What myths or assumptions are quietly baked into the way many change practitioners themselves practice change management, even when they “know better”?
For a discipline built around helping people see things differently, change management has its own blind spots.
Over time, best practices can harden into habits, and habits can quietly turn into misconceptions. Even seasoned practitioners fall into patterns that once worked but now limit our impact.
The following ten “inside myths” show up not in textbooks, but in the day-to-day realities of projects, workshops, and sponsor conversations. Each one carries a kernel of truth and a hidden cost when left unexamined.
Executive Summary
Modern research and field data reveal that many common change management practices rest on outdated assumptions.
Practitioners still over-rely on frameworks, treat resistance as opposition instead of information, and equate communication with engagement. We often measure what’s easy instead of what matters, and stop too early (at go-live instead of at sustainment).
The future of the discipline demands a shift: from compliance to co-creation, from activity to insight, from managing resistance to cultivating readiness.
Change Practitioner Misconception #1: “Following the model = doing change management”
- Why it’s incomplete: Frameworks like ADKAR or Kotter are scaffolds, not substitutes for sense-making. Many practitioners over-index on template and milestones rather than emergent learning and iteration.
- Risk: Checklists create false confidence. Teams may complete deliverables (impact assessment, communication plan) yet miss actual behavior adoption.
- Emerging Shift: “Model as compass, not map.” Newer organizational change research emphasizes adaptive learning loops and data-driven sensing instead of rigid stage-gates.
Change Practitioner Misconception #2: “Resistance is a problem to overcome”
- Why it’s incomplete: Resistance is information, not opposition. Treating it as an obstacle erases psychological safety and silences valid insights about risk or design flaws.
- What’s replacing it: Practitioners are reframing “resistance management” as sense-making and feedback capture, using employee dissent as diagnostic data to improve the change itself.
Change Practitioner Misconception #3: “Stakeholder engagement means communication frequency”
- Reality: Volume does not equal connection. Many change management plans equate “engagement” with newsletters, town halls, or SharePoint updates.
- What research shows: Gartner (2023) found that message clarity, dialogue quality, and perceived authenticity of leaders drive adoption, not message quantity.
- Modern Lens: Engagement is co-creation, not broadcast.
Change Practitioner Misconception #4: “Leaders own sponsorship; Change Management supports.”
- Why it’s outdated: In practice, change management often manages up by crafting talking points, scheduling appearances, and scripting “visibility.” That can mask passive sponsorship.
- Better Framing: Sponsorship is relationship capital, not calendar presence. Experienced practitioners now coach sponsors to demonstrate alignment through decisions, not just messaging.
Change Practitioner Misconception #5: “Readiness does not equal willingness”
- Why it’s wrong: Readiness surveys often conflate sentiment (“I’m ready”) with capability (“I can”).
- Impact: Overestimating readiness leads to under-investing in skill enablement and workflow design.
- Refined view: Readiness = capacity + capability + commitment, measured separately and dynamically.
Change Practitioner Misconception #6: “Training = Knowledge Transfer”
- Reality: Most training delivers awareness, not ability. Many change management timelines end at “training complete” assuming competence will emerge.
- What we know now: Sustained ability requires reinforcement in context: practice, coaching, peer modeling, and system cues, executed over several months.
- Shift: From “rollout plan” to “learning journey.”
Change Practitioner Misconception #7: “Change saturation is inevitable; we just have to manage it.”
- Why it’s flawed: Saturation is often a portfolio management issue, not an employee resilience issue.
- Trend: Mature organizations use change-load analytics to prioritize and stagger initiatives rather than asking people to “absorb more.”
- Lesson: Practitioners must influence enterprise sequencing, not only local messaging.
Change Practitioners Misconception #8: “Metrics come last”
- Why it’s harmful: Many change management plans add metrics after go-live (“We’ll measure adoption later”).
- Evolving Best Practice: Define behavior-based KPIs during planning (e.g. login frequency, process adherence, coaching check-ins, etc.) and track leading indicators before outcomes appear.
Change Practitioner Misconception #9: “Psychological safety belongs to HR, not OCM”
- Reality: The moment Change Management asks people to change behavior, psychological safety becomes its jurisdiction.
- Insight: Studies (HBR 2024) link change success to “voice climate” (employees’ belief they can express doubt without repercussion).
Change Practitioner Misconception #10: “Our job ends at stabilization”
- Why it’s shortsighted: Many OCM teams disband post-implementation, leaving no mechanism to reinforce or evolve.
- Emerging practice: “Sustainment squads” or “change enablement offices” that monitor adoption trends, celebrate wins, and continuously refine processes.
The Meta-Myth: “Change Management is Neutral”
Even seasoned practitioners underestimate how their own presence, language, and identity shape the system. Early intervention communicates values: who is heard, who is protected, whose pace matters.
The future of the field is less about managing people through change and more about designing conditions where change becomes learnable.
Final Thought
Change management was never meant to be a fixed methodology. It’s a learning practice, one that must evolve as fast as the systems it serves.
The more we question our own defaults, the better we become at helping others do the same.
