Start Organizational Change with “Experiments”

Why Organizational Change Is “Irreversible”

The decision to “change the organization” often makes it difficult to turn back. You create new positions, assign personnel, and change evaluation systems. Once set in motion, it’s not easy to reverse course.

But is it really the content of the change itself that’s irreversible, or could the problem lie in how it’s implemented?

Recently, two topics related to organizational change have been gaining attention: the release of a new book on DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Belonging) practices, and the inclusion of Ridgelinez’s *Leading Transformation* in the UC Berkeley library. Both offer practical insights into the question of “how to change an organization.”

What these movements have in common is the idea of designing change not as “something you must see through once decided,” but as an “experiment.” This article explores the concept of a reversible organization from the perspective of “organizational change as an experiment.”

The Importance of “Provisional Placement” Learned from DEIB Practices

DEIB initiatives are often framed as an “all-in or nothing” choice for many companies. However, a full-scale implementation involving company-wide system changes from the get-go carries the risk of significant resistance and confusion.

A new book on DEIB practices, set to be released on May 27th, reportedly presents a phased approach. The key here is not aiming for perfection from the start.

For example, when creating a new position to promote diversity, instead of immediately appointing a full-time dedicated manager, first place someone in the role provisionally as a project leader. Set a period of three months and observe what actually happens during that time.

This “provisional placement” is the core of a reversible design. If you fix the role and expectations to a person, it becomes difficult to backtrack. However, if you design the role as an “experimental position,” you can revert to the original structure after the evaluation period if you determine that “this initiative is not effective.”

A Perspective That Looks at Tasks, Not People

A common failure story in DEIB is: “The person in charge worked hard, but it didn’t permeate the organization.” In such cases, many executives tend to think, “If we change the person, the problem will be solved.”

However, from the perspective of a reversible organization, the first thing to question is the task structure. Perhaps the issue wasn’t the ability of the person in charge, but the lack of a system to integrate DEIB initiatives into daily work. Maybe it wasn’t linked to the evaluation system.

Instead of attributing the problem to people, review the design of the tasks. This is the first step toward making change sustainable.

The Value of “Observation” Shown by Ridgelinez’s Practical Knowledge

Another notable piece of news is that Ridgelinez’s book, *Leading Transformation*, has been archived in the library of the University of California, Berkeley. This book is said to systematize practical knowledge on organizational change.

A trap many executives fall into during organizational change is “making the change process a black box.” Only the change leader understands the situation, leaving the front line in a state of “not knowing what’s happening.”

I infer that a key feature of Ridgelinez’s approach is making the change process “observable.” In other words, it incorporates a mechanism to quantify the progress of change and evaluate it regularly. This allows for constant verification of whether “this direction is correct.”

Decide the Evaluation Period First

The basic principle of a reversible organization is to decide in advance “how far to revert in case of failure.” In organizational change, deciding this “reversion method” is particularly important.

For example, when launching a new department, decide on the following three points in advance:

• Evaluation period: Verify effectiveness after 6 months
• Observation points: Sales, customer satisfaction, employee engagement
• Exit condition: If targets are missed for 3 consecutive months, revert to the original structure

By deciding on “exit conditions” in advance like this, you enable fact-based decision-making rather than emotional judgments. Even if the change doesn’t go well, it can be accepted as “within the initial assumptions.”

Practical Example: Organizational Change in an SME

Let me introduce a case of an SME (30 employees) that I supported. In this company, the sales and development departments had poor collaboration, causing delays in launching new products.

The executive thought, “Let’s create a cross-functional team.” However, I suggested, “First, why not try a weekly joint meeting for three months as an experiment?”

What was the result? Starting the joint meetings made each other’s work content and challenges visible. However, after three months, they concluded that “meetings alone are insufficient.” So, as the next step, they decided to try project-based team formation.

The key in this case is that they didn’t make a major organizational change from the start. They repeated small experiments, observed the results, and gradually adjusted the direction of change. If they had formally launched a cross-functional team from the beginning, they might have ended up in an irreversible situation.

Prioritize Observation Over Fixation

What we can learn from this case is the importance of “prioritizing observation over fixation” in organizational change.

Many executives, driven by the anxiety of “we must change quickly,” immediately fix systems and structures. However, change implemented without understanding the actual situation becomes irreversible.

First, observe the actual situation through small experiments. Based on that data, decide the next move. By cycling through this process, you can minimize the risks of change.

Three Rules for Reversible Organizational Change

Finally, here are three rules for practicing reversible organizational change.

1. Provisionally place roles before fixing them to people: When creating a new position, start on a project basis first. Set an evaluation period and observe the actual situation during that time.
2. Decide exit conditions in advance: Before starting the change, clarify “under what circumstances will we revert?” This eliminates emotional decision-making.
3. Design observation points: Decide in advance the metrics to measure the effectiveness of the change. Separate what can be quantified from what requires qualitative evaluation.

By following these rules, organizational change becomes a “reversible experiment.” Even if you fail, you can return to the original state. And you can learn from that failure and apply it to the next experiment.

Summary: Change is an “Experiment,” Not a “Decision”

What the new DEIB book and Ridgelinez’s book show is the idea of designing organizational change not as “something you must see through once decided,” but as an “experiment.”

The only way to increase the probability of success in change is to design it assuming failure. If you create a mechanism that allows you to revert even if you fail, executives can challenge things with peace of mind. And the learnings gained from those challenges will make the next change more certain.

Is your company’s organizational change designed as a “reversible experiment”? If you feel it’s “irreversible,” it might be time to review that design itself.