2026 NATIONAL RESEARCH STUDY · 1,000 U.S. WORKERS
Census-weighted sample · +/-3.1% margin of error · 95% confidence level
Rethinking Change
Management
Organizations have been solving the wrong problem. We asked 1,000 workers what actually works.
For decades, roughly 70% of organizational transformations have failed. Not for lack of investment. Organizations have been designing change for organizational convenience, not for the humans doing thechanging. This study asked 1,000 American workers what is actually going on.
Michael J. López brings a perspective no outside researcher can:
A decade inside the organizations this study examines. On both sides of the table.
Five Themes Dominate the Research
The study uncovered five themes that uncover why we have been unable to improve the success rate of organizational transformation. These themes represent important systemic patterns in the world of organizational change that, if addressed, could dramatically improve the experience of employees and the performance of organizations. While these themes are complex, and interconnected, they also present organizations with the recipes for success.
Five numbers from the data:
A note from Michael J. López
Every time I look at this data, I come back to the same uncomfortable realization: I spent years delivering the exact strategies that workers say are ineffective. I was the Big Four managing director writing the emails, running the training sessions, and building the structured rollout plans. I believed in the methodology. And I watched it fail. Not occasionally. Consistently.
The problem, however, was never effort. The consultants I worked with were talented and committed. The organizations I served genuinely wanted their transformations to succeed. The problem was a lack in understanding, and application, of what creates real change in real people. We were treating change like an information problem when the science has always been clear that change is a behavior problem. You cannot email someone into a new habit. You cannot train them into one in a two-hour session. The brain does not work that way.
The workers in this study are not cynical about change. They are cynical about the way organizations have been doing it. And they have given us the recipe for what actually works. The ingredients are not complicated. They are just harder to put in a slide deck and harder to sell to an approval committee. My goal is that this data starts a different conversation. One grounded in how people actually change, not how organizations prefer to manage it.
Zero overlap. Not a gap. Zero.
The most striking finding in the study
“Leaders often treat change as a technical project with a timeline, rather than a human experience.”
When we asked workers what resources organizations provide during change and what resources they actually need, we expected to find a gap. Everyone expected a gap. What we did not expect was a complete absence of any overlap at all. The top five resources organizations provide: emails, documents, meetings, training, and structured plans. The top five resources workers need: time to practice, regular feedback, leadership modeling, permission to fail, and a coach. Not one item in common.
Organizations are not making bad decisions with good information. They are making predictable decisions based on what is easiest to measure and deliver at scale. Emails are easy to send and track. Training completion rates are easy to report. What workers need is harder to build and harder to quantify. But the data is unambiguous about which approach actually produces behavior change.
Every failed change leaves
a trust deficit behind.
59% of workers have lost trust in leadership because of how a change was handled
“Honestly, it feels like no one expects change to work anymore.”
The failure of organizational change initiatives is typically measured in ROI, adoption rates, and project timelines. This study suggests those metrics are missing the most consequential cost. When change is handled poorly, the damage extends well beyond the initiative itself. Fifty-nine percent of workers have lost trust in their company leadership because of how a change was handled. That trust does not automatically return when the next initiative launches. It compounds.
The minimization cycle this study documents helps explain why. Leaders pitch changes as simple to get approval. Projects launch under-resourced. They fall short. Workers who were told it would be easy are left wondering if they were misled or if they themselves failed. Cynicism builds. The next initiative requires even more minimization to overcome existing skepticism. Each cycle makes the next change harder to execute and harder to believe in.
Get these findings and much more
The complete research report goes deeper on every one of these numbers. Inside, you will find a full description of all five themes, a question-by-question analysis of what 1,000 workers said, and ten recommendations every business leader needs to know. The recommendations are grounded in the neuroscience of how adults actually change behavior. Not frameworks. Not theory. Science.
What is inside the full report:
Five theme deep-dives with demographic breakdowns and worker voices
Ten question-by-question analyses with generational and role-based comparisons
Ten strategic recommendations for CEOs and senior leaders
The neuroscience behind each recommendation and why it works
Verbatim responses from 1,000 workers on why change keeps failing
Start with the Study Preview
Not ready for the full report? The Executive Briefing gives you the five key findings and what they mean for your organization. No frameworks. No upsell. Just the data and the implications.
The complete mismatch between what organizations provide and what workers need
Why Gen X leadership is designing change for 30% of the workforce
The minimization cycle that keeps failure rates at 70%
What workers say actually works. And why it is not in your current playbook.
Three questions every CEO should be asking right now
Why this study guide exists. And what surprised us most.
Michael J. Lopez spent a decade delivering traditional change management. The results were consistently disappointing. This study asked 1,000 American workers to explain why. What came back was not a theory. It was a verdict.
“The problem is not the practitioners. It is the premise. Organizations have been treating change in a fashion that does not align with what we know about the science of how real people actually change.”
Media and podcast requests
Michael J. Lopez is available for podcast interviews, keynote speaking, and media commentary on organizational change, workforce research, and the neuroscience of behavior change.