Phase 5 of The Linked Management Models
The Three Phases of Change
Change Management - How we can optimize the change experience.
By Craig A. Stevens, PMP, CC and his students
The Three Phases of Change Table of Contents (Under Construction)
“The only person who likes change is a baby with a wet diaper!” Mark Twain
So… Why Change? Change is going to happen! You either master change or become irrelevant.
Steven W. Gambrell and Craig A. Stevens wrote a paper entitled "Moving Through The Three Phases of Organizational Change," published in the July/August 1992 issue of Industrial Management magazine. They explained change in three phases: Before, During and After. They explained that with every major planned change in an organization, a natural dip will most likely occur in productivity, motivation, and/or quality of work. They called this dip the cocoon stag of the change. It may start before the change starts and will likely continue after the change is implemented.
On this site we investigate change management using the Linked Management Models. On this page, to help explain change we look at the evolution of the change curves, explain the three phases of change, how project management is the implementation tool, and how to minimize the cocoon stage. We compare several different types of curves associated with, Technology, Project Management, People and Stress, and Organizations and then compare each curve with a our own specific change model. We challenges the descriptions of change as always having a “valley of despair” and compare this concept with the requirements of the 21st century. Based on the comparisons, we explain an alternative philosophy and a way to describe change. The links below take you to more details related to before, during, and after the change.
PowerPoint Slides for the ASEM Conference
Everything naturally goes through a lifecycle and the only way to prolong the life is to change.
Check Out Those Curves:
Several different curves relate to change. Here we compare some to the Westbrook Stevens Butterfly Model.
1. Technology “S” Curves
Original Butterfly Curve:
In 1991 Steven Gambrell and Craig A. Stevens looked at a few other writings to develop the original butterfly model as seen in below. Lynn Fossum in her book, Understanding Organizational Change, Converting Theory to Practice, describes the cocoon stage as the “valley of despair.” Later, Michael Bommer and Victor Pease, in an article titled “Mitigating the Impact of Project Cancellations on Productivity,” published in the National Productivity Review, explained their studies on project cancellations and the effect on productivity. They found that a project cancellation would affect the team causing a major drop in productivity, where the drop started before the change started. Furthermore, in one year’s time after the change, the productivity only recovers to about 80 percent of the original level.
In the exhibit below, the curve used by a U.S. Department of Labor study appears to be similar to the original butterfly-type curve, yet displayed using a more realistic fitted curve. Each of these helps us to update our butterfly model.
In 1999, Elrod and Tippett provided experimental proof of the drop in performance preceding a positive change and helped to validate this dip. The entire point of the model is to show the natural dip (cocoon stage) that occurs when a change happens, then to consider what can be done to minimize or eliminate the dip.
“S” Curves, the Butterfly curve, and Late 1990’s U.S. Department of Labor
A Microsoft web white paper used the curve in below in describing organizational change management. (Microsoft Website, 2001). The curve explains improving organizations' efficiency as it transitions in a new technology. The point of the curve is that organizational change management (OCM) can improve productivity during what we call the cocoon stage.
MS and Productivity with and without OCM
Technology “S” Curves:
Below, we see two “S” curves as compared to the Westbrook Stevens butterfly curve. Abernathy and Utterback used the “S” curve in 1978 to show typical technology growth behavior. Others have shown the "S" curve in differing applications.
Understanding the Three Phases Of Organizational Change:
All of the current trends help to point to the fact that change is a natural and necessary process -- you either change or you die. Change may be revolutionary (which happens in a process of major steps) or evolutionary (which is a more continuous process and happens as more of series of minor changes, not as much of a major step, but rather more like a ramp.) An organization may also experience changes accruing in two different ways, either highly random and chaotically or as a planned effort. In a chaotically changing environment one never knows what is going to happen next.
Below is another way to look at change on the firm level or industry level. I think we could also add global level (other industries, governmental, or globally and outside our industry). Here we also see Continuous Improvement (1st Order) and Major Step Changes (2nd Order).
Change Happens to You (Industry or Global)
The chaotic change sometimes happens in a random pattern similar to waves in a body of water as "Forces of Chaotic Change and Thrive-ability." (See Step 2 the Storms of Chaos) In smaller markets, similar to smaller bodies of water, like a pond, these waves would be easier to understand and forecast. However in the largest markets, like larger bodies of water or an ocean, all the rules change and forecasting change becomes more difficult with everything hitting the organization from all sides.
Planned changes also have surprises. Chaotically changing environments may be made up of many planned changes.
You Make Change Happen (Firm)
Follow the link to continuous improvement.
Are these two examples of an “S” curve the same as the traditional changed curves or the butterfly curve? - I say they are not! - Although many people use the term “S” curve to describe the dip in change curves. I think we are comparing Cats-to-Dogs not apples-to-apples. Although we can find some similarities, there are also many differences. Take the flattened “S” curve above. If this curve represented the technology changes in buggy whips, then the lifecycle of that curve could be thousands of years long. Sure the overall curve is made up of thousands of small improvements or at least variations to the buggy whip. Nevertheless, few of the changes brought about a “valley of despair.” On the contrary, the technology curve changes are more likely to bring about a bump in excitement. Look at today’s cell phone changes. How many people do you know, cry over having to upgrade their cell phones?
In our most recent past, technological changes in information technology may have caused some fear for our grandparents, parents, and anyone else over forty. Today, change is so rapid and expected that it is less likely that technology will cause the same degree of fear for our children and grandchildren.
This interesting set of “S” curves above, by Steve Kleiman of CTO Network Appliance Inc. 2000, appear to have the same look as the “dip” associated with the Butterfly Curve. However, this dip is related to cacheable content (y axis) over time (x axis). Which is nothing like the organizational change curves. Although labeled an “S” curve it is more of a set of technology related “S” curves.
When looking at the larger picture, the technology “S” curves are just as likely to be related to a paradigm shift and may include many product upgrade “S” curves. The butterfly curve is more akin to transitional changes that are likely smaller and more personal, maybe project related, shorter term, and organizational in nature.
Project “S” Curves:
Project Management is the primary tool for implementing a change. Therefore, it may be useful to look at the “S” curves related to project management.
Are the project “S” curves the same as the butterfly curve? No, again this is more like Dogs-to-Cats than Apples-to-Apples. The project “S” curves describe progress achieved during a specific project. The project "S" curves are project performance measurement tools and you will never see a dip in a cumulative curve. Although project management is a tool to implement a change...it is not the change being implemented. Project management is not the goal, it is the vehicle to accomplish the goal.
People “Stress” Curves:
People’s stress response, personal grief, motivation, and morale are often associated with curves similar to the butterfly curve.
Below, we see Imara’s Stages of Personal Grief. The first thing that we notice is the sharpness of the curves. In the earlier days before the nice neat software we have today, one would often find curves with sharp edges. These sharp edged curves are the same as the smoother curves we see today. The next figure, shows the same type of curves in a more rounded way.
Imara’s Stages of Personal Grief Compared to Butterfly Curve
Classic Stress Curve, Compared to Butterfly Curve
Are the "people stress curves" the same as the butterfly curve? Yes, although there are some differences, the stresses that people go through during change cannot be ignored when looking at organizational change management. The changes are more like comparing Apples-to-apples than Cats-to-dogs. However, one could argue that it is more of an “Apples-to-fruit Basket” comparison with the butterfly curve being the Fruit Basket.
These two examples of stress curves do related to the
natural curves found in organizational changes. However, organization change is
more complicated than are the people stress curves. The most obvious difference
relates to teams of people verses one person. Furthermore, even if stress is not
present, we would still expect to see dips due to the lag associated with
implementation, downtime of equipment, cost, learning curves, or a hundred other
possible reasons. Even highly desired and long overdue changes that immediately
reduce stress can bring a dip in performance.
Imenger’s Morale Curve compared to the Butterfly Curve
Imenger’s Morale Curve is different from the other stress curves. However, it is interesting that there is a wave effect related to morale when looking at the amount of time that a person serves overseas. This too could be compared to organizational change in a number of ways. The farther away one is from the change within the organization, the smaller the wave feels personally. Also the longer the change takes, the more our feelings related to the change seem to level out. We become more familiar with the routines associated with the change.
Risk Management “J” Curves:
Often risk management “J” curves will refer to the risk of spending money and not breaking even. So typically you will see return of investment (ROI) as the dependent variable and time as the independent variable. In the figure below, good risk management ROI will be tighter than average ROI. Where poor or no ROI is possible under poor risk management.
Risk Management “J” curves as compared to the Butterfly Curve.
Are the Risk management “J” curves the same as the butterfly curve? Yes, although like the stress curves there are some differences, the risk management “J” curves are definitely important when looking at organizational change management. The “J” Curves and butterfly curves are more like comparing Apples-to-apples than Cats-to-dogs. Although the risk management curves are often used with ROI, one could also make an argument that they also apply to many other elements.
Another important point is related to the different looks of the “J” curves. The same thing goes for change management. Although in the butterfly curve we expressed a happy ending. Many cocoons never open. Organizationally speaking, many changes take longer and therefore the curve is wider. In addition, some changes are cancelled or are changed in the middle of the cocoon stage and additional dips may result. Too many changes in the middle of the cocoon stage (or the dip of the curve) will give us a spiral of death and a loud flushing sound. Wish our politicians understood this concept!
Organizational Change Management Curves:
The “Technology Innovation Productivity Curve,” shown
below, (Berger, Sikora, Berger, 1994) looks very much like the butterfly model
from 1992. The authors explain that this curve, like the butterfly model, shows
that change introduces elements of concern, confusion, realignment, and even use
the same term Lynn Fossum used, “valley of despair”. This implies that it is
important to implement a management program to deal with the impacts of change
on the organization.
Berger, Lance A., Martin J. Sikora, Dorothy R. Berger, The Change Management Handbook, A Road Map to Corporate Transformation, IRWIN Professional Publishing, 1994 ISBN 1-55623-975-0.
Replace “Valley of Despair” with a “Cocoon Stage:”
The major difference with each of the change curves and the butterfly curve is the word despair. Many times people will refer to the change dip in drastic terms, such as a “Valley of Despair” or “Death Valley.” The whole concept that a change has to bring despair is “Old School,” to borrow a current phrase.
A frustrated old SAIC Division Managers in the mid nineties once explained to me, “We have to get past the "Valley of Despair" language, it is no longer relevant.” It took me awhile to understand this. The point we should all understand is this, to compete today, every organization has to master change and continuous improvement. To despair over every (or even most) business change brings with it a paralyzing effect that we cannot tolerate in today’s fast-paced environments. Our people have to look forward to changes and thrive on them. To compare the dip to the “Valley of despair” or a deep personal loss is no longer acceptable and does not even make sense for the 21st century. Not only is the personal stress curves only a small part of the change curve, it may never even happen.
The risk “J” curves do always happen in some way, but a “valley of despair” is for the unprepared. Although, we may find cases where despair is the right word, it had better not be the norm or we may have the wrong staff.
Like the comparison of apples-to-apples above, personal depression is like comparing apples to a fruit basket, each change brings with it different fruit. Times of personal despair are merely apples in our fruit basket. Some change baskets may be all apples and others may have none.
The “valley of despair” comes from psychologists who explain deep personal lose with a shock, depression, recovery curve. Not all business changes bring deep personal loss. Not only that but also, personal loss is only a piece of the picture. Other issues not as depressing may also occur. True a dip will likely occur due to negatives during a change, such as learning curves, slowed production, confusion, distraction, and disturbed routines. Nevertheless, one is also likely to experience motivating factors and a range of positive experiences:
In addition to the positives and minor negatives not associated with “despair,” other factors have helped. We have a deeper understanding of change management and implementation as systems have improved. I remember being asked to set in on the National Academy of Science to represent the study ofConfiguration Management (CM). In the late 80's and early 90's CM was a new concept to a lot of people.
Today, we have a better understanding of product development, configuration and innovation management, systems thinking, and the number one implementation tool of Project Management. Today improved PM training, acceptance, and related organizational infrastructures have given us the tools to not only improve change implementation but to master it. Now, many times change is exciting and desirable.
Just as few people loss sleep when it is time to change their cell phone -- To most, it is a time of mild excitement. Children look forward to new updated gaming systems with wild enthusiasm. Likewise, many changes come with anticipation. The idea that a business change will automatically bring despair is outdated.
Instead of despair, the cocoon stage makes more sense for today. Like the caterpillar becoming a butterfly, so too are our changes likely bringing a vision of hope and/or excitement. Just as God knits a butterfly from a caterpillar; we are knitting a solution to a problem or bringing about a vision of a successful future.
Most of the people who will read this website are knowledge workers. Most of their organizations will not even hire a person without a college degree. Just to get their degrees required acceptance of change.
In many changes, like the caterpillar in the cocoon, the struggle is needed to bring life to the wings of the butterfly. If we cut the cocoon stage too quickly, we end up with nothing viable. Shorten many of the changes, then we too end up with nothing that is worth the effort. Also, change again in the middle of the cocoon stage and we perpetuate more dips. Too many "middle-of-the-change adjustments" may lead to a whirling death spiral.
Matching the Project Lifecycles
to the Three Phases of Implementing Change
Project Management (PM) is the primary implementation tool for change management. This Section explains how PM relates to the phases of change management. In this section we compare several project management lifecycles with those for business, products, and organizational change. We review the butterfly curve of organizational change and compares it to several different Business, Product and PM life cycles.
Looking At Lifecycles and Comparing Them To Change:
To understand the relationships between change management, business, products, and project management we will look at the lifecycle curves of each.
The figure below shows a classical way of looking at business lifecycles. The curve starts in a embryonic stage, progresses through a major growth stage, levels off during a mature stage, and dies during an aging stage. Each stage requires a different type of manager for success.
Stage 1: During the embryonic stages an entrepreneur is required. Entrepreneurs take personal risk to make their vision possible. Not everyone enjoys risks and therefore not everyone will make a good entrepreneurs.
Stage 2: During the growth stage things change. Revenue is actually starting to come in. No longer can a small staff of people do business in inefficient ways and long survive. Systems are needed to track timecards and customer information. Possibly hundreds of people come onboard. Now the business needs more sophisticated mangers. These are people understand the systems of business.
Stage 3: As the business reaches its market potential, grow slows or even stops. The business matures. The question becomes one of surviving by maintaining customer satisfaction, more so than growing. Many governmental organizations live in this stage. The business no longer takes as many risks. The business no longer needs new systems, more so the business needs to maintain and improve the systems it has.
The main goal may be to milk this “cash cow” as long as possible without killing it. A different type of manager is required. The goal of this person is to not-rock-the-boat. Keep everything running as smoothly as possible. In many cases the organization has become more bureaucratic and a critical administrator is required.
Stage 4: As the reason for the product or services goes away or as the company fails to compete the final stage is set. The Aging Stage requires sacrifice and an Opportunistic Manager. Someone who can take opportunities to prolong, kill, or sell the business. Many times the critical administrator finds this stage painful and leaves the organization.
Mixing Strengths with Weakness: Some companies go through these stages with every project. Some companies go through these stages corporately and then fade away. But one common mistake is putting the wrong leader in to manage the wrong stage. As an example, consider a very large government contracting/consulting company by the nature of its business, continuously lives in the entrepreneur stage. Often this type of organization will hire politicians, generals, admirals, or senior government officials who are retiring to lead major new programs, projects, or marketing efforts. This is the equivalent of putting a 30-year critical administrator into an Intre-preneurial (internal entrepreneur) role. Sometimes it works, most of the time it is painful for everyone.
How do the business lifecycles fit the Butterfly Curve? The business lifecycle is a macro look at the business and the organizational change butterfly curve is a micro view of a specific change. The business lifecycles have likely gone through hundreds of organizational and technological changes over the business’ life. Therefore, the butterfly curve is a tool for the business and not a description of the business lifecycle.
Product lifecycles look very similar to business lifecycles. One could also argue that in some cases they may actually be one in the same (for very small companies or small divisions of larger companies). We could compare the product lifecycle curve below with the business lifecycle stages above.
Business and Product Lifecycles Compared
With the business stages, different types of mangers are required. Similarly different types of management skills are required with the Product Stages. However, often the scope of the product is small enough that different mangers may not be as critical to the success of the product. Larger programs are more like business lifecycles.
Product lifecycles are also longer-term cycles than typical organizational change cycles. Like business lifecycles, product lifecycles may experience several organizational and technological changes.
Often the product is catalyst for an organizational change and brings with it the change curve. But as the change curve matures and completes, the product lifecycle continues, bring other changes throughout its life.
Consider the curves related to revenue and profit of a typical product lifecycle in the next figure. When viewing, remember this in not the overall product lifecycle curve that explains the stages of management. That curves looks the same as the Business lifecycle curve. The following figure explains a more specific curve, designed to show cash flow or return on investment.
Profit and Revenue Product Curves
The “J” curve that describes profit, looks very
similar to the butterfly curve and helps to illustrate our earlier point that
all dips do not bring about despair. The curve shows risks and cash flow, not
depression and lack of output. However, it is directly related to the butterfly
curve’s cocoon stage. Work is going on to bring about a quick breakeven point
and long-term profit. No despair but maybe some anticipation.
Prolonging the Product/Business Lifecycles.
Because businesses, products, and everything else dies or at least deteriorates by natural law, work is required to prolong the lifecycles. Typically, by adding new products or services to replace old ones, a company’s lifecycle expands. Often in literature, technology “S” curves show this progression as with the figure below.
Stacking “S” Curves to Prolong Lifecycles
“S” curves often describe long-term macro changes in technology, products, and possibly organizational structure and so too the business lifecycles explains long-term macro changes in business. Therefore, this picture is plausible.
In the book Kaizen, we find that not only are major step changes important (centerline of the figure below), but continuous improvement also takes an important role in prolonging the business and product lifecycles. However, poor continuous improvement leads to poor change results (as in the bottom line of the figure below) and excellent continuous improvement leads to improved change results (as in the top line of figure).
Kaizen, Good and Bad as Relates to Continuous Improvement and Change
Looking deeper into the changes that prolong business and product lifecycles, we find it is not that pretty. The next figure shows what continuous improvement and change might really look like when compared to the business and product lifecycle changes. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and most of the time there is a cost.
Ugly Continuous Improvement and Change
How does the product lifecycle fit the Butterfly Curve? The product lifecycle is often a macro look at the product and the organizational change butterfly curve is a micro view of a specific change. However, product development changes can drive organizational change and therefore lead into the change management’s butterfly curve. Nevertheless, most of the time the product lifecycle is a long-term process lasting longer than most controlled organizational changes. Therefore, the product lifecycles have likely gone through many different projects and organizational and technological changes. The butterfly curve may start with a new product, be associated with several changes along the way, but not a description of the product lifecycle.
Project Management Lifecycles:
PM Lifecycles are micro views of implementing change as compared to the macro views of businesses and products lifecycles. Projects have short-term perspectives and may occur during any stage of a product or business. Companies initiate projects to implement a change. Therefore, to understand change management requires a complete understanding of project management. PM is an implementation tool of organizational and technological change management. But, to complicate the subject a little more, change management is also a tool of project management. For even within a project, changes do occur. However, for the scope of this paper, we will focus only on the larger, organizational changes with PM as the primary implementation tool.
There is more than one picture for PM lifecycles. From the Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) PM Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Glossary, PM lifecycles are defined as -- A collection of generally sequential project phases whose name and number are determined by the control needs of the organization or organizations involved in the project. Although many different lifecycles exist in PM, project phases can all be translated into the following six phases.
Two of the phases above are not real project phases,
but do have lasting impact on the success of any project. There are many
different ways to express the four basic phases. One interesting way to remember
them is by using the letters of the alphabet “CDEF” which stands for:
We can explain every other set of special project lifecycle phases using these four titles.
AMA Project Lifecycles
The figure above, shows a typical four phase project management lifecycle as taught by the American Management Association (Criag spent four years teaching PM for the AMA).
The next figure also show a four phased project management lifecycle as it related to “IT Project +” certification.
“IT Project +” Certification Lifecycles
Dr. Robert Goodrich from Vanderbilt University described project management using five phases as in the next figure. Notice the similarity to the business and product lifecycle curves.
Goodrich’s Lifecycles of PM
RAD PM Lifecycles
Each of other possible PM lifecycles with more than
four phases can be rolled up to four phases. Although each company may have
their own custom designed PM Systems it is easy to think in terms of the for
phase of PM.
The Spiral Lifecycles
How do the PM lifecycles fit the Butterfly Curve? PM is a tool for implementing organizational and technological changes. Therefore, PM lifecycles fit into the butterfly curve. The butterfly curve has three distinctive phases,
Lifecycles PMI Process Groups:
The five PMI Process Groups include 44 different PM processes. These groups sound very similar to PM phases but they are very different. The process groups act as guides to apply appropriate skills. Lifecycle phases are the actual stages that a project progresses through. All 44 PMI processes belong to one of the 5 process groups. This is a hard concept to understand, one could actually experience each of the process groups in each of the project lifecycles. The following list explains the process groups:
PMI Process Groups and PM Lifecycles
Again to complicate things a little farther, not only do PMI process groups overlap the borders of project management phases, but project phases also may overlap other project phases. Notice the next figure, not only do the four phases of PM overlap each other, but the process of monitoring and control seems to have no boundaries.
Often to expedite the execution of tasks, the execution phase will start early. This sometimes leads to concept adjustments and preplanning. Also, changes during the project will likely lead to planning changes and contracts renegotiations.
The phases of Project Management and PMI Certification Principles can easily fit into these three change management phases.
Optimizing the Change Process
THIS PART IS INCOMPLETE - CHECK BACK (7/25/2007)
Others have also considered three phases of change as seen below.
We use the same change model updated with other models and observations to explain the three phases of change. Our goal is to explore the actions we can take before, during and after the change to minimize negative effects on productivity, motivation and quality of work. The Steven and Stevens article starts off explaining the process with the following analogy:
With every major planned change in an organization, a natural dip will most likely occur in productivity, motivation, and/or quality of work. We can limit the effects of the dips in productivity of the cocoon stage by taking action before, during and after the change.
Notice here that the "before the change" part extends into the start of the dip. That is because as soon as employees know that there will be a change the change starts to happen as explained in the Michael Bommer and Victor Pease article above.
In 1999, Elrod and Tippett provided experimental proof of the drop in performance preceding a positive change and helped to validate this dip.
Landale, Anthony. “No Engagement, No Leadership.” British Journal of Administrative Management Issue 58 page 19. Business Source Premier. April/May 2007. 3 May 2007. <http://ebscohost.com>
Morgan, David E., and
Rachid Zeffane. “Employee involvement, organization change and trust
Cocoon Phase Dip
For a better
picture go to -
t.” International Journal of Human Resource
Management 14.1 (2003): 55-75. Business Source Premier.
30 April 2007. <http://ebscohost.com> Neves, Pedro, and
Antinio Caetano. “Social Exchange Processes in Organization Change: The Roles of
Trust and Control.” Journal of Change Management 6.4 (2006):
351-364. Business Source Premier. Trevecca Nazarene
GodTube Video ChM12 - Understanding the Hidden Cocoon Phase Dip
For a better picture go to - http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=731070466d97b28d5b48 t.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 14.1 (2003): 55-75. Business Source Premier. 30 April 2007. <http://ebscohost.com>
Neves, Pedro, and Antinio Caetano. “Social Exchange Processes in Organization
Change: The Roles of Trust and Control.” Journal of Change Management 6.4 (2006): 351-364. Business Source Premier. Trevecca Nazarene University.
The point of the Stevens Gambrell Butterfly Model is to show the natural dip (cocoon stage) that occurs when a change happens, then to consider what can be done to eliminate this dip.
One of the biggest problems is this...we can see where we are and our goals or vision. But we can never see the whole future related to the dip. It will be difficult for us to know how deep the dip will be.
One of the biggest mistakes that an organization can make is not sticking to the plan. If you decide to change again in the middle of the dip you will ultimately prolong the problem. The worse thing we can do is to keep changing, which could lead to an unstable uncontrollable death spiral. Have you ever experienced changing management teams in the midst of a bigger organizational transition.
The effectiveness and efficiency of the management process could also be represented by the volume of the cocoon’s phase. If we were to write a formula to represent the volume of the dip in the cocoon phase, it would be a function of the Seven Attributes of Excellent Management found in the first phase.
FOR YOU ANALYTICAL PEOPLE --- A Mathematical Approach to Change:
We can take a mathematical approach to change. Curves have a mathematical derivation. Accordingly, several people have attempted to look at the effects of change from a mathematical approach. Alan Klein in personal email-type conversations shared his version of the following mathematical formula that was first addressed by Dick Beckhard's Change Model in 1969.
Change will not occur unless: Dissatisfaction x Vision x Positive First Step > Resistance.
Alan Klein extended this model by adding a support variable. Change happen if and only if Dissatisfaction x Vision x Support x Positive First Step > Resistance.
C if and only if D x V x S x F > R C = Change
The formula is multiplicative, since if any of the terms on the left is zero, the whole left side becomes zero and will never be greater than the resistance.
After analyzing a number of change cases, Coopers and Lybrand saw common themes emerge. The formula below illustrates these themes showing the success factors needed to overcome the resistance to change. (Coopers and Lybrand, 1996). "Successful Change = Vision + Need + Means + Reward + Feedback." That is "SC = V + N + M + R + F."
Berger, Lance A., Martin J. Sikora, Dorothy R. Berger, The Change Management Handbook, A Road Map to Corporate Transformation, IRWIN Professional Publishing, 1994 ISBN 1-55623-975-0.
Carr, David K., Managing the change process: a field
book for change agents, consultants, team leaders, and reengineering managers,
McGraw Hill, 1996
Stevens, C.A., Steven Gambrell, "Moving Through the Three Phases of Organizational Change," Industrial Management Magazine, Institute of Industrial Engineers, July/August 1992.
Surfing Technology Curves, Steve Kleiman , CTO, Network Appliance Inc. 2000, http://www.usenix.org/events/wiess2000/invitedtalks/kleiman_html/sld027.htm
Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J., Jr. (2000). Project management: A managerial approach (4th ed.) [UOP Special Edition Series]. New York: Wiley.
Elrod, P. D. II, & Tippett, D. D. (2002). The “Death Valley” of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 273-91.
Fossum, Lynn, Understanding Organizational Change Converting Theory to Practice, Crisp Pub, Inc., 1990.
Bommer, Michael and Victor Pease, “Mitigating the Impact of Project Cancellations on Productivity,” National Productivity Review, Volume 10, No. 4, Autumn 1991.
Elrod, P. David and Tippett, Donald D., “An Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Team Performance and Team Maturity,” Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 1999.
Microsoft, www.microsoft.com, “MS Solutions Framework: Managing Organizational Change.”