choosing strategies for change
Best of HBR
JOHN P. KOTTER AND
LEONARD A. SCHLESINGER
Choosing
Strategies
for Change considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.”1
In 1973, The Conference Board asked 13 eminent authorities to speculate what significant management issues and problems would develop over the next 20 years. One of the strongest themes that runs through their subsequent reports is a concern for the ability of organizations to
EDITOR’S NOTE: A lot has respond to environmenchanged in the world of tal change. As one person management since 1979, when wrote: “It follows that an this article first appeared, but acceleration in the rate of one thing has not: Companies change will result in an inthe world over need to change creasing need for reorgacourse. Kotter and Schlesinger nization. Reorganization provide a practical, tested way is usually feared, because to think about managing that it means disturbance of change. the status quo, a threat to people’s vested interests in their jobs, and an upset to established ways of doing things. For these reasons, needed reorganization is often deferred, with a resulting loss in effectiveness and an increase in costs.”2
Subsequent events have confirmed the importance of this concern about organizational change. Today, more and more managers must deal with new government regulations, new products, growth, increased competition, technological developments, and a changing workforce. In
130 Harvard Business Review
1320 Kotter.indd 130
|
July–August 2008
|
Justine Beckett
“IT MUST BE
hbr.org
6/5/08 7:33:49 PM
Best of HBR Choosing Strategies for Change
response, most companies or divisions of major corporations find that they must undertake moderate organizational changes at least once a year and major changes every four or five.3
Few organizational change efforts
tend
JOHN P. KOTTER AND
LEONARD A. SCHLESINGER
Choosing
Strategies
for Change considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.”1
In 1973, The Conference Board asked 13 eminent authorities to speculate what significant management issues and problems would develop over the next 20 years. One of the strongest themes that runs through their subsequent reports is a concern for the ability of organizations to
EDITOR’S NOTE: A lot has respond to environmenchanged in the world of tal change. As one person management since 1979, when wrote: “It follows that an this article first appeared, but acceleration in the rate of one thing has not: Companies change will result in an inthe world over need to change creasing need for reorgacourse. Kotter and Schlesinger nization. Reorganization provide a practical, tested way is usually feared, because to think about managing that it means disturbance of change. the status quo, a threat to people’s vested interests in their jobs, and an upset to established ways of doing things. For these reasons, needed reorganization is often deferred, with a resulting loss in effectiveness and an increase in costs.”2
Subsequent events have confirmed the importance of this concern about organizational change. Today, more and more managers must deal with new government regulations, new products, growth, increased competition, technological developments, and a changing workforce. In
130 Harvard Business Review
1320 Kotter.indd 130
|
July–August 2008
|
Justine Beckett
“IT MUST BE
hbr.org
6/5/08 7:33:49 PM
Best of HBR Choosing Strategies for Change
response, most companies or divisions of major corporations find that they must undertake moderate organizational changes at least once a year and major changes every four or five.3
Few organizational change efforts
tend