Most established change management frameworks (Kotter's eight steps, Lewin's three-stage model, ADKAR) were developed with a reasonably linear, predictable change in mind. Genuinely complex organizational landscapes strain these frameworks' underlying assumptions in ways worth being explicit about.
Where the standard frameworks assume more than complexity allows
Classic frameworks generally assume a definable end state can be specified upfront, a reasonably clear causal path can be planned, and the organization will respond in a broadly aligned way to a well-executed program. In genuinely complex conditions, none of these assumptions holds reliably.
What managing change in genuine complexity requires instead
Sense-making before solution-designing. Structured processes to understand the current situation more deeply before committing to a specific destination, rather than assuming the initial framing was already correct.
Safe-to-fail experiments rather than large, committed initiatives. Multiple small, deliberately safe-to-fail experiments in parallel let the organization learn what works before committing significant resources to any single approach.
Genuine tolerance for divergent, parallel approaches, resisting the instinct to standardize prematurely before it's clear what fits each context.
Continuous sensing and adjustment, not a fixed plan followed to completion.
The honest implication
None of this means abandoning structure altogether. It means recognizing that genuine complexity requires more emergent, adaptive change approaches than classic linear frameworks were designed to provide, and building organizational capability for continuous sensing and adaptation, rather than simply executing a fixed plan more diligently when the plan's core assumption was the actual problem.