To restore trust, overcome cynicism, and move forward with stalled changes, leaders need to

step back and demonstrate a sincere willingness to reevaluate the change effort. They must
open lines of communication, reflecting on why the change may have stalled.

Recovering When a
Change Initiative Stalls
Correcting Implementation Mistakes
By Daniel T. Holt,
Ellen L. Dorey,
Landon C. Bailey
and Brian R. Low

20

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 41 No. 1 2009

Shortly after the September 11, 2001

terrorist attacks, letters containing deadly
anthrax powder arrived at congressional
offices, newsrooms, and elsewhere.
These letters crippled mail service and
shut down a Senate office building. More
tragically, the mailings killed five people,
infected 17 others, and rattled the United
States, leaving millions afraid to open
their mailboxes. Regardless of whether
these mailings arose from the misguided
actions of a single American scientist,
as has been suspected, or a coordinated
follow-on action to the World Trade Center
and Pentagon attacks, they showed how
widespread the physical and psychological
damage could be if terrorists exploited the
mail system with a more pervasive letter
campaign.
To Department of Defense (DoD)
leaders credit, the magnitude of threat
that anthrax posed was identified prior to
the 2001 mailings. DoD leaders felt that
anthrax posed the single greatest biological
threat. Their reasoning was simple.
Anthrax, commonly observed in livestock,
could easily be adapted for use against
humans, making it an attractive biological
weapon for terrorists. Furthermore, there
were documented cases in which potential
enemies had actually used the agent
against military and civilian groups. And,
it could be disseminated relatively easily
as demonstrated with the deadly mailings.
Accordingly, DoD leaders introduced what
they felt was a relatively simple change
in its vaccination program, requiring
all military members (active duty and
reserves) to take the anthrax vaccine.

Well intentioned, the change was

introduced as nothing more than a
directivemembers were told to take the
vaccine. In a rare display of resistance,
many service members openly questioned
the directive. In April 1998, the first
coordinated resistance was observed when
ten sailors on the USS Independence
refused to take the vaccine, citing longterm health and safety concerns. Several
members decided to separate from the
military rather than receive anthrax
vaccinations. When members had service
obligations that prevented separation and
refused the vaccine, punitive actions were
taken (Government Accounting Office,
2002). Despite this, backlash continued to
grow. Leaders finally paused to take steps
to bolster understanding and acceptance
of the vaccination program. That is, they
tried to create a state of change readiness.
Among the measures used, a persuasive
video was created so that leaders could
send their message and require all service
members to view it. In the video, leaders
conveyed the key change messages
necessary to encourage acceptance (e.g.,
urgency, organizational benefits, individual
benefits). Service members, unfortunately,
viewed this message negatively, claiming
that the efforts were merely marketing
ploys.
Why did this happen? The motivation
to change, in this instance, was incredibly
compelling. Though belatedly, DoD
leaders made their case for the vaccination
program conveying the key messages that
are necessary to create a sense of readiness
(see Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999 for

Figure 1: Common Way Change Unfolds in Organizations

Actual Change
Practices

Actual Change
Process
Complete
Adoption

Abbreviated
Change
Message

Bypass
Readiness

Application of
Few Delivery
Methods

a comprehensive discussion of change

readiness). Perhaps once a change effort
stalls, a different approach is necessary to
create readiness and overcome resistance.
The methods that work as change is first
initiated might not be the answer. This
manuscript discusses instances when
appropriate strategies to facilitate change
early in the process are not used, but
when implementation of organizational
change must continue even as resistance is
encountered (i.e., stalled change).

Best Case:
Limited Adoption

What strategies
can leaders use to
institutionalize
the change?

Worst Case:
Overt Resistance
Abandon the
Initiative &
Move on to
the Next

change, creating a sense of urgency among

the members while describing a desirable
end-state. As suggested by Charles Clark
and his colleagues (1997) discussion of
Bell Atlantics efforts to create a changeready organization, this idea can be
conveyed concisely through the old adage,
If it aint broke dont fix it! In essence, if
organizational members do not recognize
that something is broken (i.e., a need),
they will not embrace a fix (i.e., a change).
Moreover, the fix will likely be rejected if
it does not suitably move the organization
Introducing Change
toward its desired end-state.
Beyond this, leaders must
Organizational change is often
communicate the changes benefits
described as an orderly process in which
(organizationally and individually) and
organizations and their members move
bolster the members confidence, making
through a sequence of stages as the
sure they believe they can succeed in the
organization alters the status quo. The
changed environment. These messages
first stage, readiness, is a time when
regarding benefits and confidence go
organizational members are primed
hand-in-hand. With confidence in their
to accept the proposed change. This is
ability to change, feelings of uncertainty
followed by adoption, when organizational or insecurity are ameliorated because
members accept the change by modifying
members better understand how their
their behavior on a trial bias. Then,
existing skills may be used or enhanced.
institutionalization is a closing stage when For example, employees who have been
the change becomes embedded within the
doing the same job for many years may be
fabric of the organization.
reluctant to change. As their confidence
To efficiently and effectively move
grows, reluctance is replaced and these
organizations through these stages, leaders employees begin to explore the benefits of
are encouraged to draw on a portfolio of
change. Throughout these efforts, leaders
facilitation strategies. When leaders look
should convey their own supporta
at the array of recommendations regarding key message to be delivered. Without
the implementation of change, they will
explicit leadership support, or support of a
quickly see that two fundamental issues are powerful guiding coalition, organizational
addressed: the message to be delivered to
members might doubt the extended
the members as the change is introduced
commitment to the new path, feeling that
and the methods to deliver that message.
the program will be eliminated quickly,
In terms of the message, leaders are
only to be replaced by another program.
encouraged to clearly state the need for
As with the message itself, there is a

considerable convergence regarding the

ways that this message should be delivered.
Two common recommendations include
communicating to the employees and
having the employees participate as the
change is planned and introduced. When
discussing communication, leaders are
generally encouraged to communicate
persuasively, broadly, dramatically, and
thoroughly. More specifically, guidance
highlights the mediums that can be
used. Training, for instance, can be used
to teach new skills, helping to reinforce
confidence. Participation is an effective
way to implicitly deliver the message as
well. By allowing employees to participate,
employees learn first-hand how the change
will benefit the organization and, ideally,
themselves. As a by-product, participation
develops credibility between the leadership
and the membership as members are
included in the development, planning,
and introduction of changes.
Cycle of Stalled Change
Most recognize that our description of
change does not reflect reality. Change
is a non-linear, complex process.
Organizational leaders rarely initiate
changes without modifying their plans.
Cisco, for instance, introduced and
stopped a single e-learning effort seven
times. Whereas this may not appear to be
significant, it is chilling when observed
within a larger context where Cisco had
also tried to simultaneously restructure
itself four times, each effort coming with
promises of a better future. With so many
changes occurring so frequently, one
wonders how much effort was spent to
create a sense of readiness at Cisco before
each effort was started.
Beyond the complexities that
inherently exist, organizational leaders
often make things more difficult by
beginning the process well-intentioned,
but, due to constraints such as budget
or time, they are unable to follow the
prescriptions designed to move the
organization smoothly through the change
process. Generally, the process looks like
the outline presented in Figure 1. At worst,
change is introduced with nothing more

Recovering When a Change Initiative Stalls: Correcting Implementation Mistakes

21

than a signature (as was done with the

anthrax change); at best, an abbreviated
change message is conveyed using a
limited number of delivery methods.
Thus, the first stage of change, readiness,
is bypassed which leads to resistance or
some limited level of adoption. Rather
than pressing forward, leaders tend to do
one of two things, namely, abandon the
initiative, leaving an inadequate status quo,
or abandon the initiative, replacing it with
another change. Neither of these choices is
desirable but the latter often begins a cycle
of failed changes. Initiatives are abandoned
and replaced with newer efforts, using
the same abbreviated process that meets
the same fate, creating a cycle of stalled
changes.
In some situations, like DoDs anthrax
vaccination effort, initiatives should
not be abandoned and implementation
should continue despite the challenges. To
break the cycle of stalled changes, many
have advocated for leaders to deliver the
traditional message (e.g., need for and
benefits of change) using the prescribed
methods (i.e., communication and
participation). Like the DoD, Chan Kim
and Renee Mauborgne (2003) found that
the traditional strategy for introducing
change was counterproductive after an
elevator sales companys change effort had
stalled. As this firm changed its operations
from a traditional manufacturing line to
a cell structure, realigning the reward
system to recognize group or cell
performance over individual contributions,
leaders did nothing more to prepare their
employees than state that this change
would improve efficiency. After the change
met resistance the plant manager tried
to bring about support by improving
participation. Instead of creating a sense
of excitement, employees expressed
confusion. Senior leaders were frustrated
because they did not know what they had
done wrong. The tactics that eventually
saved this firm targeted the trust between
managers and the employees that had
eroded. Essentially, leaders were successful
when they did not rely on the traditional
message and methods to create readiness.
Our own experiences and stories like
this helped us recognize that we needed

22

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 41 No. 1 2009

to better understand the appropriate

messages and strategies that can be used to
facilitate adoption when an initiative stalls.
To look at this issue, we draw from three
different qualitative studies. In the first
study, we collected data from members of
the International Registry of Organizational
Development (OD) Professionals. In the
two other studies, we turned to practicing
managers. Data were collected from the
OD professionals using an open endedquestionnaire. In all, we had 49 OD
professionals share their experiences;
identifying (a) the barriers they observed
when they encountered stalled changes and
(b) the methods to overcome those barriers.
The second study drew insights from a
group of 14 practicing managers that were
embroiled in a change effort to adopt new
aircraft maintenance procedures that had
stalled. The final group included 57 military
members who gave us a retrospective
account of their experiences with the
DoDs anthrax vaccination program. This
group watched the video that leaders had
produced after the change had stalled and
was intended to persuade them to embrace
the change. All of the data were content
analyzed. Verbatim phrases were extracted
and themes emerged inductively such that
we captured the participants responses to
the greatest extent possible.
Barriers to Overcoming Stalled Change &
Methods of Overcoming Stalls
Our data revealed that a sense of distrust
grows when changes stall. Trust is the
willingness of an individual to expose him
or herself to the actions of another party
under the assumption that this party will
behave responsibly and positively even
when they are not monitored. Strong
levels of trust develop when there is a
powerful belief in the other partys ability,
benevolence, and integrity (Mayer & Davis,
1999). In settings where change stalls,
members tend to lose faith in each of these
facets. With respect to ability, consultants
and practitioners said that they experienced
an emerging sentiment that the leadership
was not capable of successfully leading
the organization through change. As one
consultant explained rather succinctly, the

ability of [the organizations] leaders to

do what is necessary, in this case, to lead
change efforts becomes questionable.
As perceived ability to lead change
erodes, our results showed that leaders
might expect to see that feelings toward
their benevolence and integrity diminish.
Benevolence reflects the organizational
members belief that leadership truly
cares about their well-being. When
changes stall, we found that individuals
tended to say that, no one is looking
out for [the organization members] best
interests. This was particularly salient
to the practitioners embroiled in changes
that had stalled. They felt, for instance,
that critical occupational safety issues
associated with new procedures were
being overlooked. How leaders were
dealing with these issues was not readily
apparent, giving the impression that
issues were being overlooked and further
degrading perceptions of benevolence.
Along those same lines, leaders integrity
became a question. Integrity reflects
the organizational members belief that
leadership acts with in an ethical and
moral way throughout their business
activities. Oftentimes, the practicing
managers expressed this skepticism
jokingly, saying, the change was introduced
because leaders owned stock in the
corporation that supplied materials and
equipment to execute the procedural
changes. Almost to a person, our results
revealed that these feelings came about
because leaders inadequately planned,
inadequately considered the consequences
(to include those that were unintended),
and inadequately provided feedback
mechanisms. This limited leaders ability
to make adjustments as problems were
encountered.
The consultants and practitioners also
suggested that leaders should consider
the cynicism that might have built up
over time. Cynicism toward change is a
negative mind-set that develops when the
members of the organization are involved
with a series of less than successful
changes (Reichers, Wanous, & Austin,
1997). Cynicism can be cyclical; mirroring
the cycle that many failed changes go
through. Because of their past experience,

employees do not believe the organization

will follow through with implementation
or believe the change will be unsuccessful.
As a result, they do not support the effort.
Subsequently, the change is unsuccessful
and employees have another case to
substantiate their cynicism. Of course,
the employees blame management for
these repeated failures while managers
might blame the cynical opinions of the
employees. New changes, when introduced
without adequately addressing the issues
that might be causing problems, may be
met with the same mindset. These would
likely fail as well, giving cynical employees
yet another case to substantiate their
negative beliefs.
As with any change, uncertainty
emerged as a barrier that was confronted
and became magnified as the change
stalled. Uncertainty concerns ranged from
broad sentiments that reflected general
concern about well-being and professional
uncertainties to specific concerns like
feelings of job insecurity. Job security
concerns revolved around whether
organizational members would continue
to have jobs or if they would be forced to
sever ties with their current divisions. One
interviewee stated that, Managements
bone- head decisions usually end up
with job security [problems] for the lower
shops. Professional uncertainties were
not related to job loss, but instead related
to the work environment including
workload, job processes, authority, and
manpower. Participants posed questions
like, What new processes would be forced
on them (and for which they would be
held accountable)? Workload changes
were expressed through comments like,
Logistically it can be a pain in the butt.
When overcoming stalls, it appears
that one traditional method emerged.
Leaders must make the case for change.
Many leaders try to make the case for
change by pointing to the numbers
and explaining how the effort will help
improve those whether they are production
or financial numbers. But the barriers
that emerge when a change stalls are
not conducive to numbers. When the
numbers are conveyed to line managers,
the individuals that need to be won over,

they are viewed with skepticism. Instead,

leaders must bring the plan/message to
the grass roots level as one respondent put
it. To do this and restore trust, leaders must
engage the informal organization and
explain why this [change] is good for the
organization. They must create an open
and inspirational environment by listening
with empathy and benevolence, responding
to questions and concerns candidly,
genuinely, and honestly. One participant
indicated that listening to both comments
and feelings would give the leadership
a better understanding of employees
sentiments and concerns. As leaders
listen, they should acknowledge the
mutual importance of conflicting interests
within an organization. Then, they must
honestly address the employees concerns
and provide all appropriate information,
both pro and con on the subject and do so
without simply relying on the numbers.
The next two strategies require
leaders to walk a difficult tightrope. On
the one hand, leaders must acknowledge
that all stalled change efforts may not
be great ideas. This idea was embraced
by suggesting repeatedly that leaders
should step back, reevaluate, and think
about the change effort that stalled.
Participants advised leaders to examine
whether the change initiative truly
supports the vision and strategy of the
organization as it was intended, such
as, Do a visioning reality checkis the
vision for change truly compelling?
Furthermore, they should reflect on why
the change stalled, recognizing that the
change may have stalled for an equally
compelling reason and they may discover
this through honest and candid discourse
with their organizations members. On
the other hand, leaders must proactively
encourage adoption by aligning policies
that facilitate support for the change effort
such that positive consequences are tied
to support and negative consequences are
tied to rejection. Employee pay systems
are powerful tools in this endeavor as
well as systems that link resistance to
negative consequences such as ultimately
eliminat(ing) those that will not accept
the change. While this may seem harsh
given that trust is a significant barrier, our

consultants and practitioners said that

the leaders commitment to making the
change is emphasized when this is done
after careful consideration and reevaluation
of the change.
Clearly, the reevaluation must be done
with the input from the line managers,
giving the leaders the information to
seriously reflect on the change. Both formal
and informal leaders should be called out
because these members attitudes and
actions are often reflected in the attitudes
and actions of all members. Additionally,
targeting cynics directly was said to
enhance the overall effort to introduce
change by swaying the organizations
general populace when hopeless resistors
were transformed into hopeful advocates.
Moreover, participants indicated that
confronting cynics helped to develop an
open environment, reevaluate the change
effort from a different perspective, and
examine which policy alignments would
facilitate progress.
Finally, these messages can be
conveyed directly in small forums such as
focus groups to large forums like town-hall
meetings. Face-to-face sessions give the
leaders an opportunity to communicate
change-related information, express their
explicit support for an upcoming change,
and actively listen to specific concerns
and anxieties. On the other hand, the
emotional nature of stalled changes
present challenges to leaders as they try
to address the questions. Specifically,
leaders can encounter hostile questions
from employees and can stifle conversation
if they are ill prepared to respond to
these questions. Many participants also
encouraged teaching sessions that had
leaders or consultants interface with
the employees, extending invitations to
informal leaders and lower level managers.
Then, leaders can have these members
approach other employees to collect their
concerns and ideas while encouraging
them to support the change initiative.
Conclusion
Amid an age of increasing innovation
and global business competition, there is
no question that the pace organizational

Recovering When a Change Initiative Stalls: Correcting Implementation Mistakes

23

changes are introduced will increase. As

leaders introduce these changes, they are
encouraged to create a state of readiness
by explaining the need for and benefits of
change using several methods (i.e., open
communication and wide involvement
of employees). With this pace of change,
unfortunately, organizational leaders
find themselves short on time and the
resources necessary to properly create
readiness. Frequently, changes are not
introduced properly and meet resistance.
When strong resistance is encountered,
the change stalls. Rather than continue
with implementation, many initiatives are
abandoned and replaced with some newer
effort that meets the same fate, beginning
a cycle of failed changes. In essence, failing
changes become a self-fulfilling prophecy
that reinforces cynicism, making future
efforts difficult to implementsomething
potentially more sinister and difficult to
overcome than resistance.
In some situations, however, initiatives
cannot be abandoned and implementation
should continue. Our experience and
qualitative data have shown that the
messages regarding the needs and benefits
associated with a change do not resonate in
the same way when they are not conveyed
when the change is first introduced.
Leaders need to take a different approach
as they confront and try to overcome
stalled change efforts. Based on over 120
open-ended questionnaires and interviews,
we found that organizational members
tend to lose trust in their leaders ability,
benevolence, and integrity, making it
difficult for traditional change messages
to be heard. To restore trust, overcome
cynicism, and move forward with stalled
changes, leaders need to step back and
demonstrate a sincere willingness to
reevaluate the change effort. They must
open lines of communication, reflecting
on why the change may have stalled. With
this candid look leaders will go a long
way in restoring the trust that may have
eroded as this particular change stalled
or a cycle of previously stalled changes
repeated. Leaders must patiently listen.
They do this by spending time with small
groups in rather intimate settings. During
these sessions, they can frankly exchange

Daniel T. Holt, PhD, is an Air Force officer and assistant professor of

management at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) at WrightPatterson Air Force Base, OH. He has served as an Air Force engineer in Central
America, Asia, and the Middle East. He received his PhD in Management
from Auburn University. His research focuses on organizational change and
development, human resource management issues, and organizational
measurement. He can be reached at daniel.holt@afit.edu.
Ellen L. Dorey, MS, is a former Air Force officer. On active duty, she served as a
civil engineer all over the world, leading organizations at Eglin Air Force Base,
FL and managing reconstruction projects throughout Iraq. She received her
MS in Engineering Management from AFIT. She currently resides in Northern
Virginia with her family. Ellen can be reached at h2omln_ln@yahoo.com.
Landon C. Bailey, MS, is an Air Force officer assigned to the Strategic
Organizational Development division at the Air Force Material Command
(AFMC). In this role, he provides Air Force leaders with change and knowledge
management tools and offers training to empower the workforce and improve
operational performance. He received his MS in Information Resource
Management from AFIT. He can be reached at landon.bailey@wpafb.af.mil.
Brian R. Low, MS, is an Air Force officer assigned to the 355th Civil
Engineering Squadron, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB), AZ. He leads
a division that manages accelerated contracts for facility maintenance and
construction for the installation. In his career, he has served as a project
manager at Fairchild AFB, WA and in the Middle East. He received his
MS in Engineering Management from AFIT. He can be reached at
brian.low@dm.af.mil.
ideas and listen to the members thoughts,
feelings, and concerns without putting
the traditional emphasis on the numbers.
Through this, organizations may realize
the benefits that were desired as the
change was initially introduced, laying the
foundation for a cycle of successful change.
Selected References
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H.
S. (1999). Making change permanent:
A model for institutionalizing change
interventions. In R. Woodman
and Pasmore (Eds.) Research in
Organizational Change and Development
(vol. 12, pp. 97-182).
Clark, C., Cavanaugh, N. C., Brown, C. V.,
& Sambarmurthy, V. (1997). Building
change-readiness capabilities in the
IS organization: Insights from Bell
Atlantic experience. MIS Quarterly,
21(4), 425-456.
Government Accounting Office (GAO).

Anthrax Vaccine: GAOs Survey of Guard

and Reserve Pilots and Aircrew. Report
No. GAO-02-445. Washington: GAO,
September 2002.
Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair
process: Managing in the knowledge
economy. Harvard Business Review,
127-136.
Mayer, R. C. & Davis, J. H. (1999). The
effect of the performance appraisal
system on trust for management:
A field quasi-experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin J. T.
(1997). Understanding and managing
cynicism about organizational change.
Academy of Management Executive, 11(1),
48-59.

Copyright 2009 by the Organization Development Network, Inc. All rights reserved.

24

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 41 No. 1 2009