1. Wrong and misleading even at the time of original research. First off, this was qualitative opinion-based research which is subject to varying definitions of success or failure. And, more fundamentally, few change efforts are 100% clear success or failures. The answer could be quite different depending on what metric (stock price, profitability, customer satisfaction), time-frame (one, five, or ten years), scope (small division, large enterprise), etc. are in focus?

2. Our knowledge-base on “managing change” has significantly advanced. We now have 30+ years of experience of companies going through various permutations of “transformational change” – from the quality/re-engineering days of the 1980s, to today’s “agile” efforts. Simply put we now know the essential principles of successful transformation. (Stay tuned for separate post on how to increase your odds.)

3. Real reasons for falling short of complete success are quite different than those on the above chart. And most of them are in the control of leadership - NOT due to “resistance from the front-line.” Here’s my top 10 list:

a. Lack of clarity on the “what, why and how” of change. Too often change efforts are a long list of initiatives and aspirations, lacking coherence and deep thinking. If top management aren’t totally clear and aligned, how can the rest of the organization get on board?

b. Leadership Team(s) alignment. A close cousin to above, if a critical mass of the leadership teams (at the top and in key parts of the organization), aren’t fully clear on the process, their role, and time commitments - failure will follow.

c. Skills and resources. The organization needs to be able to dedicate an adequate number of people with the right skills to craft and drive the initiatives. Internally, these are often the best people – and therefore are in short supply. Consultants can help – but at great cost, and can never completely fill the void.

d. Structured engagement of the broader organization. New skills, mindsets and behaviors only happen with a process that finds ways to systematically engage individuals and groups in a disciplined working of their component of the overall change agenda. Structure and balancing “the hard and the soft” are key.

e. Capacity to learn and adjust. Change is non-linear – and the only guarantee is that you will hit some dead-ends, make mistakes, and not fully anticipate all the challenges at the outset. Without a culture and a mechanism for sensing and adapting, efforts will stall.

f. Time horizon (aka “Stuff happens”). Most transformational changes do indeed take 5+ years – to go the distance from aspirations/objectives through to achieving a fundamentally new level of performance and organizational capabilities. Companies and CEO’s often just don’t have the time – and get knocked off their game plan by intervening events (i.e., market downturns, activist shareholders, etc.)

g. Board support. The board needs to understand and support the efforts. Particularly the time frame and the investments required. Without this, a CEO’s efforts are at risk.

h. Risk tolerance. New business models or ways of operating are often, by definition, unproven. And risk disrupting existing customer relationships and organizational patterns. The key question is how much risk and disruption can your organization absorb?

So what’s a leader to do? Use the above list as a “gut check” as to what degree the conditions for success are in place. It’s never black and white, so no need to be intimidated or depressed. If you can make progress on mitigating the real risks your chances of success will be vastly improved.

And if you had to pick one thing to work on? It’s the “capacity to learn and adjust” – as this enables everything else.

Good luck! This is important stuff – and done right, your odds should increase to 70%+ in my experience.