What the research says

Why do changes stall after launch?

The short answer

The studies we mapped don't measure stalling directly, but some show changes fading or failing once under way. In one of two hospitals, a change that worked at first faded as old hierarchies reasserted themselves. At a financial services firm, a failed change was traced to closed-off executive and frontline systems that left middle managers powerless. At Nokia, a smartphone effort suffered as fearful middle managers shared less bad news upward and leaders grew overly optimistic. And few studies touch on reviewing a change once it is running: 5 of 117, none rated high strength.

Based on 9 studies from the Atlas of the Middle: 2 rated high strength, 6 medium, 1 low. Designs: qualitative case (6), qualitative interviews (2), survey (1).

The old way comes back

Two studies show earlier ways of working reasserting themselves, or persisting in memory in ways that both helped and hindered, after a change began.

Spyridonidis & Currie (2016) · qualitative case · MediumThe Translational Role of Hybrid Nurse Middle Managers in Implementing Clinical Guidelines: Effect of, and upon, Professional and Managerial HierarchiesIn two hospitals, nurse middle managers first got clinical guidelines working, but in one, where they coped less well with pressure to meet regulations and save money, the change faded as old hierarchies reasserted themselves.McCabe (2010) · qualitative case · LowTaking the long viewDuring one organization's reengineering, supervisors' memories of how things used to be both helped and hindered change, suggesting a workplace culture cannot simply be wiped clean and rebuilt.

The middle can't act or can't speak

Cases where middle managers were left powerless, filtered bad news, or turned against their leaders.

Raelin & Cataldo (2011) · qualitative case · MediumWhither Middle Management? Empowering Interface and the Failure of Organizational ChangeAt a large financial services firm, the authors trace a failed change initiative to closed-off executive and rank-and-file systems that left middle managers powerless, an outcome they link to the firm being bought out.Vuori & Huy (2016) · qualitative case · HighDistributed Attention and Shared Emotions in the Innovation ProcessAt Nokia, fearful middle managers shared less bad news upward while top managers did not fully reveal how serious the outside threat was; leaders grew overly optimistic and the smartphone effort suffered.Huy et al. (2014) · qualitative case · HighFrom Support to Mutiny: Shifting Legitimacy Judgments and Emotional Reactions Impacting the Implementation of Radical ChangeOver three years of a radical change, middle managers went from supporting their top leaders to mutiny as they reassessed whether those leaders were legitimate, and their emotional reactions fed rising resistance.

The middle is overloaded

In five UK organizations that delayered and downsized, middle managers reported more autonomy but longer, more intense and more closely monitored work.

McCann et al. (2008) · qualitative interviews · MediumNormalized Intensity: The New Labour Process of Middle ManagementIn 64 interviews across five UK organizations that delayered and downsized, middle managers reported more autonomy but longer, more intense hours, closer monitoring and fewer promotion prospects.

What keeps a change moving

Studies on what sustains or redirects a change: routines where top and middle managers review results together, tied to stronger performance in one survey; early results that build or drain commitment; and a change that continued after its champion left.

Peters et al. (2019) · survey · MediumInteractive profit-planning systems and market turbulence: A dynamic capabilities perspectiveAcross 331 Australian firms, budgeting, forecasting and reporting routines in which top and middle managers interact were tied to stronger business-unit performance, and the link was stronger where markets were more turbulent.Noda & Bower (1996) · qualitative case · MediumStrategy making as iterated processes of resource allocationFirms facing similar new-business opportunities ended up with different commitments: early results raised or lowered middle managers' enthusiasm and top managers' confidence in them, and repeated funding rounds escalated or wound down the bet.Starke et al. (2011) · qualitative interviews · MediumExploring archetypal change: the importance of leadership and its substitutesAt a small manufacturer, most of a transformation happened after its champion CEO left and an unsupportive former CEO returned, with supervisors, staff and new systems filling the leadership gap.

What I take from it

My read is that most changes don't fail at the announcement. They fade in the months after, when no one is reviewing them and the managers carrying them are stretched. That is a hypothesis the research hasn't tested.

This is my reading, Gabriel Lopez's, not a finding of the studies above.

Common questions

Why do organizational changes fail after implementation?

The studies we mapped point to several patterns rather than one cause: old hierarchies reasserting themselves, middle managers left powerless or holding back bad news, and middle managers facing longer, more intense and more closely watched work after restructuring.

How long does it take for a change to stick?

The research we mapped does not answer that. Only 5 of 117 studies touch on reviewing a change or holding it steady, none is rated high strength, and none tests how long a change takes to settle or a specific timeline.

Every summary on this page was written by Unfrozen from the study's abstract or full text and checked twice by independent reviewers. Loop coding is exploratory and AI-assisted, pending human verification. Spot an error? Email info@unfreeze.us and it gets fixed.