections are editorial positions of the Codex.
What the field can contribute
Change management can help connect a change to the work as it actually happens: who will do something differently, what that requires and how you notice whether it works. Common approaches often fall short when they make one side of a tension absolute, for example only planning or only persuading. The tensions below are not problems you solve once. Each situation calls for a judgement, and that judgement shifts as the change progresses.
Six tensions
1. Planned direction and emergent change
A plan gives direction, a shared timeline and something to hold on to. At the same time, much change happens while the work is being done, through many small local adjustments. Weick and Quinn describe this as the difference between episodic and continuous change. (Weick & Quinn (1999), S20)
In practice: Fix what must be shared, such as goals and boundaries, and leave explicit room for teams to adapt the rest.
Question: Which parts of the plan must hold everywhere, and which may differ per team?
2. Individual behaviour and organisational conditions
Motivation matters. But the COM-B model treats behaviour as the result of capability, opportunity and motivation together. When people lack time, resources, authority or workable technology, more persuasion does not solve the problem. (Michie et al. (2011), S01)
In practice: Check conditions before planning communication or training.
Question: If everyone wanted this tomorrow, what would still stop them?
3. Participation and power
Involving people improves design and support. Participation only means something when the influence offered matches the real room for decisions. Representation matters, and disagreement is part of the process, not a failure of it.
In practice: Say in advance what is still open, what is fixed and who decides.
Question: What can participants actually change, and who is not at the table?
4. Resistance and information
Objections can reveal loss, conflicting interests or a poor design. Not every objection is unwillingness, and not every objection is decisive.
In practice: Record objections, sort them by what they point to and decide openly what you do with each.
Question: What would we change if this objection turned out to be right?
5. Uptake and value
Use of a new system or way of working can rise without better performance or a better experience of work. Uptake is a step, not the outcome.
In practice: Measure use and outcome separately, and look at workload and unintended effects as well.
Question: What would tell us that higher use is actually helping?
6. Temporary programme and lasting operation
A change programme brings focus and extra capacity for a period. When it ends, the new way of working has to survive in daily operation.
In practice: Plan handover early: an owner, routines, resources and a moment to evaluate.
Question: Who looks after this a year after the programme ends?
Types of tools
Nilsen distinguishes types of theories, models and frameworks by their purpose. Below is a simplified version. These are different functions, not a ranking. (Nilsen (2015), S21)
| Type | Function |
|---|---|
| Process model | Orders the work into steps or stages |
| Explanatory model | Helps examine why something does or does not happen |
| Determinant framework | Orders the conditions that help or hinder |
| Evaluation framework | Supports judging whether the change worked |
Commercial models
Models such as ADKAR and Kotter's approach are influential references in practice. They have given many organisations a shared language. The Codex refers to them where that helps, but does not adopt paid instruments, offers no certification and does not depend on one provider. The Codex takes its own approach and shows what it rests on.
Questions before choosing an approach
- Which problem are we solving?
- Whose outcome are we improving?
- What room for decisions is there?
- Which local barrier matters most?
- What evidence will we use?
- Who stays responsible afterwards?