Why Change Fails Before It Starts: Three Stubborn Beliefs That Undermine Genuine Transformation

Introduction: Why So Many Change Efforts Fail Despite Good Intentions

Organizational change has never been more discussed, more funded, or more visible. Digital transformation, operating model redesign, cultural change, agile adoption, sustainability transitions, and workforce reskilling have become permanent features of executive agendas across industries. Yet despite this sustained attention, the empirical record remains stubbornly discouraging. Multiple longitudinal studies show that a majority of large scale change initiatives fail to achieve their intended outcomes, either falling short of performance targets, being abandoned altogether, or producing unintended consequences that erode trust and capability.

The persistence of this failure pattern suggests that the problem is not a lack of effort, intelligence, or goodwill. Rather, it points to something deeper and more structural. Many organizations continue to approach change through a small set of deeply embedded beliefs about how change works. These beliefs are often implicit, rarely questioned, and reinforced by traditional management education and consulting playbooks. Unfortunately, they are also increasingly misaligned with what we now understand about complex systems, human behavior, and adaptive leadership.

This essay examines three stubborn change management beliefs that consistently sabotage genuine transformation. These beliefs are not obviously wrong. In fact, each contains a partial truth that makes it appealing and durable. However, when applied uncritically to complex, adaptive challenges, they produce predictable and damaging outcomes.

The three beliefs are as follows:

• Large scale change is persuasion at scale
• Change initiatives should have a big bang launch
• Once people understand the change, they will embrace it

These beliefs are widely held, deeply institutionalized, and subtly reinforced through organizational routines such as communications campaigns, program management offices, and leadership roadshows. Together, they shape how change is designed, led, and measured. Together, they also explain why so many transformations generate activity without traction.

This essay does not merely critique these beliefs. It offers an alternative way of thinking about change grounded in complexity science, social network theory, and adaptive leadership. In particular, it connects these insights to the discipline of Strategic Doing, a practical, action oriented approach to mobilizing collective action in open, loosely connected systems.

By reframing change as a process of enabling coordinated action rather than persuading individuals, leaders can shift from managing change to catalyzing transformation. In doing so, they move from trying to control outcomes to shaping the conditions under which new behaviors and capabilities can emerge.

Section One: The Belief That Large Scale Change Is Persuasion at Scale

The Traditional View of Change Communication

One of the most deeply ingrained assumptions in change management is that change succeeds when leaders effectively communicate a compelling vision. According to this view, resistance arises primarily from misunderstanding, misinformation, or emotional discomfort. The solution, therefore, is better messaging, more frequent communication, and greater alignment of narratives across leadership levels.

This belief manifests in familiar organizational practices. Leaders invest heavily in town halls, executive roadshows, internal branding campaigns, and carefully crafted slide decks that explain the case for change. Communication plans are treated as critical path deliverables. Success is often measured by message penetration metrics such as attendance rates, engagement scores, and awareness surveys.

At first glance, this approach appears reasonable. Communication clearly matters. People do need to understand why change is happening and what it means for them. However, the belief that large scale change is primarily about persuasion fundamentally misunderstands how behavior actually shifts in complex social systems.

Why Persuasion Fails at Scale

Research in behavioral science and organizational sociology consistently shows that people are far more influenced by what they see their peers doing than by what they are told by authority figures. Norms, habits, and shared practices exert a stronger pull on behavior than abstract arguments or inspirational speeches.

In complex organizations, work gets done through informal networks rather than formal hierarchies. These networks determine how information flows, how decisions are interpreted, and which behaviors are socially rewarded or punished. When change initiatives focus primarily on top down persuasion, they bypass the very mechanisms through which behavior actually spreads.

Moreover, persuasion based approaches implicitly assume that individuals make change decisions independently based on rational evaluation of information. In reality, most people assess change by asking a different set of questions. Who else is doing this? Is it working for them? What risks do they face? What happens if this fails?

When leaders focus on messaging rather than enabling action, they create a gap between rhetoric and reality. Employees hear ambitious narratives but see little evidence of new practices taking root around them. This gap fuels cynicism and disengagement, not because people are resistant to change, but because they are experienced enough to recognize empty motion.

Change as Collective Dynamics, Not Individual Conversion

Large scale change is less like a mass persuasion campaign and more like a shift in collective dynamics. New behaviors spread when they are visible, credible, and reinforced through peer interaction. Change accelerates when people can safely experiment, learn from one another, and adapt practices to local contexts.

This insight aligns closely with complexity theory, which views organizations as complex adaptive systems rather than machines. In such systems, outcomes emerge from the interactions of agents rather than from centralized control. Attempts to impose change through persuasion alone often fail because they ignore these interaction patterns.

From this perspective, the role of leadership shifts. Instead of trying to convince everyone at once, leaders focus on identifying and supporting small groups that are willing and able to act differently. These groups become demonstration sites where new practices can be observed, refined, and adopted by others.

Summary of Key Insights

• Persuasion alone does not drive behavior change in complex systems
• Peer influence and social proof matter more than top down messaging
• Change spreads through networks of practice, not communication cascades

Section Two: The Belief That Change Initiatives Should Have a Big Bang Launch

The Appeal of the Big Bang

The second stubborn belief is that change initiatives should be launched decisively and comprehensively. This belief reflects a preference for clarity, control, and momentum. Leaders want to signal commitment, avoid ambiguity, and prevent fragmentation. A big bang launch promises alignment and speed.

This belief is reinforced by traditional project management approaches that emphasize scope definition, milestones, and rollout plans. From this perspective, piloting or phased adoption is often seen as a lack of confidence or a recipe for inconsistency. Better to design the solution upfront, communicate it clearly, and deploy it across the organization in one coordinated effort.

Why Big Bang Change Backfires

In stable environments with low uncertainty, big bang approaches can work. However, most contemporary change initiatives operate under conditions of high complexity, incomplete information, and interdependence. In such contexts, comprehensive upfront design is not only unrealistic, it is actively harmful.

Undifferentiated rollouts force the same solution onto diverse contexts with different constraints, capabilities, and histories. This creates early resistance not because people oppose the intent of change, but because the prescribed solution does not fit their reality. When this resistance surfaces, it is often interpreted as cultural inertia rather than as valuable feedback.

Big bang launches also eliminate opportunities for learning. When everything is deployed at once, failures are systemic rather than localized. There is little room to experiment, adjust, or course correct without admitting that the entire initiative was flawed. As a result, organizations double down on flawed designs rather than adapting them.

Change as Iterative Learning, Not Deployment

A more effective approach treats change as an iterative learning process rather than a deployment exercise. Instead of launching fully formed solutions, leaders create protected spaces where new ideas can be tested with committed stakeholders. These early adopters help refine practices, surface unintended consequences, and build credibility through demonstrated results.

This approach aligns with research on innovation diffusion, which shows that early adopters play a critical role in legitimizing new practices. Their experiences provide concrete evidence that change is possible and worthwhile. Over time, these localized successes create pull from the system rather than push from the top.

Importantly, this does not mean abandoning ambition or coherence. It means sequencing change in a way that respects complexity. Leaders still set direction, but they allow pathways to emerge through action rather than prescribing every step in advance.

Summary of Key Insights

• Big bang change amplifies resistance and suppresses learning
• Iterative experimentation builds credibility and adaptability
• Sustainable change grows through expansion, not rollout

Section Three: The Belief That Understanding Leads to Embrace

The Myth of Rational Acceptance

The third belief follows logically from the first two. If change is primarily about persuasion and clarity, then once people understand the change, they should logically support it. Resistance, in this view, reflects ignorance, fear, or bad attitudes.

This belief underpins many change readiness assessments and training programs. Organizations invest heavily in education, assuming that knowledge transfer will translate into behavioral adoption. When it does not, leaders often conclude that the problem lies with mindset rather than with design.

Why Understanding Is Not Enough

Understanding is necessary but rarely sufficient for change. People may fully grasp the rationale for change and still hesitate to act. This hesitation is not irrational. It reflects legitimate concerns about risk, workload, identity, and social standing.

Behavioral science shows that action often precedes belief rather than the other way around. People develop commitment by doing something, seeing it work, and integrating it into their sense of competence and belonging. Without opportunities for action, understanding remains abstract and fragile.

Moreover, change often threatens existing sources of status and expertise. Asking people to embrace change before they have experienced success within it is equivalent to asking them to abandon what makes them effective without offering a credible alternative.

Enabling Action Before Commitment

Effective change leaders reverse the traditional sequence. Instead of trying to generate buy in before action, they create low risk opportunities for people to try new behaviors. These experiments reduce uncertainty, build skill, and generate intrinsic motivation.

As people experience success, their understanding deepens and their commitment grows. Peer conversations shift from skepticism to problem solving. At this point, formal communication reinforces lived experience rather than attempting to substitute for it.

Summary of Key Insights

• Understanding does not automatically produce commitment
• Action creates belief more reliably than belief creates action
• Safe experimentation reduces resistance and builds ownership

Section Four: Strategic Doing as an Alternative to Traditional Change Management

What Is Strategic Doing

Strategic Doing is a disciplined approach to strategy and change designed for open, loosely connected systems where authority is distributed and outcomes cannot be centrally controlled. Developed by Ed Morrison and colleagues, Strategic Doing focuses on mobilizing people and resources around shared opportunities rather than executing predetermined plans.

At its core, Strategic Doing asks four deceptively simple questions:

What could we do together
What should we do together
What will we do together
When will we get back together

These questions shift attention from abstract goals to concrete action. They emphasize rapid cycles of experimentation, learning, and adjustment. Importantly, Strategic Doing treats strategy as a continuous process rather than a one time event.

How Strategic Doing Addresses the Three Stubborn Beliefs

Strategic Doing directly counters the belief that change is persuasion at scale by focusing on action networks rather than messaging cascades. It recognizes that change spreads through relationships and shared work, not through slides.

It undermines the big bang mindset by emphasizing small, fast, and focused initiatives that can be expanded over time. Instead of launching fully formed solutions, Strategic Doing encourages quick starts that generate visible progress.

Finally, Strategic Doing reverses the assumption that understanding leads to embrace. By prioritizing doing over explaining, it allows commitment to emerge from experience. People become invested because they are contributing, not because they have been convinced.

Strategic Doing and Adaptive Leadership

Strategic Doing aligns closely with the principles of adaptive leadership articulated by Ronald Heifetz and others. Both emphasize the distinction between technical problems, which can be solved with existing expertise, and adaptive challenges, which require new learning and changes in behavior.

In adaptive challenges, leaders cannot provide answers. They must create the conditions for collective learning. Strategic Doing offers a practical framework for doing exactly that. It operationalizes adaptive leadership by translating it into repeatable practices.

Section Five: Leading Transformation by Creating Conditions for Action

The three stubborn beliefs examined in this essay share a common flaw. They assume that change can be engineered through design, persuasion, and control. In complex environments, this assumption no longer holds.

Genuine transformation emerges when leaders focus less on convincing people to think differently and more on enabling them to act differently. This requires a fundamental shift in mindset from managing change to cultivating conditions.

These conditions include psychological safety, permission to experiment, visible sponsorship of early adopters, and mechanisms for rapid learning. They also include governance structures that reward collaboration rather than compliance.

When these conditions are present, change becomes self reinforcing. People adapt not because they are told to, but because new ways of working prove more effective and meaningful.

How Acerola Strategies Helps Organizations Enable Genuine Transformation

Acerola Strategies partners with organizations facing complex, adaptive challenges where traditional change management approaches have reached their limits. Rather than offering prescriptive frameworks or generic best practices, Acerola works with leaders to build their capacity for action oriented, network based change.

Our work typically focuses on three areas.

First, we help leadership teams reframe their understanding of change. This includes diagnosing which challenges are technical and which are adaptive, and identifying where existing beliefs are unintentionally constraining progress.

Second, we introduce and embed disciplines such as Strategic Doing that enable rapid coordination across silos. Through facilitated sessions, coaching, and capability building, we help organizations move from planning to doing in a matter of weeks rather than months.

Third, we support the scaling of successful experiments. By strengthening networks of practice and creating feedback loops, we help organizations expand what works without resorting to big bang rollouts.

The result is not just a successful initiative, but a more adaptive organization. One that can respond to uncertainty with confidence, learn continuously, and mobilize collective intelligence in service of shared goals.

In a world where change is no longer episodic but constant, this capability is no longer optional. It is the foundation of sustained performance.

References and Sources

• Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., and Spector, B. (1990). Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change. Harvard Business Review.

• Centola, D. (2018). How Behavior Spreads: The Science of Complex Contagions. Princeton University Press.

• Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., and Linsky, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business Review Press.

• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.

• Morrison, E. (2019). Strategic Doing: Ten Skills for Agile Leadership. Wiley.

• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

• Snowden, D. J., and Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review.

• Weick, K. E., and Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational Change and Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.