More than two decades ago, Peter Drucker argued that the ability to deal with change would define the executive agenda for years to come.

That statement has aged remarkably well.

Today, change is no longer an occasional event. It is the operating condition of every organisation.

And yet, despite decades of frameworks, methodologies and investments, one fact remains stubbornly consistent:

Most transformation initiatives fail.

Estimates vary, but the commonly cited figure — that around 70% of change initiatives do not achieve their intended outcomes — has proven difficult to disprove.

This raises a fundamental question:

Do we actually understand what change is?

1. What is Change? (Theoretical Perspective) 

Academic research offers multiple lenses for understanding change — each capturing a different aspect of a complex reality.

Change has been described as:

• Incremental or fundamental - gradual adaptation versus transformative shifts
• Episodic or continuous - discrete interventions versus ongoing evolution
• Cultural - shaping values, behaviours and shared meanings
• Structural or strategic - altering core elements such as people, processes, technology or organisational design. 

Van de Ven and Poole's foundational work identifies four underlying "motors" of change:

• Life cycle - development follows a predefined path

• Teleology - change is driven by intentional goal-setting and iteration

• Dialectics - change emerges from conflict between opposing forces

• Evolution - variation, selection and retention shape outcomes over time.

Each of these perspectives is valid.

But none of them alone is sufficient.

In practice, organisational change is rarely linear, predictable or driven by a single logic. It is a multi-layered, non-linear interplay of forces operating simultaneously across individuals, teams and systems. 

2. Why Change is So Difficult (Empirical Reality) 

If change is so well studied, why is it still so hard?

Research and practice point to several recurring challenges:

• Organisations struggle to build a compelling case for change — especially when performance is still acceptable

• Change is often planned as a linear process, but unfolds in a non-linear reality

• Human adaptation is underestimated or ignored

• Structural and cultural barriers — such as silos, dominant logic and internal politics — prevent alignment

• Leadership behaviours and communication fail to sustain momentum

Kotter's well-known list of transformation failures — from complacency to premature victory declarations — continues to describe what happens inside organisations today.

Even earlier observations, such as Machiavelli's insight that change creates enemies of those benefiting from the old order and only lukewarm support from those who might benefit from the new, still hold true.

3. A Practical Insight (30 Years in the Field) 

Across multiple industries, countries and large-scale transformation programmes, one pattern becomes visible:

Change does not fail at the level of plans. 
It fails at the level of people.

More precisely:

• how change is perceived

• how it is interpreted

• how it is emotionally processed

• how it is acted upon — or resisted

Organisations often invest heavily in defining what needs to change and how it should be executed.

Far less attention is given to how change is experienced across the organisation in real time.

This creates a disconnect:

• Strategy assumes alignment

• Execution assumes compliance

• Reality produces fragmentation. 

5. Toward a More Predictable Approach  

If we accept that change is inherently complex and human-driven, a new question emerges:

Can transformation ever become predictable?

Not in the sense of eliminating uncertainty.

But in the sense of:

• better understanding patterns

• identifying early signals

• and intervening before failure becomes inevitable

This requires moving beyond viewing change as a sequence of activities — and instead seeing it as a dynamic system of human, organisational and strategic factors.