Content uploaded by Steven H. Cady
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steven H. Cady on Apr 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
By Steven H. Cady,
Robert “Jake” Jacobs,
Ron Koller, and
John Spalding
“Myths, lore, and legends are unique concepts that are told through story—some stories are true;
others are fictional (Morgan, 2010). One thing they each share in common is usefulness. They each
are helpful to us humans in solving problems, creating opportunities, and generally living a better life.
Each is helpful in different ways. So, which of these best represent the story of the Change Formula?”
The Change Formula
Myth, Legend, or Lore?
Introduction
There is an interesting yet little known
story about a model in the field of Orga-
nization Development. Referred to as the
Change Formula, it is one of the most
practical, widely recognized tool developed
in the last 50 years. The formula describes
the conditions, that when met, will move
an individual, group, or whole system in
a direction of their choosing. What is the
formula? We share several iterations of it
a bit later in this article. First we take you
through a review of how history shapes
various models, theories, methods, tools,
and approaches. Then, we provide an
account of the history that shaped the for-
mula. From there, we define and describe
the formula with examples of how it can
help you as an OD practitioner.
Myths, lore, and legends are unique
concepts that are told through story—
some stories are true; others are fictional
(Morgan, 2010). One thing they each share
in common is usefulness. They each are
helpful to us humans in solving problems,
creating opportunities, and generally living
a better life. Each is helpful in different
ways. So, which of these best represent the
story of the Change Formula?
The formula is not a myth, as myths
tell sacred stories about origins and pow-
ers beyond our human control. It is not
folklore, as lore tells a fictional story where
the plot is timeless and contains elements
of fantasy. The Change Formula is more
of a legend. Legends are historical, telling
a story from our past that is comprised of
actual events of heroic proportions. Some
might argue, that’s a bit grandiose; it’s just
a formula.
We propose that it is much more than
that; particularly, when we tracked down
and pieced together the events and people
involved in its creation. In researching
the model and looking at its relevance, we
found differences in the stories of how the
formula was originally created, who was
involved, iterations in its development,
variations in the number of the equa-
tion’s elements, and differences in mean-
ing. While some of this formula’s history
and description was documented, much
appears to have been passed on in meet-
ings, conversations, and through blogs and
websites. Through all of our searching, we
could find not one source that provided a
complete story of the formula’s creation
and evolution.
Three Generations
Our field is changing quickly. Thought
leaders and founders are retiring and
some are passing away. They served our
world through some of the most daunting
challenges of the 20th Century. Today, new
fields and professions, like old wine with
a new label are appearing (e.g., Change
Management). It is incumbent upon us to
encourage these new fields to connect with
the history of Organization Development,
in order to help our world build collec-
tive intelligence. In short, reinventing the
methodological wheel appears to be upon
us as we approach a renaissance in Orga-
nization Development. Our intention in
sharing the story of the Change Formula is
32 OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 46 No. 3 2014
09/06/16
HiSteve,
IjustranacrossyourcoauthoredarticleabouttheformulaintheODPractitioner.Thankyoufor
writingthearticle.Ihaveusedthechangeformulaasaconceptualtool,since1971whenIfirst
learnedaboutfromAlanBurns,whothenworkedformeatCorninginmyOrganizationalresearch
andDevelopmentdepartment.IlateruseditinmybookOrganizationChangeandDevelopment:A
SystemsView(1980).WhenIbecameafacultymemberatHarvardBusinessSchoolin1975,I
wroteateachingnotetitled"LeadingChange”usingtheformulawiththeideathatleadingchange
requiredmanagerstocreatethethreeconditionsinwhichtheformulaneededtocompensatefor
lossespeoplefeelwhentheyanticipatechange.
MychangeformulaisChange=DxMxP>Cost,whereDisdissatisfactionwiththestatusquoas
wellasdesirewhichIaddedovertheyears,Mwhichstandsfortheremodelofthefuturestate,and
Pequalstheprocessofchange.WhenIlectureonleadingchangemyslideshaveseveral
subbulletsundereachelementintheformulathatelaborateeachelement.Ispendagooddealof
timeonthetypesoflossesthatleadtoresistance(power,influence,esteem,status,relationships,
control,security,andidentitytonameafewimportantones).Ihavenotincorporatedtheseintothe
HBSnoteofLeadingChange.IusedMtoindicatethatsuccessfulchangerequiresafairlydetailed
ideaofhowthefuturestateoforganizing,managingandleadingtheenterprise.Thisisbasedonmy
experiencethattheleadershipteamneedstodevelopsuchamodelofthefuturestatebasedona
diagnosis.
IamcurrentlyusingthechangeformulatoframeacaseofchangethatemployedtheStrategic
FitnessProcess(HBR2004)forthebookIamwritingwiththeworkingtitle“FittoCompete.”The
bookwillbeaboutwhatwehavelearnedfrom25yearsofhelpingseniormanagersenablehonest,
collectiveandpublicconversationsaboutthefitoftheirsystemoforganizing,managingandleading
withtheirespousestrategyandvalues.YoumaybefamiliaralreadywithmybookHighCommitment,
HighPerformance:HowtoDevelopaResilientOrganizationforSustainedAdvantage,Wiley,2009.
AfteryearsofusingtheformulaintheoriginalformGleicherdeveloped(C=ABD>X)andthen
changingitasdescribedabove,IlearnedfromanarticlebyAllanCohen,thenatBabson,thatithad
beendevelopedbyGleicher.So,Iappreciateyourtellingofthehistory.Hopeourpathscross
sometimes.
Best,
Mike
MichaelBeer
ProfessorEmeritus,HarvardBusinessSchool
CoFounder&Chairman,CenterforHigherAmbitionLeadership
CofounderandDirector,TruePoint
12/07/16
HiSteve,
Ihopethisfindsyouwell!Iamhummingalongonmybook,withthemanuscriptingoodshapetobe
fullydraftedbytheendoftheyear.OrveryearlyJanuaryatthelatest:)
IwasresearchingthechangeformulaforasegmentI'mworkingonnow,andwasdelightedtofind
thearticleyoucowrotewithJohnSpalding,RobertJacobs,andRonKoller.Weusethechange
formula(aversionofit...)inourworkshops,andIhadnoideaitwasanODlegend!Ienjoyedthe
articleandamhappytoknowmoreabouttheformula'soriginsnow.Iwasn'tawareoftheSvariable,
butsustainabilityandroadmapsarecertainlypartofourM.O.here,andIagreeit'sagoodfitinthe
formula.
Bewellandhaveawonderfulholidayseason,
Rachel
RACHELS.SMITH
TheGroveConsultantsInternational
to take a positivist approach while building
on the shoulders of those who came before
us; honoring their work and intellectual
contribution in a way that offers continuity
for our field as it moves through the 21st
Century. The formula has evolved through
three generations of development.
A Formula is Born: Understanding Change
It was in the early 1960s when Raymond
M. Hainer, a chemist who had worked on
the Manhattan Project (Behrendt, 1955),
was the head of Research and Develop-
ment at Arthur D. Little (ADL). Not only
did Hainer want to unlock the mysteries
of the physical sciences, but also of the
social sciences, namely organizational
behavior. He directed David Gleicher
(pronounced g-like-her), Barry Stein, and
a few other scientists to take up the chal-
lenge. Hainer hired Sherman Kingsbury
to be the group’s leader (B. Stein, personal
communication, 2014).
Created on a Chalk Board
As a Boston based group, the scientists
from ADL, sought out the best organiza-
tional minds they could, most of which
lived and worked in fairly close proxim-
ity. The exception was OD legend Herb
Shepard from Case Western Reserve,
where he created the first PhD program
in OD. In fact, ADL hired the program’s
first four graduates in the 1960s, which
illustrates ADL’s emphasis on the OD
scholar practitioner perspective. Shepard
was the intellectual godfather of the ADL
group, working as a consultant. ADL also
hired a few local organizational professors
as consultants. The short list of consultants
included Warren Bennis, Dick Beckhard,
and Ed Schein from MIT, Ken Benne from
Boston University, and Chris Argyris from
Yale. This founding group worked on what
became known as Organizational Behavior
at ADL (B. Stein, personal communication,
2014).
One day, as the group was meeting,
David Gleicher walked up to the black-
board to share his observations about the
behavioral problem-solving work they were
doing in organizations. He then wrote
C=(ABD)>X on the blackboard. To Glei-
cher, it was nothing special, just a com-
mon sense way of thinking about the work
that the group was doing. To the group,
however, the formula became the go-to
framework, especially for difficult prob-
lems that required an incredible amount
of energy to resolve (B. Stein, personal
communication, 2014).
The Change Formula’s First Publication
The earliest known publication of the
model was in the Sloan Management
Review (Beckhard, 1975). The original
publication (Beckhard) included an attri-
bution to David Gleicher by stating, “in
determining readiness for change, there is
a formula developed by David Gleicher of
Arthur D. Little that is helpful” (p. 45). In
this publication, the equation went from
being called an equation to a formula and
was printed as:
C = (ABD) > X, where
C = Change,
A = Level of dissatisfaction with the
status quo,
B = Clear or understood desired state,
D = Practical first steps toward a
desired state, and
X = “Cost” of changing
The next time the formula was published
was by Beckhard and Harris (1977) with
attribution to Gleicher on pages 25-27. It
was a copy of Beckhard’s (1975) previous
publication. A decade later, confusion arose
after the publication of the second edi-
tion of Organization Transitions because
Beckhard and Harris (1987) presented the
Change Formula with no attribution to or
mention of Gleicher. “A useful formula for
thinking about the resistance process” (p.
98) appeared with slight revisions to B and
D; where B = Desirability of the proposed
change or end state, and D = Practicality of
the change (minimal risk and disruption).
Second Generation: Large-Group Events
In the 1980s, change was viewed as a mys-
terious, theoretical, and complex subject.
Kathie Dannemiller’s original intent in
creating the second generation of the for-
mula was to demystify change and provide
a guide for individuals, groups, and whole
organizations in creating their preferred
futures. She wanted something simple
enough to speak to the average employee.
This is the thinking that inspired and drove
Dannemiller to create the second genera-
tion of the formula (J. Jacobs, personal
communication, 2014).
A Culture of Collaborative Experimentation
Kathie Dannemiller of Dannemiller Tyson
Associates (DTA) was studying and work-
ing at the University of Michigan under
Ron Lippitt, who began his early work
with Kurt Lewin examining patterns of
leadership styles on aggressive behavior in
social climates, e.g., autocratic, democratic,
and laissez-faire (Lewin, Lippitt, & White,
1939). Dannemiller was one of the first
members of the National Training Labora-
tories (NTL); and, it was through the NTL
experimentation and collaborative culture
that several core organizational behavior
theories and models were born. She was a
pioneer in using these theories and models
to facilitate rapid change employing large
group meetings.
During that time, Dannemiller was
introduced to the first generation formula
by reading the Beckhard and Harris (1977)
book Organizational Transitions. As the
1980s unfolded, she began experimenting
with the formula and its application as a
foundation for large group methods at Ford
Motor Company with Nancy Badore (Hel-
gesen, 1990). The second edition of the
Beckhard and Harris (1987) book provided
the formula, without a mention of Glei-
cher. Later, Dannemiller began attributing
the Change Formula to both Beckhard and
Gleicher when Beckhard told her Gleicher
was a student of his and had created it with
him while they were working together (R.
Koller, personal communication, 2014).
Making the Formula Accessible
With a passion for usability and common
sense, Dannemiller considered the formula
from Beckhard’s book helpful, but not
accessible enough for the general public.
33The Change Formula: Myth, Legend, or Lore?
She thought Gleicher’s formula was bril-
liant, but looked and sounded too theoreti-
cal. She wanted people to feel smart rather
than not enough or inadequate. Her experi-
ence that people could not easily relate to
Gleicher’s formula drove her to revise it.
Dannemiller set out to preserve and honor
the integrity of Gleicher’s formula while
making it more usable and, therefore,
more accessible to the world (J. Jacobs,
personal communication, 2014).
Dannemiller distilled the essence of
the formula in a descriptive, rather than
prescriptive fashion. She had an egalitar-
ian spirit and wanted this knowledge to
be just as useful to everyone, from those
working on the front-lines as it could be to
the CEO and top leadership team (J. Jacobs,
personal communication, 2014). Dannemi-
ller and Jacobs (1992) first published the
more common version of the formula
in 1992. Paula Griffin (Wheatley et al.,
2003) described the sequence of events as
Gleicher starting it, Beckhard and Harris
promoting it, and Dannemiller helping it
take off when she made it easier to remem-
ber and use.
To make the formula more accessible,
she used a mnemonic device in the revi-
sion. By mnemonic device, she changed
Gleicher’s first element, A, to a D because
D stands for dissatisfaction. As a result,
the formula garnered higher face value as
people felt validated when it was presented
to them. Dannemiller (Dannemiller Tyson
Associates, 1990) re-framed the Change
Formula as the product of dissatisfaction
with the current state of affairs (D), an
ennobling vision of what we yearn to be,
i.e., what is possible (V), and concrete first
steps to take in the short term that are nec-
essary in order to reach the vision (F). The
product of these must be greater than the
resistance to change (R) in order to bring
about real change.
D x V x F > R
To bring about a palpable paradigm shift
in a large group, she (Dannemiller Tyson
Associates, 1990) proposed that partici-
pants work on real organizational issues:
Start with building a common data-
base about:
»how we all see the past (dissatis-
faction) and why we need to
change,
»a positive picture of the future
we all prefer (vision), and
»actions we can all agree are
worthwhile in order to begin to
change (first steps) (p. 8)
The first thing to note about the first gen-
eration Change Formula is that it includes
a multiplier effect. In the second genera-
tion of the formula, Dannemiller and her
colleagues suggested that each of the three
elements needed to be shared collectively
and significantly for change to occur.
Depending on the organization and current
realities one or more of the elements of the
formula may have needed more attention.
The goal was to create a solid and shared
understanding in a critical mass of the
organization around each factor.
The multiplier effect sets the stage for
two helpful conversations when applying
the formula to understanding a situation
or designing a participative intervention.
Both rely on the multiplicative nature of
the formula. First, if any one element is
low it leads to the product of the entire
equation on the left side being low, making
it unlikely to impossible that change will
occur, since most people resist change
at least to some extent. This conversa-
tion focuses on interventions designed to
increase D, V, or F, while decreasing R.
Second, if any of the elements are
missing (i.e., zero), the resulting product
will be zero. Therefore, D x V x F = 0,
which is not greater than resistance (R).
This conversation is starker and addresses
the issue of leaving out one of the ele-
ments, all together. For example, a leader-
ship team might believe that they have
created a compelling vision (V), yet left the
strategic planning session without clear
first steps (F); hence, the CEOs finds that
vision is ineffective and the strategic plan is
collecting dust.
A Case Example: World Cafe in
South Africa
An information technology service center
located in a sparsely populated city with
few economic development opportunities
faced a daunting challenge. The center’s
most important task was to keep their main
customer’s computers up and running. If
an incident occurred that interrupted ser-
vice, the number of incident free days was
reset to zero. The number of days between
resets was alarmingly low.
As a result, the client was unsatisfied,
so unsatisfied that the contract was in jeop-
ardy of being discontinued. That meant
over 120 employees could lose their jobs.
Management decided to launch a program
titled 80 Days Around the World in which
they put up large banners, and held a braai
(i.e., a cookout) announcing a mandated
target of 80 incident free days. The pro-
gram fell flat. Employees did not under-
stand nor see the need for such a target,
and five months later, nothing improved
and attitudes worsened. The average num-
ber of incident free days was 8.94, with a
low of zero and a high of 24 days. Per-
plexed, management decided to relaunch
The first thing to note about the first generation Change
Formula is that it includes a multiplier effect. In the second
generation of the formula, Dannemiller and her colleagues
suggested that each of the three elements needed to be shared
collectively and significantly for change to occur. Depending
on the organization and current realities one or more of the
elements of the formula may have needed more attention.
The goal was to create a solid and shared understanding in a
critical mass of the organization around each factor.
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 46 No. 3 201434
the program with bigger banners, t-shirts,
fliers, and another braai.
In response, consultants to the
company offered a different approach;
one where Whole System Collaborative
Change (WSCC), also referred to as large-
group methods, would facilitate dialogue
with employees based on the Change
Formula (notice the S in Figure 1, which
will be explained in the third generation
discussion). Hesitantly, the director of the
service center along with upper manage-
ment agreed to a two hour session with
all employees, leaving a small number of
employees to manage operations (90 out of
120 participated). Facing the imminent loss
of their client, they were out of options.
As mentioned, DVF can be the main
focus for events, in which the collaborative
methods are used with an “interdependent
group of bodies forming a unified whole
interacting under the influence of related
forces” (Cady & Fleshman, 2012, p. 6). The
methods use dialogue where the entire
system is engaged in “creating itself anew,”
shifting from imposing the change to
collaboratively “crafting a transformation
of the system by the system” (p. 6). Of the
WSCC methods available, World Cafe was
chosen as the intervention for this session
(Holman, Devane, & Cady, 2007).
During the session, the employees
formed into small groups to discuss the
questions formulated around the formula.
They first discussed the D question, rotat-
ing three times to tables with different
participants. Next, they discussed the V
and then the F and S (together) in similar
fashion, for a total of nine rotations (see
Figure 1). Towards the end of the two
hours, the manager was moved by the
quality of the dialogue and solutions being
identified.
He was so inspired that he formed a
team of volunteers from the participants
in the room to prioritize and coordinate
the implementation. The organization saw
results immediately. Attitude improved
and, as shown in Figure 2, performance
exceeded the expectations (Oelofse & Cady,
2012). The higher performance continued
beyond the 81-day mark shown in the study
to more than 120 days and counting (Cady
& Oelofse, 2014).
Third Generation:
Longer-term Change Initiatives
Large-group methods were widely used in
the 1990s. By 2001, management con-
sultants found that clients became “more
price sensitive and more inclined to seek
out discounts” (Economist, 2002, para. 7).
Large group events were viewed as easy
cost cutting targets. The Change Formula
was still being utilized; yet, interestingly,
the use was more informal. Not much,
if any, peer reviewed examination nor
publication was offered. During the 2000s,
the formula underwent two more changes
that focused on WSCC, reflecting a move
toward longer-term processes influenced
by strength-based interventions.
Re-defining the D:
A Strength-Based Approach
The D in the Change Formula has also
been described as data and desire (Cady,
Hine, Spalding, & Meenach, 2011),
emphasizing the importance of connect-
ing data to dissatisfaction and a resulting
Number of days
Reset 1
Reset 2
Reset 3
Reset 4
Reset 5
Reset 6
Reset 7
Reset 8
Reset 9
Reset 10
Reset 11
Reset 12
Reset 13
Reset 14
Reset 15
Reset 16
Reset 17
Reset 18
Reset 19
Reset 20
Current
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
32
20
10
0
WORLD
CAFÉ
EVENT
Figure 2. Trend of Incident Free Days (reprinted from Oelofse & Cady, 2012, page 83)
D
V
FS
•
What will happen if we don’t have something like
the service improvement program on site?
•
How can we improve the service improvement
program to achieve exceptional results?
•
How do you feel about the service improvement
program?
Figure 1. The Change Formula Applied to Questions in World Cafe
35The Change Formula: Myth, Legend, or Lore?
desire for change. Dissatisfaction does not
necessarily mean unhappiness, as there
are plenty of people who are satisfied being
miserable. This shifts the focus toward
positive psychology and the possibility
that a desire (D) for change can be rooted
in a strength-based conversation (Pascale,
Sternin, & Sternin, 2010). As a result, a
person can be happy and desire more or
something different as a result of what
is possible.
It allows for people to look outside
the organization at events, developments,
and trends in the environment; asking
such questions as, what is happening
with competition, innovation, and best
practices, both those inside and outside
your industry? It also allows one to look at
what is working in comparison with what
is not working in the organization. What
is underlying success in some efforts and
why are others falling short? During a
large group event, a consultant unfamil-
iar with the WSCC processes said, “I’ve
never seen a system talking to itself
before” (S. Cady, personal communi -
cation, 2014).
Adding the S:
Sustaining Change Over Time
Concurrent with the tough economic
times of the 2000s, leaders were asking
the question, how do we sustain the hope,
enthusiasm, and energy after a large-group
event is over? As a result, firms utilizing
WSCC methods moved beyond punctu-
ated one-time events to using the formula
as a guide in weaving a series of events
and other interventions into longer-term
change programs, represented by change
road maps.
This focus on a road map for change
compliments the first steps (F) by ensur-
ing that they are realistic and achievable.
The intention is for people in the system
to have confidence that their actions will
put them on the right path to achieving the
collective vision. Desire (D) with no vision
(V) or first steps (F) leads to a feeling of
hopelessness and withdrawal of time and
energy the next time they are invited to do
so. Following the paradigm shift witnessed
in the punctuated events, there was a
polarity of both support and accountability.
People needed the knowledge, skills, and
abilities to fulfill commitments they made
during the event and they also wanted to be
held accountable for making good on these
agreements.
This led to conversations and debate
among practitioners and scholars utilizing
WSCC methods (Jacobs & McKeown, 1997;
Cady & Dannemiller, 2000; Cady, 2008).
Jacobs and McKeown (1997) proposed
an additional variable beyond D, V, and
F to reflect the shift in focus from events
to change initiatives. They proposed C
as Capability to change. This additional
element opened the door to including the
creation of systems, processes, structures,
personal and team development, and
other leverage points that would sustain
the changes that large group events initi-
ated. Around that time, Cady was working
closely with Dannemiller. During that time,
they would have long debates about design-
ing change road maps (S. Cady, personal
communication, 2014). Dannemiller would
argue it was not possible to design an accu-
rate road map because they always changed
(Cady & Dannemiller, 1999).
Barbara Bunker would often say, “the
best plans are meant to be deviated from”
(S. Cady, personal communication, 2007).
Inspired by her words, Cady proposed a
similar iteration of the formula in that he
saw the need for sustainability (S). One of
the issues plaguing change efforts of all
types is ensuring gains are made over time.
Cady’s depiction of the formula is:
D x V x F x S > R
“Teflon change” is all too familiar for
many members of organizations, be they
front line workers or CEOs. A common
anecdotal complaint is that solid progress
occurs for six months, even a year, before
a slippery slope leads back to business as
usual. There is a polarity, an ongoing oscil-
lation between today’s reality and tomor-
row’s possibilities. Robert Fritz (1989)
described this as the creative tension that
results in both believable and inspiring
pictures of the future.
Sustaining the work following an
event is particularly important, especially
when there are a series of events engag-
ing a widely dispersed organization. As a
result, current WSCC practice is comprised
of punctuated events scheduled a year or
more into the future, ensuring that both
accountability and support are built into
the change work as part of change initia-
tive. With the growth of project manage-
ment (e.g., the PMBOK, ADKAR) over
the past decade came increased focus on
long-term initiatives and program man-
agement. Creating sustainability can take
many forms though we propose that the
most significant contribution of adding the
S to the Change Formula is the addition
of change road maps to an organization’s
efforts. Change road maps guide decisions
and actions, anywhere from a year through
to three or more years.
A Case Example:
Road Map for Rapid Growth
An international apparel retailer needed
to rapidly expand its operations in Europe
By 2001, management consultants found that clients
became “more price sensitive and more inclined to seek out
discounts” . . . Large group events were viewed as easy cost
cutting targets. The Change Formula was still being utilized;
yet, interestingly, the use was more informal. Not much, if
any, peer reviewed examination nor publication was offered.
During the 2000s, the formula underwent two more changes
that focused on WSCC, reflecting a move toward longer-term
processes influenced by strength-based interventions.
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 46 No. 3 201436
to gain market share, enlarge its footprint,
and gain efficiencies from this increased
size. Changes required ranged from
accelerating implementation of a Grow-
Fast strategy to a redesigned structure and
expanded leadership roles throughout
the company. The long-standing feuds
between merchandising and buying had to
be replaced by a partnership-based rela-
tionship. A new FlowFast process to speed
goods from manufacturing to market was
also on the change agenda along with
the launch of a European learning center
to support ongoing development of all
employees. Taken together this list of initia-
tives was a tall order. The need to accom-
plish it rapidly only added to the degree
of difficulty.
Senior leaders and a team represent-
ing a microcosm of the organization
planned the entire Real Time Strategic
Change effort. The road map for this effort
extended over 18 months (see Figure 3). The
different streams of work are illustrated
by the different colors on the chart. The
elements of the Change Formula are on the
left side of the road map. The larger icons
mean that the corresponding stream of
work primarily addressed these elements.
The smaller icons are elements that were
also addressed by a stream of work, but
only secondarily.
The first two of four large group
meetings focused on the D in the Change
Formula. They raised awareness and
understanding of why the new GrowFast
strategy was needed, what it was, and
changes that would be required to make
it work. The third meeting combined the
work of translating the vision (V) from a
compelling picture of possibilities into
specific actions with timelines, account-
abilities, and measures of success (F).
The fourth large group gathering led to a
number of actions and initiatives aimed
at sustaining gains made during the first
three sessions (S). Participants in this
meeting learned about a FlowFast manage-
ment system that would embed better ways
of doing business into daily work routines
and practices. Ongoing planning and
implementation work in each of the main
areas of the business supplemented these
large group meetings.
Change Effort Roadmap
Purpose: To accelerate the effective implementation of the company’s European Expansion Strategy.
July
Buying Expansion Team Launch/Wo rk
Senior Leader Sponsor Work
Convene Advisory Council
Merchandising Launch Event
Merchandising Expansion Team Launch/Wo rk
Stores/Distribution/Support Launch Event
Organization-Wide Strategy Acceleration Event II
Stores/Distribution/Support Expansion Team Launch/Work
Functional Design Work
Interim Integration Event
Organization-Wide Strategy Acceleration Event III
Organization-Wide Strategy Acceleration Event IV
Functional Implementation Work
Individual Assessment and Development
Organization-Wide Strategy Acceleration Event IV
Expansion Team Work
Seniot Team Work
Advisor Council Work
Events
Functional Work
Aug Sept Oct NovDec July Aug Sept OctNov DecJan FebMarch April May June
Figure 3. The Change Effort Road Map Seen Through the Lens of the Change Formula
37The Change Formula: Myth, Legend, or Lore?
This same DVFS mantra was rep-
licated within each of these streams of
work, similar to the macro application
of the formula to the overall road map.
Successful new store openings in the UK
and Germany, and a new country opening
in Poland paved the way for the European
Operations to be rewarded with additional
funding from corporate to support the
growth strategy. They achieved growth
and implementation milestones ahead
of schedule including the journey from
identifying the need for a European learn-
ing center to its successful launch within
six months.
The Future and Concluding Remarks
So, there you have it. We intentionally
focused on the left-hand side of the equa-
tion and did not delve into resistance. The
type of resistance reflected in the change
formula does not represent every single
type. That exploration will be left for future
writing because contemporary researchers,
especially positive organizational scholars,
have identified an important part of resis-
tance most often called positive deviance
(Pascale, Sternin, & Sternin, 2010; Spre-
itzer & Sonenshein, 2003) that was outside
the scope of this article.
It is important to emphasize that for
the Change Formula, the key message is
everyone’s truth is truth. Everyone from
the CEO down to the front line employees
need to have a place within each variable
DVFS or the model will not work. For
example, if the top leaders do not acknowl-
edge bottom-up problems publicly, it is not
a true D. People tend to be in touch with
their own perceptions while understanding
little, or even caring about anyone else’s.
Leaders and other organizational
members alike have a firm grip on their
own individual assumptions, experiences,
and beliefs. To paraphrase Ackoff (1981), a
pioneer in the field of Systems Thinking,
everyone’s world view is horribly distorted
by being their own. Good work on the
Change Formula means both being curious
about what others can contribute to the col-
lective understanding of each element and
advocating for the value you add from your
own point of view.
In closing, our intent was to provide
an accurate picture of the organizational
change model known as the Change Equa-
tion, The Formula for Change, and the
Change Formula. With the help of Barry
Stein, documentation now exists to clarify
the formula’s beginnings. Next, we docu-
mented iterations and some contributions
over time. If you do not see your version of
the Change Formula, fear not. We are not
done writing; contact us, as we are eager
to learn different forms and applications
of the formula. Whether you are a scholar,
practitioner, or both, using the formula,
we encourage you to join us and continue
building on the shoulders of those who
have come before us.
References
Ackoff, R. (1981). Creating the corporate
future: Plan or be planned for. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Beckhard, R. (1975). Strategies for large
system change. Sloan Management
Review, 16(2), 43-55.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R.T. (1977). Orga-
nizational transitions: Managing complex
change (1st ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R.T. (1987).
Organizational transitions: Managing
complex change (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Behrendt, E. (1955). What really happened
at Texas City. Popular Science, 166(4),
151–154, 268, 270.
Bowling Green State University. (2008).
Change . . . or die. Record of Progress:
The Annual Report of the College of
Business Administration at Bowling
Green University. Bowling Green, OH:
Steven Cady.
Cady, S.H., & Dannemiller, K. (1999).
Whole System Transformation. Pro-
ceedings from a Conference at Benedic-
tine University, Lisle, IL.
Cady, S. H. (2011). Blended large-group,
whole system collaboration & change
events. Conference proceedings from
the 2011 Organization Development
Network Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Cady, S.H., & Fleshman, K.J. (2012). Amaz-
ing change: Stories from around the
world. OD Practitioner, 44(1), 3–9.
Cady, S.H., Hine J., Spalding J., & Meen-
ach J. (2011). Collaborative leadership:
Using large group meetings to cause
rapid change and breakthrough per-
formance. In D. Warrick & J. Mueller
(Eds.), Lessons in leadership: Learn from
real world cases (pp. 153–163). Oxford,
UK: RossiSmith Academic Publishing.
Cady, S.H., & Oelofse, E. (2014). NEXUS
for Change Webinar. The World Cafe in
South Africa.
Dannemiller Tyson Associates (1990).
Interactive strategic planning: A consul-
tant’s guide. Ann Arbor, MI: Dannemi-
ller Tyson Associates.
Dannemiller, K., & Jacobs, R.W. (1992).
Changing the way organizations
change: A revolution in common sense.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
28(4), 480–498.
Survey: How was it for you? (2002). The
Economist, 362, 5–S6.
It is important to emphasize that for the Change Formula, the
key message is everyone’s truth is truth. Everyone from the CEO
down to the front line employees need to have a place within
each variable DVFS or the model will not work. For example,
if the top leaders do not acknowledge bottom-up problems
publicly, it is not a true D. People are most often in touch with
their own perceptions while understanding little, or even
caring about anyone else’s.
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 46 No. 3 201438
Fritz, R. (1989). Path of least resistance:
Learning to become the creative force in
your own life. New York, NY: Ballantine
Books.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The Female Advantage.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Holman, P., Devane, T., & Cady, S. (Eds.).
(2007). The change handbook (2nd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Jacobs, R. W., & McKeown, F. (1997). Large
group interventions: RTSC as the key to
sustained change. Conference proceed-
ings from the 1997 Large Group Inter-
ventions Conference, Dallas, TX.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R.K.
(1939). Patterns of aggressive behav-
ior in experimentally created “social
climates.” Journal of Social Psychology,
10(2), 269–299.
Lindaman, E., & Lippitt, R. (1980). Building
the collaborative community. Washington
DC: Development Publication.
Morgan, M. (2010). Cultivation theory.
In R.L. Jackson & M.A. Hogg (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of identity (pp. 158–161).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Oelofse, E., & Cady, S.H. (2012). The World
Cafe in South Africa: A case study on
improving performance and com-
mitment. Organization Development
Journal, 30(1), 79-89.
Pascale, R. T., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M.
(2010). The power of positive deviance:
How unlikely innovators solve the world’s
toughest problems (Vol. 1). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business Press.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004).
Toward the construct definition of
positive deviance. American Behavioral
Scientist, 47(6), 828–847.
Wheatley, M. J., Tannebaum, R., Yardley,
P. Y., & Quade, K. (2003). Organization
development at work: Conversations on
the values, applications, and future of OD.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Steven H. Cady, PhD, serves on the Graduate Faculty at Bowling Green State
University. He is the Director of the Institute for Organizational Effectiveness
and served as Director of the Master of Organization Development Pro-
gram. He has also been the Chief Editor for the Organization Development
Journal and co-author of The Change Handbook. He is the founder of www.
NEXUS4change.org–building a community of communities for Whole System
Collaborative Change. He can be reached at steve@stevecady.com.
Robert “Jake” Jacobs, MSOD, is a consultant working with a broad base
of collaborators around the world. He specializes in helping people and
organizations claim the futures they deserve. Jacobs recently joined forces
with Barry Johnson and Leslie DePol to form Polarity Partnerships. He is the
President of Global Consulting Services. He is the author of Real Time Strate-
gic Change: How to Involve an Entire Organization in Fast and Far Reaching
Change, and co-author of You Don’t Have To Do It Alone. He can be reached
at jake@polaritypartnerships.com.
Ron Koller, MM, is a doctoral student at Capella University and a partner
with Fenwick Koller Associates, a firm specializing in union-management
success. He was mentored by, partnered with, and co-authored with Kathie
Danne miller. Koller’s specialty is assessing change recipient responses to
strategic organizational change. He is co-author of Whole-Scale Change:
Unleashing the Magic in Organizations. He can be reached on his blog at
www.ChangeManagementSuccess.com or at ron@changestudy.com.
John Spalding, MOD, is passionate about change and uses his experience to
help organizations innovate leading edge ideas as a practicing Organization
Development consultant. Spalding obtained his master’s degree in Organiza-
tion Development from Bowling Green State University and participated in
the Dannemiller/Loup – Whole Systems Practicum in 2003. He has experience
consulting, designing, and organizing logistics for a variety of large-scale
change initiatives. He has taught at Owens Community College and is cur-
rently the editorial coordinator for the first interactive CourseBook on the
Principles of Management (McGraw-Hill). He can be reached at spalding@
sgendeavors.com.
39The Change Formula: Myth, Legend, or Lore?
