Why Change Management Should Never Have Been Born: The Tale of a Professional Tragedy

Once upon a time, in the dark annals of corporate history, someone, somewhere thought it would be a brilliant idea to create a discipline called "Change Management." What is Change Management, you ask? It’s a pseudo-profession that appears like a superhero but behaves like an unlucky sidekick who always shows up too late for the fight—and then gets blamed for it.

In truth, Change Management should never have existed, and I should know because I have done dozens of projects. But here we’re being honest, it’s a profession so tragically unnecessary that you could argue the universe was trying to prevent its creation. Yet here we are, suffering under its reign. But why? Let’s break down the train wreck of poor assumptions, bad timing, and outdated management theory that birthed this unloved, unnecessary corporate “bitch” no one wants.

The Wrong Methodology Built on Outdated Theories

Management theories! Nothing like the warm comfort of century-old ideas that have long since expired to inspire modern businesses. At the heart of Change Management's tragic existence is a patchwork of outdated, misguided theories. Take Maslow’s Pyramid, for example—Maslow's hierarchy of needs is like an ancient dial-up modem in the age of fiber optics: completely irrelevant.

Maslow’s "self-actualization" pinnacle sounds great in theory, but let’s be honest, the idea that people are striving for some higher purpose at work—before they’ve secured basic necessities l—is as outdated as landlines. Yet Change Management somehow decided to hitch its wagon to this archaic theory, mixing old-school motivation theories with new-school corporate jargon in a method that confuses more than it clarifies.

Maslow isn’t alone in this pantheon of outdated management theories. The McGregor Theory X and Theory Y—which suggests that employees are either lazy and need micromanagement (Theory X) or are inherently motivated and thrive on responsibility (Theory Y)—is another old chestnut we need to toss. While this binary view may have been revolutionary in the 1960s, today’s work environment recognizes that employees can fall anywhere along a spectrum and change based on context. Assuming that a blanket approach to leadership is the answer is as na?ve as using a floppy disk in 2024.

Another example of a misapplied theory is the ADKAR model, brainchild of Prosci, which became the cornerstone of Change Management mythology. ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) pretends to be a step-by-step formula to guide individuals through change, but in reality, it’s a checklist disguised as a “science” that simply rehashes old, linear thinking about human behavior. It’s built on the outdated assumption that people are mechanical systems where you can just follow a rigid sequence of steps to achieve change. Humans are complex and emotional, not machines you can tinker with using a one-size-fits-all approach.

Yet, ADKAR has been sold as a foolproof method, creating an entire industry of “change managers” who peddle this myth. The truth is, humans react to change based on relationships, trust, and empathy, not because they’ve been marched through a five-step process. That’s the ultimate irony of the ADKAR model: it tries to impose a mechanical framework on something that is deeply human and emotional.

No One Wants the "Bitch" Role in Their Department

Change Management is like the unwanted guest at the company party. Worse, it’s the "bitch" no one wants to claim. It’s constantly being passed around from HR to Communications to PR to Asset Management, like a department playing a miserable game of corporate Tinder and if they get lucky, outsourcing it. Everyone swipes left. No one swipes right. Why? Because once you’re stuck with it, you're the one who’s going to take the blame when things inevitably go south.

Every department knows that if they take ownership of Change Management, they’re signing up to be the scapegoat when the project fails—and it will. Change initiatives are famous for going off the rails. In fact, the McKinsey study that found 70% of organizational change efforts fail is often cited, but that’s just the beginning. A similar IBM study found that 60% of projects aimed at improving organizational performance fail to meet their goals, while Gallup reports that only 30% of employees are engaged at work, which directly impacts the success of change initiatives.

These numbers paint a bleak picture of Change Management’s success rate. When failure hits (and it almost always does), Change Management is blamed, even though the real culprits are the unrealistic expectations, poor planning, and inadequate leadership that came long before they were brought into the mix.

The Wrong, Late, or Nonexistent Budget

By the time someone reluctantly agrees to bring in a Change Management “specialist” (usually after much pleading and panic), it’s already too late, and the few budget’s been blown on consultants who left behind a digital graveyard of unread Google Docs filled with pointless flowcharts.

Bad Timing: Always Too Late or Never at All

If Change Management were a person, they’d be the one who shows up at the party after the drinks have run out and the host is already putting on their pajamas. It’s always called in late—after the crisis has hit, and the project is dangerously close to capsizing. The Change Manager is there with their checklist of best practices, trying to keep morale up with phrases like “We can turn this around” while everyone else is grabbing for life jackets.

A 2016 Harvard Business Review study found that 62% of change initiatives fail. Many change management gurus love to pin the blame on employee resistance, but here's the catch: employee resistance isn't the problem. In fact, it's natural. Resistance is simply the emotional discomfort that comes with change, and 100% of people feel some form of discomfort when faced with new challenges. So, trying to blame employees for something that’s inherently human is absurd.

The real issue is poor leadership. Resistance is a sign that leadership isn't doing its job of managing emotions and guiding people through their fears. Change Management is supposed to address this, but more often than not, it fails to engage employees at the emotional level, resorting to generic strategies like training sessions or town halls instead of empathetic leadership that helps people feel safe in uncertain times.

In reality, it’s about managing emotions, not processes. Managers who blame resistance for change failures are simply ignoring their own inability to lead through turbulent times.

A Convenient Blame Sponge for Managers

Managers love Change Management. Not because it helps (spoiler alert: it doesn’t), but because it’s the perfect patsy. When the bold new initiative—launched with much fanfare and overstuffed with meaningless buzzwords like “synergy” and “holistic alignment”—fails spectacularly, Change Management is there to take the hit. It’s a beautiful system, really: the managers come up with the idea, the Change Management team is brought in to implement it, and when it all goes wrong, the managers dust off their hands and say, "Well, we did everything right, but those Change Managers just couldn’t execute."

Blame-shifting at its finest.

Give Back to Managers What Is Theirs

Let’s be real for a moment. The entire premise of Change Management is flawed because it assumes that managing change is some mysterious, specialized skill when, in fact, it’s just good old-fashioned management. It’s time to end the charade and put the responsibility back where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of the managers themselves.

Managers are paid (well) to lead their teams, drive strategy, and yes, handle change. If they can’t do that, then maybe they’re the ones who need help —not the employees. After all, if a manager can't guide their team through turbulence, if they can't inspire and lead, then they aren’t managing at all.

So what if they can't do it? It’s simple: they shouldn't be in charge.

This is where companies need to step up and recognize that leadership isn’t about status, tenure, or seniority. It’s about emotional intelligence, adaptability, and the ability to inspire confidence even in uncertainty.

If managers can’t lead through change, maybe it's time to change the managers.

Because ultimately, Change Management doesn’t need to exist if managers are actually doing their jobs. It’s time to stop creating unnecessary middlemen to absorb the blame, and hold those at the helm accountable. A leader who can’t manage change is like a captain who can’t navigate rough seas—they’re not really leading, they’re just waiting for the inevitable shipwreck.

So here’s the hard truth: if your company needs Change Management, what it actually needs is better leadership. End of story.