Critical analysis of organisational change impact on people and the role of change agents, by Jenny Cameron, Business Analyst

1.0 Theoretical Foundations of Organisational Change

Organisational change includes intentional modifications to processes, cultures, or structures in order to improve competitiveness and viability. Researchers differentiate between transformational changes (big shifts like business model overhauls) and adaptive changes (smaller adjustments like workflow optimisations).

Change initiatives have an inherent complexity, with human factors serving as the primary derailers, as evidenced by high failure rates. While Prosci’s (2025), ADKAR framework (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) systematises individual transitions), Kotter’s (1996) change model places more emphasis on providing urgency and enabling widespread action. Jick’s (1990) study compares how employees react to change to grief cycles, where they go through phases of denial, rage, and eventual acceptance, all of which call for compassionate leadership.

2.0 The Human Impact of Change:

Reactions and Organisational Consequences

2.1). Spectrum of Employee Reactions:

Regarding the cognitive reactions that are the main derailers, cynicism is exacerbated by misrepresentations of change goals, particularly in unidirectional communication. According to observations made by Shore’s (2021), 73% of workers report moderate-to-high levels of stress as a result of poor communication, which lowers performance by 5%.
Regarding the emotional responses; anxiety is triggered by fear of losing one’s job or abilities becoming obsolete. Empathetic leadership is required because employees going through mergers report identity loss similar to bereavement and declining engagement.
Regarding behavioural manifestations; ‘workflow sabotage’ is an example of active resistance, while ‘disengagement’ is an example of passive resistance. According to McKinsey & Company (2025), in order to prevent disruptions caused by change, line managers frequently hoard talent, which affects outcomes that depend on quantifiable results and structural integration strategies that can be proven.

2.2). Impact On Change Processes and Organisations:

Additional elements that shows how reactions directly influence outcomes resulting to primary derailers include the following:

Productivity loss is directly impacted by reactions; conflicted workers focus their energies on protecting themselves. When transitions are poorly managed, productivity can drop by 5% to 10%, according to Harvard researchers Shore’s (2021).
Cultural erosion where cynicism spreads when changes don’t align with cultural norms (“how we do things here”). Whereby a company’s transformation came to a standstill because its staff thought the initiatives were disjointed “hamsters running on wheels”.
Attrition risks when change creates long-term uncertainty, talented employees leave, increasing the risk of attrition. Prosci (2025) identifies a 20% increase in turnover during digital transformations as a result of insufficient support. In this instance applying the ADKAR framework systemises individual transitions.

3.0 Change Agents: Roles, Perceptions, and Strategic Value

3.1 Defining The Change Agent Role:

By bringing people, procedures, and strategy into alignment, change agents act as catalysts to ease transitions. Their ability to bridge the gap between leadership and employee sets them apart from change managers (who concentrate on the practical aspects of implementing the change), and leaders (who express their vision). Therefore, it’s critical to comprehend the best way to connect employee experience with effective agents.

Prosci (2025) categorises them as follows:

Those who addresses morale via training and empathy such as HR specialists, and helps individual transitions, these are the ‘People-Centric Agents’.
Those who redesign workflows and systems such as consultants and agents specialises in operations, these are the ‘Structure-Centric Agents’.
Those who optimise cross-functional collaboration, connect the dots via simplifying complex problems and translates those visions into actionable plans, such as business analysts, business consultants and specialist agents, these are the ‘Process-Centric Agents’.

3.2 Perception and Challenges:

The difficulties these change agents encounter and the accusations they may be subjected to, such as when agents boost the organisation’s reputation but are called a “traitor” if they advocate for changes that are unpopular. A skewed view of change agents and their actual goals may result from the mistrust that agents are “costly outsiders” despite their objectivity.

Agents are blamed for disruptions during crises, particularly when short-term losses occur and transformation stalls because employees believe that initiators are not connected. This is especially true when implementing change with quantifiable results and structural integration approach plans. “Work harder, earn the same, miss targets” is a common observation made by McKinsey & Company (2025) regarding agents who are given impossible loads.

It would appear that an agent can succeed by combining emotional intelligence to handle office politics with resilience to endure criticism and unclear directives from upper management that lack specific goals and performance improvement targets. However, its popular to assume that office politics aren’t something you can sit out, harsh leadership aren’t something you should endure for your mental health, and unclear job responsibilities which can significantly impact high-performing employees engagement and performance aren’t something you tolerate, agree on or get lesser compensation package over.

3.3 The Strategic Case For Change Agents:

Their effectiveness is supported by empirical data, Prosci (2025) research shows that organisations deploying formal change agent networks report 9% higher success rates and accomplish goals 50% of the time, compared to 40% without them.

According to Kotter’s (1996) explanation of change resistors, by personalising their advocacy, they reduce resistance and, through specialised communication, turn 30% of early opponents into supporters.

It appears that it is best not to make assumptions on the credibility of change agents at face value alone, get to know them through an introduction meeting prior to working together would be one approach.

In 2001 Nike’s $500 million ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) information system failure serves as an example of the dangers of ignoring change management; operations were severely hampered by low user adoption, the article by CIO.com (2004) supports this review.

4.0 Implementing Effective Change Agency:
Principles and Practices

4.1 Designing The Change Agent Program:

Recruitment: give priority to influential insiders who are operationally credible in their proven track record. Include outside experts to gain fresh perspectives, but minimise rations to preserve credibility, McKinsey & Company (2016) report also supports this recommendation.

Skills development: combine project management, technical, and interpersonal (negotiation) skills. In order to elucidate individual contributions, Prosci (2020), emphasises “I, By” statements: “I, (role), enable adoption by (action).”

Structural integrations: protect agents from the line manager pressures by assigning them to transformation leads. Colocate agents to enable peer support, according to McKinsey & Company (2020).

4.2 Sustaining Impact and Measuring Success:

Agent retention: provide more than bonuses, provide accelerated career pathways. One energy company established “learning ladders” to senior roles in response to the demand for growth from high-potential agents. GOV.UK (2021) shows the use of ‘Learning Ladders’ for adult training and progression within the Civil Service.

Performance metrics: for reversing a failed change, monitor adoption rates in addition to project completion dates. By linking agent rewards to employee feedback scores, as suggested by The Investment Association (2023).

Cultural embedding: transition to capability building instead of episodic interventions. Researchers from Harvard researchers and Cambridge university (2021) advocates “continuous improvement structures” in which line leaders are coached by agents.

Conclusion: Change Agents as Human Architects

Unavoidably, human reactions to change determine the results of an organisation. When left unchecked, resistance and fear undermine strategic goals; however, organised change management turns uncertainty into opportunity. There is evidence that agents, whether external guides or internal champions, lower the risk of failure by making transitions more relatable. The three main pillars of their perceived legitimacy are systemic integration (aligning culture and processes), personalised support (addressing emotional needs), and authentic leadership (modelling change). Businesses that invest in competent agents no only increase project success but also foster adaptive resilience, transforming recipients into change co-architects. Jick’s study comes to the conclusion that people “connect personal purpose to organisational aspirations” -a goal that can only be accomplished by a dedicated change agency- when they experience sustainable change.

Critical analysis by Jenny Cameron, Business Analyst Practitioner, MBA.

References:

Beer, S. (1995), Diagnosing The System For Organisations. 1st edition. New Jersey: Wiley.

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2011), Strategy and human resource management. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cambridge University (2021), Theories of Lean Production. Cambridge University Press. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org [Accessed online: 22nd June, 2025].

CIO.com (2004), Nike rebounds: How Nike recovered from its supply chain disaster -CIO. Available from: https://www.cio.com [Accessed online: 22nd June, 2025].

Clegg, S., Kornberger, M, and Pitsis, T. (2004), Managing and Organisations: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

Dawson, P., and Constantine, A. (2017), Managing Change, Creativity & Innovation. 3rd edition. London: Sage Publications.

Farnham, D. (2015), Human Resource Management in Context: Insights, Strategy and Solutions. 4th edition. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

GOV.UK (2021), Navigating the labyrinth: Socio-economic background and career progression within the Civil Service. Available from: www.gov.uk [Accessed online: 22nd June, 2025].

Goold, M., Campbell, A., and Alexander, M. (1994), Corporate-Level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company. John-Wiley & Sons.

Grosman, M., Helpman, E. and Redding, S. (2024), When Tariffs Disrupt Global Supply Chains. American Economic Review.

Jick, T.D. (1990), Note on the Recipients of Change. Harvard Business School.

Jones, T. (2001), Artificial intelligence: a systems approach. Hingham, MA: Infinity Science.

Kotter, J.P (1996), Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.

Lynch, R. (2012), Strategic Management. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson.

Marchington, M., Marchington, L. and Wilkinson, A. (2012), Human resource management at work: people management and development. 4th ed. London: CIPD.

McKinsey & Company (2016), Operations as a competitive advantage in a disruptive environment. Operations Practice. Available from: www.mckinsey.com [Accessed online: 22nd June, 2025].

McKinsey & Company (2020), The Next Normal: The recovery will be digital. Operations Practice. Available from: www.mckinsey.com [Accessed online: 22nd June, 2025].

McKinsey & Company (2025), The Change Agent Challenge. Operations Practice.

Prosci. (2020), Core Roles in Change Management. Prosci Research. https://www.prosci.com [Accessed online: 22nd June, 2025].

Prosci. (2025), Change Agent Networks: Driving Transformation. Prosci Research. Available from: https://www.prosci.com [Accessed online: 22nd June, 2025].

Porter, M. (2004), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.

Shore, D.A. (2021), Leading Change. Harvard Professional Development.

The Investment Association. (2023), Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Data Survey 2023. Available from: https://www.theia.com [Accessed online: 22nd June, 2025].

Thomason, G. (1991), The management of personnel, Personnel Review. Vol 20, No 2. pp3-10.

Torrington, D., Hall, L. and Taylor, S. (2008), Human resource management. 7th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Ulrich, D. (1997), Human resource champions: the next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.