For many years, change management has played a central role in my work – be it as an employee, a workshop trainer or a consultant. And while I have seen many misunderstandings, one of them always stood out: the assumption that all change is the same and can be managed in the same way.
While this may sound plausible in theory, in practice there is a significant difference between structural and process change on the one hand, and cultural change on the other. The impact of this difference is often underestimated.
Structural and process change affects how work is organized. It includes new systems, adjusted workflows or redesigned structures. These types of change can usually be approached in a structured and controlled way. They are analysed, planned, communicated, supported through training, rolled out and, ideally, adjusted based on feedback from those who work with them. In many cases, this leads to a visible track record of successful implementation. On the surface, this type of change can often be implemented relatively quickly.
Cultural change is different. It does not primarily affect what people do, but how they understand what they do. It touches underlying assumptions, established ways of thinking and shared interpretations of roles and responsibilities. I personally find cultural change far more challenging. And to be honest, much of what I have seen has failed at least in significant parts.
The question of why cultural change cannot simply be implemented is quickly answered: organizations are not technical systems, but social systems shaped by shared meaning, experience and ongoing interpretation.
They are influenced by their history, by informal structures and by what has proven to work in the past. People do not adopt new ways of working simply because they are introduced. They interpret them, question them and relate them to what they already know and believe.
Trying to accelerate this type of change too much often leads not to faster results, but to symbolic adoption – where the change is formally introduced, but does not exist in everyday practice. In many cases, the change is declared successful, while in reality, the new culture simply does not exist.
Cultural change requires time because it depends on processes of reflection, dialogue and sense-making. It often involves reaching a shared understanding, building trust in new ways of working and, ultimately, shifting underlying assumptions that have developed over many years.
This difference becomes visible in many contexts. In museums, for example, participatory approaches in interpretation and learning formats have gained importance in recent years. On the surface, this can appear as a change in method. Instead of conveying knowledge in a primarily affirmative and receptive way, visitors are increasingly invited to engage and contribute.
This shift goes beyond method. Moving towards participatory approaches requires a different understanding of what interpretation and learning in museums are meant to achieve. It challenges established roles, redistributes interpretive authority and changes how knowledge is created and shared.
It also requires new capabilities. Guides, for example, may find themselves in situations where they are expected to facilitate discussion, respond to unexpected perspectives or handle disagreement. Without preparation, this can create uncertainty.
Training therefore becomes a critical enabler of cultural change – yet it is often underestimated or insufficiently addressed. While structural and process changes are typically supported by structured training, cultural change is often expected to unfold without comparable investment in capability building.
In practice, however, the distinction between these two types of change is sometimes implicitly reduced to a much simpler question: whether training is provided or not. But this misses the point.
The real difference lies in how change happens. Structural and process change can be implemented. Cultural change must be developed.
And recognizing this difference makes it far more likely that change will truly take hold, not just appear to have happened on paper.