According to McKinsey & Company, 70% of transformation initiatives fail. What is particularly striking is that the primary cause is often not flawed strategy or inadequate technology, but people—the very individuals who are expected to make change happen.
The NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT) offers a thought-provoking example. Launched in 2002, the program aimed to modernize healthcare IT across England by building shared infrastructure, connecting healthcare organizations, and introducing electronic health records. At the time, it was one of the largest public-sector IT transformation programs ever undertaken in the United Kingdom.
Although the program delivered several significant achievements over more than a decade, it was ultimately dismantled. A fundamental issue lay in the approach to transformation. NPfIT was implemented through a highly centralized model, with major decisions about systems and suppliers made at the national level.
Following a comprehensive review, the UK Government concluded that this model was no longer appropriate for a modern NHS, where patients and healthcare professionals needed greater influence over how technology was selected and used. The new policy therefore shifted away from a top-down approach toward greater autonomy and choice for local NHS organizations.
The NPfIT experience highlights an important lesson: large-scale investment and advanced technology do not guarantee successful transformation. Digital transformation also depends on user involvement, alignment with real operational needs, local implementation capabilities, governance mechanisms, and the ability to adapt the program as circumstances evolve.
A later independent NHS review similarly found that NPfIT suffered from excessive centralization, insufficient engagement with local healthcare organizations and professionals, and an attempt to deliver too many changes within too short a timeframe.
The lesson is clear: the success of a major transformation program cannot be judged solely by the size of its budget, the number of systems deployed, or the percentage of the implementation plan completed. Ultimately, success must be measured by the value created for users, the organization’s ability to adapt, and the sustainability of the change.
A similar gap can emerge within organizations when senior leaders focus on long-term benefits while employees are dealing with immediate operational challenges. A new system may promise greater productivity while requiring employees to enter the same data twice. A new organizational structure may be designed to accelerate decision-making while leaving authority and accountability unclear.
When these practical concerns remain unresolved, continuing to emphasize the vision alone may not be enough to build genuine readiness for change.
Resistance to change is often interpreted as conservatism or a lack of cooperation. Yet such assumptions can prevent leaders from understanding what is actually driving the response.
Each situation requires a different response. Training may address a capability gap, but it will not resolve unclear accountability. Communication may clarify the objective, but it will do little to relieve excessive workloads.
Before trying to persuade people to embrace change, leaders therefore need to answer three questions:
Silence also deserves careful attention. A lack of visible opposition does not necessarily mean that people support the change. Leaders should also observe how employees perform their work, whether they proactively address problems, and whether they continue using the new approach over time.
For leaders, understanding these concerns is the first step toward building genuine alignment. When concerns are heard and translated into appropriate action, resistance can help organizations refine implementation, identify opportunities for improvement, and strengthen commitment to change.
Through its long-term research, Blanchard identified and developed the Five Stages of Concern model, which describes the psychological journey people commonly experience when faced with change. The model helps leaders recognize the questions their people need answered and provide the right type of support at the right time. Learn more from Blanchard.
When applying the model, leaders need to observe different teams and individuals rather than assuming that everyone across the organization has the same level of readiness for change.
“Leading people through change requires a willingness to address the concerns people experience when they are asked to take on something different.” — Dr. Vicki Halsey, Vice President of Applied Learning at The Ken Blanchard Companies.
At this stage, people want to understand what is changing, why it is happening, and how broad the change will be.
For example, when an organization announces the introduction of a new customer relationship management system, employees may not yet know which existing tools it will replace, which departments will be expected to use it, or when implementation will begin.
If communication focuses only on the organization’s digital transformation objectives, many practical questions remain unanswered. Employees are left to make their own assumptions, while different departments may interpret the plan in different ways.
Leaders should explain the current problems using examples that relate directly to employees’ work: How fragmented is customer data today? Where are handoffs breaking down? What specific issues is the new system expected to solve?
Areas that have not yet been decided should also be communicated transparently, together with a clear indication of when further information will become available.
At this stage, people begin trying to understand what the change will mean for them personally. What will I gain? What might I lose?
In the case of a new customer relationship management system, for example, a salesperson may worry that the additional data will be used to increase monitoring or change how performance is evaluated. Another employee may wonder whether they have the skills required to use the new system effectively.
Messages about the overall benefits of the initiative are unlikely to resolve these concerns fully. Leaders need to communicate specifically about responsibilities, performance expectations, capability requirements, and the support available during the transition.
At the same time, leaders need to create an environment of psychological safety in which people feel comfortable raising questions and expressing concerns.
Once people understand why the change is happening and how it affects them personally, their attention turns to implementation: What do I need to do? Where should I begin? Who will support me when difficulties arise? Do I have enough time and resources to make this work?
With a new customer relationship management system, for instance, employees may already agree with the overall objective but still struggle because they are required to maintain the old tools while simultaneously entering information into the new system.
Some teams may be unclear about who is responsible for updating information, what data standards should be followed, or how errors should be handled when they occur.
Rather than interpreting these difficulties as a lack of cooperation, leaders should work with their teams to identify the obstacles preventing effective adoption. Which processes need to change? Which existing activities can be discontinued? Who requires additional training? How can employees who have adapted successfully help their colleagues?
Involving employees at this stage makes the change plan more grounded in operational reality. It also gives people a sense that they are helping shape the implementation approach rather than simply executing a plan imposed from above.
Once people understand why the change is necessary and how it will affect them personally, their concerns begin to shift toward how the change will work in practice: What do I need to do? Where should I begin? Who can support me when difficulties arise? Do I have enough time and resources?
According to Dr. Vicki Halsey, the people who develop a change plan are not necessarily the same people who will have to implement it. Leaders therefore need to actively involve those most affected by the change when defining responsibilities, timelines, support mechanisms, and the people who can help guide their colleagues.
For example, employees may already support the introduction of a new customer relationship management system but still struggle when required to maintain the old system while simultaneously entering information into the new one.
Some teams may remain unclear about who is responsible for updating information, what data standards should apply, or how errors should be resolved.
Rather than viewing these challenges as evidence of unwillingness to cooperate, leaders should work with employees to identify the barriers preventing adoption. Which processes need to be adjusted? Which existing activities can be discontinued? Who needs additional training? How can those who have adapted successfully support others?
Involving employees during implementation makes the change plan more realistic and creates a stronger sense that they are helping build the solution rather than merely carrying out a plan handed down from above.
After investing significant time and effort in changing how they work, people begin asking whether those efforts are delivering value: Is what we are doing producing results? Is this still worth prioritizing?
At this stage, leaders need to help people see the tangible impact of the change.
According to Blanchard, when employees are managing multiple priorities at the same time, regularly sharing results and success stories helps keep the change visible and sustain the energy required to continue pursuing it.
These results should be communicated through both data and concrete stories from employees themselves. A salesperson who uses the new system to respond to customers more quickly, or a department that significantly reduces the time required to consolidate reports, may provide a much more relatable demonstration of progress than aggregate numbers alone.
When people can see that their efforts are creating meaningful results, they have stronger reasons to maintain the new behaviors.
Conversely, when organizations continually ask people to change but rarely communicate what those changes have achieved, employees can easily begin to view the initiative as a temporary priority and gradually return to familiar ways of working.
Once the new approach has become increasingly integrated into everyday work, people begin moving from the question “Should we change?” to “How can we make this work even better?”
At this stage, the practical experience of those who use the new processes, systems, or methods becomes a valuable source of organizational insight.
Employees may recognize that an approval step is no longer necessary, that a particular data field could be automated, or that a different approach to cross-functional coordination could make work move more quickly.
Leaders should acknowledge the progress already achieved while creating opportunities for employees to continue improving how the change is implemented. Examining both what is working well and what remains ineffective allows the organization to build on accumulated experience and accelerate adoption.
Leaders can establish mechanisms through which employees propose improvements, test solutions on a limited scale, and share effective practices across teams.
More importantly, employees need to see that their feedback leads to tangible action: a process is simplified, a feature is adjusted, or a new method is standardized and adopted more broadly.
At this point, the role of employees also changes. They are no longer simply people expected to adapt to a predetermined decision. They become active contributors to improving the change itself.
Across all five stages, resistance does not always appear as direct refusal. It may begin with insufficient information, concerns about personal impact, implementation difficulties, doubts about results, or a desire to improve an approach that is not yet working effectively.
Recognizing the concern behind each response enables leaders to provide more appropriate support while turning different perspectives into valuable information that can make the change increasingly effective.
Listening creates the conditions for meaningful dialogue. For resistance to become a catalyst for improvement and innovation, however, organizations need to bring what they learn from those conversations into the decision-making process.
When employees say that a new process is too complicated, leaders need to investigate what specifically is creating difficulty: Which step is problematic? In what situations do errors most frequently occur? Who is being affected?
A general comment becomes far more useful when connected to real examples.
The organization can then determine whether the problem lies in process design, user guidance, or the resources available for implementation. This type of conversation also helps distinguish legitimate concerns from assumptions that still need to be tested.
People who frequently ask challenging questions or point out weaknesses may possess particularly valuable knowledge of how work actually gets done.
Instead of focusing solely on persuading them to accept the change, leaders can invite them to help test and refine the solution.
For example, before rolling out a new approval process across the entire organization, representatives from the departments that will use it can test the process in several real-world scenarios, document potential bottlenecks, and recommend adjustments.
When the scope, timeline, and evaluation criteria are clearly defined, critical feedback can be transformed into concrete contributions to improvement.
When employees repeatedly provide feedback but have no visibility into what happens to their input, their motivation to participate will quickly decline.
For important issues, leaders should clearly communicate which suggestions will be adopted, which require further validation, and which cannot currently be implemented.
When a recommendation is not accepted, employees should also understand the reasoning behind the decision.
Transparency helps people see that their perspectives are genuinely being considered while strengthening confidence in the change process.
Responding to resistance does not mean that every decision must wait until complete consensus has been achieved.
Leaders need to distinguish between objectives and requirements that are non-negotiable and elements of implementation that can continue to evolve based on real-world feedback.
Once legitimate concerns have been addressed, the organization still needs to maintain timelines, performance standards, and clear accountability.
When these boundaries are understood, dialogue does not slow transformation. Instead, it becomes a mechanism that helps the organization make better decisions and execute change more effectively.
To sustain this approach, leaders need to develop qualities that are consistently reflected in their everyday behaviors.
These qualities need to become embedded in management habits and organizational mechanisms.
A leader who listens well will have a greater impact when the organization also provides clear feedback channels, structured processes for evaluating suggestions, and meaningful criteria for measuring progress.
Every objection needs to be understood within its specific context. Some indicate that people need more information. Others reveal concerns about roles or responsibilities. Some may expose a genuine weakness in the plan itself.
The ability to recognize these concerns and respond appropriately helps leaders move people from uncertainty to participation, and from simply following instructions to actively contributing to change.
This is also at the heart of Leading People Through Change, delivered by Blanchard Vietnam. The program helps leaders diagnose their people’s concerns, address barriers to change, and strengthen participation throughout the transformation process.
Is your organization preparing for or currently implementing a significant change? Explore the Leading People Through Change program to equip your managers with the capabilities to lead people through change, build commitment, and turn transformation into sustainable action.
