When change does not land, leaders often look to capability, communication, or commitment. Less often do they look at incentives.1
This is not because incentives are unimportant. It is because they are so embedded in how organisations operate that they fade into the background. They are treated as neutral infrastructure rather than as active forces shaping behaviour. In reality, incentives are among the most powerful determinants of what people do under pressure.2 They operate continuously, quietly, and often in direct competition with stated change goals.3
Why incentives are underestimated during change
Incentives are rarely experienced as a single mechanism. They are spread across performance measures, targets, reward systems, promotion criteria, informal recognition, workload allocation, and risk consequences. Because they are diffuse, they are easy to overlook.
Leaders talk about strategy and intent. People respond to what is rewarded, protected, or punished in practice. When these two are misaligned, the incentive system usually prevails.
This is not defiance. It is adaptation.
The difference between stated priorities and real ones
Organisations often believe their priorities are clear. They are documented in strategies, communicated in town halls, and reinforced in leadership messaging.
But priorities are not defined by what is said. They are defined by what happens when priorities collide. When people must choose between: - meeting performance targets and experimenting with new ways of working
- protecting short-term results and investing time in adoption
- avoiding risk and surfacing problems early they learn quickly what the organisation truly values. Incentives resolve ambiguity faster than any communication plan.
How incentives shape behaviour under pressure
In stable conditions, people can often reconcile competing incentives. During change, pressure removes that flexibility. When time is scarce and consequences are real, people default to behaviours that minimise personal and professional risk. They prioritise what is measured, rewarded, or enforced. This is why organisations frequently see:
- surface compliance without ownership
- selective adoption of new processes
- quiet reversion to old practices
- avoidance of issues that threaten targets
- reluctance to surface bad news early
These behaviours are not cultural defects. They are rational responses to the incentive environment.
Why good intentions don’t neutralise incentives
Leaders often assume that clarity of intent will override misaligned incentives. They believe that if people understand the importance of the change, they will behave accordingly. This assumption fails under pressure.
Understanding does not remove consequences. Commitment does not cancel risk. People can fully support a change and still behave in ways that undermine it if incentives pull in another direction. Intent influences behaviour at the margins. Incentives shape it at scale.
The organisational cost of ignoring incentives
When incentives are misaligned with change goals, organisations pay in predictable ways. They experience:
- slower adoption than expected
- uneven behaviour across units
- inflated stabilisation and support costs
- benefits that plateau or regress
- frustration with “why people won’t just do it”
These outcomes are often attributed to resistance or capability gaps. The incentive system remains largely unexamined. As a result, organisations invest more effort in pushing change rather than redesigning the conditions that make it viable.
Why incentives are hard to confront
Incentives are uncomfortable to discuss because they expose trade-offs leaders would prefer to avoid. They raise questions such as:
- What are we really rewarding right now?
- What behaviour does success actually require?
- Where are we asking people to take risks without protection?
- Which metrics are now working against us?
These conversations challenge existing performance systems and power structures. They require decisions, not just messaging. As a result, incentives are often left untouched while change efforts struggle around them.
Reframing incentives as a design issue
Incentives are not about motivation. They are about design. They shape the environment in which decisions are made, trade-offs are resolved, and risk is managed. When incentives are aligned with change goals, behaviour shifts with far less effort. When they are not, even the best-designed initiatives struggle. Ignoring incentives does not make them weaker. It makes them invisible.
A more realistic starting point for change
If organisations want change to hold under pressure, they need to ask a different set of questions.
What behaviour does this change actually require when things get hard? What consequences do people face if they behave that way? What incentives currently pull them elsewhere? Until those questions are addressed explicitly, incentives will continue to win quietly, regardless of intent.4 This is one way of thinking about why change succeeds or fails. Other pieces go deeper into how performance systems, targets, and unintended consequences shape behaviour during transformation.
-
Meadows, D. H. (1997). “Places to Intervene in a System.” Whole Earth, 91, 78–84. Meadows’ hierarchy of system leverage points identifies goals and incentive structures as among the highest-leverage interventions available. Changing the rules, targets, and incentives governing behaviour produces more durable and system-wide change than communications or training, which are lower-leverage interventions that must fight against the existing incentive structure. The practical implication is that until incentives are addressed, all other change efforts operate at a structural disadvantage. ↩︎
-
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer and Sutton document the “smart talk trap” — organisations that are highly capable of articulating the right course of action but consistently fail to act accordingly because structural pressures (performance systems, incentive structures, accountability mechanisms) override stated intent. Their central finding is that the gap between knowing and doing is not a knowledge problem; it is a design problem. When incentives are misaligned with change goals, people know what is required and behave differently because they are responding rationally to the structural environment they actually inhabit. ↩︎
-
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill. Sterman’s feedback loop framework shows that incentive structures function as reinforcing loops — they operate continuously and in parallel with the change-management communications loop. When these loops conflict, the reinforcing loop tied to performance consequences (the incentive) dominates over the balancing loop tied to leadership messaging (the communication). The strength of the incentive loop explains why organisations consistently see stated change goals fail to overcome competing behavioural pressures: the incentive system does not merely coexist with the change — it actively competes with it. ↩︎
-
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and Organization: The Conflict Between System and the Individual. Harper & Brothers. Argyris demonstrates that formal organisational structures routinely produce conditions where individuals who fully understand and agree with stated objectives nonetheless behave contrary to those objectives because the structural incentives — performance evaluation, job security, compliance requirements — are more immediately and reliably consequential than stated strategic priorities. Intent shapes aspiration; structure shapes behaviour. The two diverge whenever structural incentives pull in a different direction. ↩︎