Change can be seen as positive or negative? In this infographic we breakdown the usefulness of labelling a change as either being positive or negative.
Click here to download the infographic.
To read more about this visit our article ‘Is it useful to label change as either positive or negative’.
You may have been asked to rate change into either a positive or negative change to classify initiatives and thereby use the classification to aid change implementation. After all, we all know of initiatives that nearly everyone sees as negative and other initiatives where it’s going to make people’s lives easier, and therefore viewed as mostly positive. So, is it useful to classify every initiative as either positive or negative? Let’s examine this closely.
What is the usefulness of classifying change into either positive or negative?
Some managers believe that if we are able to classify change as either positive or negative then we are able to focus on those changes that are perceived as negative since they may require significant managerial effort to drive through the change. Also, negative changes may face more resistance. Therefore, knowing this helps to plan for change implementation.
Negative changes could include significant restructures where employees are losing their jobs, and where there are significant cost-cutting outcomes targeted. On the other hand, a positive change could be a process improvement where the new process makes work easier for impacted employees, requiring less approval and less paperwork.
However, there are many issues with this assumption. Let’s break things down….
Differences in individual perception
Every individual has a different perception of the same change initiative. After all, we are all individuals with different upbringings, personalities, life experiences, and preferences. In a major restructuring, whilst most impacted employees losing their jobs may see this as negative, there could be those who are eager to receive the redundancy payout, possessing long tenure at the company. Others may initiative find the change negative, however found that this was a great opportunity to launch a career they had always wanted.
On the other hand, even for a seemingly positive change that could make most employee’s lives easier, not everyone may see it that way. There are always some that simply do not like changes at all. It could be that they are so used to the old ways of working that any change and adjustment would be perceived as negative.
Different perceptions in stakeholder groups
It is also important to note that not every stakeholder group would perceive the same initiative in the same way. It depends on various factors. For example, with a phone upgrade, younger employees or those groups more familiar with technology would welcome the change with open arms. New phones with new features, exciting functions, faster responses, and better quality cameras – how could anyone view this as negative?
Well, it could be that for those who are not ‘early adopters’ and are used to using the same phone for the long term, this may be a negative change. They may not even want to use most of the features of the phone and in fact, more features could mean more confusion and more time required to learn the functions of the phone.
There are positives and negatives in most changes
Inherent in every change, there could be both positive or negative aspects of the change for the same stakeholder. Implementing a new system in order to improve response time and incorporate greater digital features may be initially painful. The significant work required to understand why the change is required, the long time spend in preparing for the change, only to find that releases often get pushed back.
Eventually when the system gets launched there is excitement and everyone is saying how much easier the new system is to use. However, like all systems, there are bugs that need to be ironed out and this could take at least a few months. So, you can see that it’s not as easy to just label the whole initiative as positive or negative. It depends on which angle we are viewing the change and at what phase of the initiative.
Changes may be neither positive nor negative
Some changes may be neutral. Think of the slew of regulatory changes impacting the financial services sector. Many of these are process changes that are geared to provide more oversight, transparency, and to benefit customers.
Small process or policy changes may not be difficult to understand nor to implement. Employees may not find it a difficult change, however, it doesn’t really benefit them in their roles. However, they do understand why this was implemented and that this is important to abide by or the company may be fined by the regulator. So, this is an example of how some changes don’t need to be necessarily positive or negative.
Perception toward the change could be altered during the implementation
Change management is about influencing stakeholder perceptions. If perceptions toward change cannot be altered then what is the point of change management you may ask? Absolutely.
Stakeholders may initially have a negative perception of the change due to preconceived ideas about the ‘why’ of the change. Or it could be that managers’ roles are impacted negatively and therefore they then painted a negative image for their teams. It could also be that insufficient communication and engagement have been in place and therefore the change came as a surprise – leading to negative perceptions, more towards the senior managers that are driving the change, than the change itself.
Effective change managers are able to skillfully diagnose stakeholder perceptions and anticipate their potential reactions to change. The change intervention is therefore designed to effectively influence and collaborate with impacted stakeholders to build rapport and consensus toward the change. What may have started out as a negative change, can be turned around into a neutral or even positive one.
Time it takes to embed the change for positive/negative changes
It is a fallacy to assume that positive changes always take less effort than negative ones. This is not always the case. If we go back to our example of the new system, like any new system, whether perceived in a positive or negative light, effort and time are required to learn the new system. Focus and effort are required to understand why this change is needed, what it is aiming to achieve, and the impacted stakeholder’s role in this. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that positive changes require less effort and focus.
But would negative changes face more resistance? Maybe yes and maybe no. Again, it depends. For example, we know from the below involvement and commitment curve that there more someone is involved in crafting the change the more committed they will feel to the outcome of the change. So, resistance could be the result of insufficient or ineffective engagement, rather than a necessary result of a perceived ‘negative’ change.
So, you can see that it may not be so useful to try and label change as positive or negative in order to aid change planning. A much more useful angle to look at planning for change is to look at aspects such as impact, stakeholder readiness, behaviour changes required, level of complexity, etc.
To read more about measuring change check out our Ultimate Guide to Measuring Change.
Change management is a critical discipline for organizations navigating today’s fast-paced and complex business environment. At its core, change management refers to the structured approach and set of processes that organizations use to transition individuals, teams, and entire organizations from a current state to a desired future state. The ultimate goal is to drive adoption of new processes, technologies, or strategies while minimizing resistance and disruption.
For decades, organizations have relied on a handful of classic change management models to guide their transformation efforts. These foundational frameworks have shaped the way leaders think about change, offering structured methodologies to manage the human and operational challenges that accompany organizational shifts.
Some of the most widely recognized traditional models include:
These classic models have provided organizations with blueprints for managing change, helping leaders anticipate challenges, structure their communications, and guide employees through transitions. They have been especially valuable in large, hierarchical organizations where clear, step-by-step processes are necessary to coordinate efforts across multiple teams and layers of management.
Despite their enduring popularity, research has increasingly shown that many of these traditional models have limited efficacy in today’s dynamic business world. The pace of change has accelerated, and organizations now face more complex, interconnected, and unpredictable challenges than ever before. As a result, the linear, stepwise approaches of older models can struggle to keep up with:
Many of these models were developed in an era when change was infrequent and could be managed as a discrete event. Today, change is constant, and organizations must be able to adapt quickly and continuously. This has led to a growing recognition that newer, more flexible and evidence-based change management models are needed to address the realities of modern business.
In response to these limitations, new change management models have emerged, informed by recent research and the evolving needs of organizations. These models tend to emphasize:
Here are some examples of modern models:
A lot of popular change management models are old models, many of which have been shown by research to have limited efficacy in the business world. Nevertheless, some of these models are still referred to as the core ‘pillars’ of change management. What are newer change management models that have been shown by research to have better validity?
The landscape of change management has evolved significantly, with organizations increasingly recognizing the need to move beyond traditional frameworks. Below is a detailed comparison of classic and modern change management models, highlighting their core characteristics, strengths, and limitations.
Classic models, such as Lewin’s 3-Stage Model, McKinsey 7S, and ADKAR, have long served as the foundation for organizational change initiatives. These models share several defining features:
Strengths of Classic Models:
Limitations of Classic Models:
Modern models have emerged in response to the increasing complexity and speed of change in today’s business environment. These frameworks are characterized by:
Examples of Modern Models:
Strengths of Modern Models:
Limitations of Modern Models:
| Aspect | Classic Models | Modern Models |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Linear, stepwise | Iterative, agile |
| Leadership Style | Top-down | Collaborative, participatory |
| Focus | Process, structure | Behavior, engagement, data |
| Change Type | Discrete, one-off | Continuous, ongoing |
| Tools & Techniques | Templates, checklists | Digital tools, analytics, nudges |
| Employee Role | Recipients of change | Co-creators of change |
| Measurement | Periodic, post-implementation | Real-time, continuous |
While modern models offer clear advantages in today’s environment, classic frameworks still have their place—particularly for well-defined, large-scale projects with clear objectives and timelines. In contrast, modern models are better suited to organizations facing ongoing transformation, rapid innovation, or the need for cultural change.
The most effective change leaders often blend elements from both approaches, tailoring their strategies to the unique needs of their organization and the specific challenges at hand.
Adopting modern change management models requires organizations to rethink traditional approaches and embrace new ways of driving transformation. Below are practical, action-oriented steps for effectively applying contemporary change management principles, ensuring that change is not only implemented but also sustained.
Practical Example:
A large financial services firm sought to implement a digital-first customer service model. Instead of mandating the change from the top, leaders formed cross-functional teams to co-design new workflows. Behavioral nudges—such as digital prompts and peer recognition—encouraged adoption. Real-time analytics tracked customer satisfaction and employee engagement, allowing for rapid adjustments. Regular feedback sessions and visible celebration of milestones helped embed the new model as “the way we work.”
Organizations that thrive in today’s environment are those that treat change as a continuous, collaborative, and data-informed process. By applying modern change management models—grounded in behavioral science, agility, and real-time measurement—leaders can drive transformation that is not only effective but also enduring. The key is to blend clear vision, stakeholder engagement, and adaptive execution, ensuring that change becomes a core organizational capability rather than a disruptive event.
Analytics capability is emerging to be one of the most critical capabilities for companies in the digital world. How effective a company is able to use data to drive efficiency, effectiveness and overall business improvement is the ultimate competitive advantage. Through the ability to use data companies can improve decision making and greater ability to execute on its strategies.
In the same manner how effective a company is in building change analytics capability is emerging to be a critical capability in implementing change.
Download our infographic to understand more about the key elements in building change analytics capability in your organisation.
Change Data – Have you ever wanted to influence business decision making? Do you ever feel that your gut is telling you something quite compelling but you’re not able to influence your stakeholders?
Data is king. With data you will be able to influence key decision makers and be at the business decision making table.
There are a few steps involved in this. Data is data. The trick is to turn data into meaningful information. A way to do this is through data visualisation. With the right visualisation data can be extremely powerful and allows you to see what the story is. Different aspects of data visualisation provides you the tools to tell a compelling change story about what is going to happen.
You need to approach data with a hypothesis and through analysis generate insights and therefore recommendations.
From a change management perspective, organizations are overflowing with data that are waiting for assessment. Other change data, including risk, is spread out across shared drives from teams, systems, and specific computers.
Different aspects of data are all highly valuable in its own right. However, they are rather useless unless there are systems and processes in place to capture and analyze it. Democratizing the use of data in the organization make tactical, operational, and strategic decisions based on the information.
Your change management function is part of that – is a change project in its own right. And change management can help predict the success or failure of the initiative if done correctly in a data-driven way.
Change data will then need to be considered with other business data and considerations in a holistic decision making process by senior managers or the PMO.
To understand further, we you can check out this infographic on how data can be transformed into actionable insights. Click on the link below to download the infographic:
