Why one methodology isn’t enough and how cargo cult change management is born
Two transformations. Two organizations. Essentially the same change – a technology transformation. And yet, two completely different approaches.
Another example: one organization, one global strategy, impact across five countries. One change strategy – five adaptations. Different environments, different cultures, different operating models, different numbers of parallel initiatives, different change histories, different levels of change fatigue.
This is where I find myself as a Change Management consultant. And in these situations, one theory isn’t enough. One framework isn’t enough. One methodology isn’t enough.
I have to know more than theory. I have to read context. And understand people.
You won’t learn this from books or theoretical training. Only from practice.
Seven layers to pause on before pushing one approach for everyone
1. History of change
How many times have these employees already been “transformed”? What survived, and what crept back? Change fatigue is a very real currency.
2. Trust in the change sponsor
The same message from the same person carries different weight after five years of consistent action than after recently cancelled bonuses.
3. Cultural element
National, professional (manufacturing vs. sales), and corporate culture, including formal and informal power networks.
4. Change saturation
How many initiatives are running in parallel? People have a capacity for absorbing change and it isn’t infinite.
5. Timing in the business cycle
Year-end close, seasonal peak, fresh layoffs. This determines what’s realistically feasible.
6. Political terrain
Who wins in this change, who loses and who thinks they lose, even when they don’t.
7. Emotional state
Hope, cynicism, exhaustion. The same message lands differently in a different context.
Without context, you get cargo cult
Without this understanding of context, cargo cult change management emerges: blindly following one approach for every transformation and every group of people. Carbon copy.
Same communication. Same training. Same timeline. Same expectations across every group.
This is where the famous “70% of transformations fail” is also born.
The framework usually isn’t what failed. What failed is the assumption that any framework, on its own, is enough.
Contextualization translates generic change into the specific reality of each group. And this is the core craft of change management.
How often do you really adapt change to context in your organization — and how often do you just copy the approach from the last project?