Introduction
The Beckhard-Harris Change Formula is a simple but influential framework used to assess whether an organization—or a team within it—is ready to undertake successful change. Developed by organizational theorists Richard Beckhard and David Gleicher, and later refined by Beckhard and Reuben Harris, the formula provides a logic-based test for change readiness by identifying the minimum conditions needed to overcome resistance.
The formula is typically expressed as:
C = (D × V × F) > R
Where:
C = Change will occur
D = Dissatisfaction with the current state
V = Vision of a desirable future
F = First concrete steps toward that future
R = Resistance to change
The premise is that unless dissatisfaction, vision, and first steps are all present—and strong enough in combination to outweigh resistance—meaningful change is unlikely to occur. If any one of the components on the left-hand side is zero, the product becomes zero, and change fails to take hold.
Origins and Purpose
The formula was originally developed as a heuristic for use in organizational development. Beckhard and Harris wanted a way to help change leaders think systematically about the psychological and practical conditions necessary to initiate and sustain transformation. Rather than offering a process model, the formula serves as a readiness test—a diagnostic lens to identify where energy is lacking and where support must be built.
Although deceptively simple, the model is grounded in systems thinking and behavioral psychology. It acknowledges that change does not occur simply because it makes logical sense—it requires motivation, clarity, and momentum.
The Three Conditions for Change
The formula highlights three distinct but interrelated forces that must be activated for change to move forward:
Dissatisfaction (D)
There must be a felt dissatisfaction with the current state. This may come from internal frustration, declining performance, stakeholder pressure, or external threats. The dissatisfaction must be broadly shared—not just understood intellectually but felt emotionally—to provide sufficient motivation.
In practice, this might include:
-
Employee complaints or burnout
-
Customer dissatisfaction
-
Market disruption or loss of relevance
-
Internal data showing gaps or risks
If people are complacent or satisfied, change efforts are likely to be met with apathy, even if the case is well reasoned.
Vision (V)
A compelling picture of what the organization could become must be present. The vision gives people direction and purpose. It must be clear enough to guide action but also desirable enough to inspire commitment.
A good vision answers questions such as:
-
What are we moving toward?
-
Why is it better than where we are?
-
What will success look or feel like?
Without vision, dissatisfaction leads only to frustration or withdrawal. People may know they are unhappy but have no idea what to do about it.
First Steps (F)
People need to see and believe in actionable next steps. These steps make the vision tangible and help convert motivation into momentum. They reduce anxiety by showing that progress is possible.
First steps should be:
-
Concrete, not abstract
-
Feasible with current resources
-
Aligned with the broader vision
-
Capable of generating visible wins
If the change appears overwhelming or unapproachable, people may disengage even if they are motivated and aligned with the vision.
Resistance (R)
The formula recognizes that resistance is always present to some degree. It may be active or passive, emotional or rational. Resistance includes fear of loss, concern about competence, distrust of leadership, or fatigue from prior change efforts.
Crucially, the model does not suggest that resistance must be eliminated. Instead, it argues that the combined force of dissatisfaction, vision, and first steps must simply exceed resistance. In other words, the formula is about building sufficient energy—not removing all barriers.
How the Model is Used
The Beckhard-Harris Formula is most commonly used in:
-
Change planning: Before launching a transformation initiative, leaders or facilitators assess whether the three conditions are present.
-
Midstream diagnosis: If a change initiative is stalling, the formula helps identify which of the three conditions may be weak or missing.
-
Stakeholder alignment: The framework can be used in workshops or meetings to build a shared understanding of change readiness.
-
Coaching and facilitation: It offers a clear way to guide leaders through difficult questions: “Are people dissatisfied enough? Is the vision compelling? Are the first steps visible?”
Because it is compact and intuitive, the model can be easily applied without specialized training.
Strengths of the Model
The Beckhard-Harris Formula is valued for several reasons:
-
Simplicity: It captures the essential preconditions for change in a single equation.
-
Diagnostic clarity: It helps leaders focus attention where it matters—rather than assuming more communication or more training will fix everything.
-
Adaptability: It can be used in small teams or across enterprise-wide initiatives.
-
Psychological realism: It reflects the emotional and cognitive dimensions of change, not just procedural ones.
-
Practical orientation: It moves quickly from insight to action by emphasizing concrete steps.
Critiques and Limitations
Despite its utility, the model has limitations:
-
Not a full change model: The formula is a readiness test—not a process for implementing or sustaining change. It must be used alongside other tools.
-
No guidance on how to reduce resistance: While the model includes resistance, it offers no tools for addressing it directly.
-
Oversimplifies complex change dynamics: The additive structure may mask more nuanced or recursive relationships between variables.
-
Assumes rational evaluation: People do not always behave in ways that reflect calculated assessments of dissatisfaction or vision. Identity, politics, and emotion often override logic.
-
Silent on power and influence: The formula assumes a relatively egalitarian system, but in many organizations, readiness is shaped by politics, authority, or fear.
Despite these limitations, the model remains a widely used framing device—especially in the early stages of change planning.
Implications for Corporate Learning and Development
For L&D professionals, the Beckhard-Harris Formula offers valuable insight into when and how to deploy learning in the context of change.
Assess whether learning is the right tool
If an initiative is stalling, L&D can use the formula to determine whether a lack of training is truly the issue—or whether people are simply not dissatisfied enough, not aligned on vision, or unaware of what to do next. This prevents misdiagnosing performance problems as skill gaps.
Support vision and first steps
L&D can play a critical role in helping communicate the vision in accessible, motivating terms. It can also design learning experiences that make the first steps real and actionable—helping build early momentum.
Surface and address resistance
While the formula does not offer tools for managing resistance, L&D environments (workshops, coaching sessions, peer learning) often surface the unspoken concerns that slow down change. These concerns can then be addressed constructively.
Create visible wins through learning
Well-timed training programs, simulations, or certifications can serve as early signals of progress. They make the abstract vision more tangible and demonstrate that the organization is moving.
Use the model in stakeholder engagement
When working with sponsors or subject matter experts, L&D professionals can introduce the model to guide planning conversations and build consensus around sequencing and priorities.
Conclusion
The Beckhard-Harris Change Formula offers a concise, pragmatic way to assess whether an organization is truly ready for change. By requiring dissatisfaction, vision, and first steps to outweigh resistance, it highlights the psychological and strategic alignment needed before progress is possible.
For learning and development teams, the model reinforces that training cannot drive change alone. Learning is most effective when people are motivated, understand the goal, and have a path forward. When used thoughtfully, the formula helps L&D professionals align their work to the deeper levers of change—and avoid spending resources on well-crafted programs that land in unreceptive environments.