Two people experience the same change. Only one starts doing things differently.
An organization implements a new system.
Employees go through the same training.
They receive identical materials.
They have access to the same tools.
Yet, a few months later, one person uses the new solution without much difficulty, while the other reverts to their old habits.
It’s a situation many organizations encounter.
Very often, the initial conclusion is that the problem lies in a lack of engagement or resistance to change.
The reality, however, is often much more complex.
People don’t adopt a change just because the organization made a decision. They adopt it when they go through the change process themselves.
The organization might finish the project. The individual might still be at its beginning.
In transformational projects, we often focus on the schedule, budget, and the go-live date of the solution.
This is natural.
After all, these are the easiest elements to measure.
It is much harder to answer the question of what stage of change the people who will use it every day are currently at.
Do they understand why the change was introduced?
Do they see the point of implementing it?
Do they know how to work in the new way?
Or perhaps they just lack the confidence that they will manage in the new environment?
These are exactly the questions the ADKAR model answers.
Organizational change is made up of many individual changes
It’s easy to talk about change as a single project.
It is much harder to recognize that, from the organization’s perspective, it is a collection of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of individual experiences.
Every employee goes through change at their own pace.
Each person possesses different knowledge.
Has different experiences.
Assesses risk differently.
That is why two people participating in the same project can be at completely different stages of readiness for change.
ADKAR helps to notice this difference.
Five elements that lead to lasting change
The ADKAR model assumes that lasting behavioral change does not happen all at once.
It emerges as the result of five sequential elements.
- Awareness – understanding why the change is needed.
- Desire – the willingness to engage in and support the change.
- Knowledge – knowing how to function in the new reality.
- Ability – the capability to apply this knowledge in practice.
- Reinforcement – actions that help sustain the new behaviors.
Although the model is presented as a sequence, in practice, it is worth remembering that skipping one of the stages very often makes it difficult to achieve the subsequent ones.
An employee might know how to use the new system.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they will want to use it.
Training doesn’t solve every problem
Imagine a person sitting behind the wheel of a car for the first time.
The instructor carefully explains the rules.
Shows all the functions.
Answers questions.
Does this mean that after completing the training, the driver will confidently navigate the city streets?
Not necessarily.
Knowledge is necessary.
However, it does not replace practice or self-confidence.
It is very similar when implementing organizational changes.
Training answers the question of how.
It does not always answer the question of why, nor does it automatically turn new behaviors into daily habits.
ADKAR helps find the real cause of the problem
In our work, we often encounter situations where an organization notices that a change isn’t bringing the expected results.
The natural reflex is to prepare more training materials.
This isn’t always the right answer.
If employees don’t understand the purpose of the change, additional training won’t increase their motivation.
If they want to get involved but lack practical skills, communication alone won’t solve the problem either.
ADKAR allows us to pause for a moment and answer the question of what is genuinely missing for the change to happen.
The model does not replace the change management process
One of the most common misconceptions is treating ADKAR as a complete methodology for leading transformational projects.
That is not its role.
The model doesn’t replace project planning, stakeholder management, or communication.
Instead, it helps look at change from a human perspective.
This makes it easier to understand why two people participating in the same project might need entirely different support.
If you are interested in a broader perspective on the change process, also read the article about Designing change without people.
ADKAR is a tool. Not an end in itself.
At CrimsonLab, we use models like ADKAR not because they are popular.
Their value lies in helping us view change from the right perspective.
Instead of asking why the project is delayed, it’s easier to ask what stage of the process people are at and what they need to take the next step.
This often leads to entirely different decisions than just another training session or an additional communication campaign.
The model then becomes not a checklist to tick off, but a tool supporting the analysis of the root causes of problems.
Before you ask why the change isn’t working…
It’s worth asking yourself a different question.
At which stage of the process did people get stuck?
Perhaps the problem isn’t a lack of competence.
Perhaps it isn’t resistance, either.
Sometimes an organization tries to develop skills, while the employees still don’t understand why the change is needed in the first place.
ADKAR doesn’t provide ready-made answers to all the challenges associated with transformation.
However, it does help in asking the right questions.
And that is exactly where effective change management usually begins.