Creating a change strategy before selecting individual change initiatives raises the odds of success in corporate transformations. Companies that achieve lasting improvements tailor their strategies to their performance challenges, leadership preferences, and energy sources—and adjust these strategies phase by phase as the change program evolves. Although every transformation is different, the change strategies that leading companies adopt tend to fall into six clusters that work in specific situations (see Exhibit 1):

1. Evolutionary (institution building). This strategy is about shaping the organization to foster a gradual but sustained improvement in performance. The focus is on the indirect and contextual levers—values, structure, and performance measures—that drive change through the existing power structure and top management. This long-term approach works well for successful companies with superior execution, but it is dangerous for faltering companies that need to make an immediate and bold change.

2. Jolt and refocus. Here, change is initiated abruptly, to force a gridlocked power structure to respond to threats like deregulation. This approach is designed to shake up the existing power structure, redesign management processes, delayer top management, define new business units, and redefine corporate strategy. Without such a jolt, inertia would prevail; with it, energy is set free and refocused. Such a strategy can be risky. It destabilizes an organization and can lead to a short-term drop in performance. But it does work well for companies with a strong power base and the mechanisms to regain traction after the shock.

3. Follow the leader. Here it is strong preferences and style that dominate the transformation. Companies in this group grab the performance levers and make change happen fast. They have highly developed leadership skills, are experienced in managing change, and tend to begin by making the big decision to produce results, then moving on to mobilize their organization. This strategy succeeds only when a company’s style and preferences fit the challenge; it stalls if they prove unsuitable.

4. Multifront direct. In sharp contrast, some companies plan their program across a broad set of fronts. They design it top down, focusing first on a number of direct levers to produce the maximum immediate financial impact, and then turn to the indirect and contextual levers. Such companies face steep challenges, are often driven by specific targets, and ultimately require considerable energy to achieve change. Because of their breadth, these programs can have enormous impact; equally, they can also fail dismally if a company is unable to absorb the changes.

5. Systematic redesign. This strategy also focuses on many dimensions at once, but with one difference. Because the companies in this group have concentrated business systems, their leverage lies in both direct and indirect areas, and especially in functional and core process competency. This strategy offers big returns, but involves great risk. Its breadth, project management complexity, and energy requirements mean that it may work too slowly, stall, or end in confusion.

6. Unit-level mobilizing. The priority here is to promote change by means of frontline problem-solving teams rather than top-down actions. Structured processes are used to win one-off improvements in cost, revenue, or asset performance. Since this strategy will produce results in most cases, it poses little risk, although it probably works best with underperforming organizations.

These strategies have proven useful starting points in crafting change programs for specific situations. They can also serve as springboards for trying out new approaches to change and helping change architects understand why a strategy that works in one set of circumstances will not necessarily work in another.