Immunity to Change
The Immunity to Change model is a psychological framework that explains why individuals and organizations often struggle to follow through on well-intentioned change goals. Developed by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey at Harvard University, the model argues that many failures of change are not due to lack of willpower, resources, or information—but to hidden psychological commitments that actively work against the desired change.
These hidden commitments are not signs of laziness or resistance; they represent internal “immune systems” that protect individuals from perceived threats to their identity, stability, or competence. The result is a self-protective system that undermines change efforts, even when the goal is deeply desired and rationally justified.
Originally applied to adult development, the model has gained popularity in executive coaching, leadership development, and organizational change. It is used to help individuals surface the unconscious assumptions that prevent transformation, even in the face of sustained effort.
Core Concepts of the Model
The central insight of the model is that people often hold two competing commitments: a public commitment to change, and a hidden, protective commitment to avoid what that change might threaten. The hidden commitment creates an “immune system” that neutralizes or reverses change efforts.
Kegan and Lahey describe this structure in four columns, each of which represents a layer of insight needed to overcome the immunity:
1. Commitment to a Goal
This column states the visible goal the individual genuinely cares about—something they want to improve or change. Examples include becoming a better listener, delegating more effectively, or managing conflict constructively.
2. Behaviors that Work Against the Goal
This column captures what the individual is doing (or not doing) that undermines the goal. These behaviors are often habitual, rationalized, or seen as necessary in the moment. They are not merely mistakes—they are persistent patterns that seem to contradict the stated goal.
For example, someone who wants to delegate more may still insist on reviewing all team output personally.
3. Hidden Competing Commitments
This column uncovers the underlying commitments that explain why the self-defeating behaviors exist. These are not frivolous preferences—they reflect deep-seated values, fears, or assumptions.
In the example above, the individual may be committed to never being seen as careless or losing control—commitments that clash with the act of delegation.
4. Big Assumptions
The final column identifies the implicit beliefs that make the hidden commitments feel necessary. These “big assumptions” are usually untested and taken as fact. They operate in the background, driving behavior without conscious examination.
For instance: “If I am not in control of everything, I will be seen as incompetent and lose authority.” This assumption leads to behaviors that block the original goal of delegation.
Once these assumptions are surfaced, they can be tested, reframed, or disconfirmed—allowing for meaningful change to occur.
How the Model Works in Practice
The Immunity to Change process typically unfolds through a structured coaching or facilitation session. Participants complete the four-column map, reflect on their big assumptions, and design experiments to test those assumptions in low-risk ways.
This process is not about willpower or compliance. It is about learning from one’s own resistance and engaging in deliberate, reflective development. Over time, testing and revising one’s assumptions leads to what Kegan and Lahey call “adaptive change”—a shift in how people make sense of themselves and their environment.
The model is also applied at group or organizational levels. In those cases, shared goals and collective behaviors are mapped to systemic assumptions embedded in culture, identity, or norms.
Strengths of the Model
The Immunity to Change model offers several notable strengths:
-
Psychological depth: It addresses the internal, emotional barriers to change—not just behavioral symptoms.
-
Respect for resistance: Resistance is not treated as irrational or obstructive, but as an intelligent form of self-protection.
-
Developmental orientation: The model is rooted in adult development theory and supports long-term growth in how people think, not just what they do.
-
Customizable across contexts: It can be used with individuals, teams, or systems—anywhere there is a mismatch between intention and outcome.
-
Testable and iterative: The emphasis on designing small-scale “tests” of assumptions provides a practical, low-risk path to deeper insight.
These features make the model especially powerful in contexts where change requires shifts in mindset, identity, or interpersonal behavior.
Critiques and Limitations
Despite its value, the model has limitations:
-
Cognitive demands: Completing the process requires abstract thinking and self-reflection that may be difficult for some individuals or groups.
-
Time-intensive: Surfacing and reworking deep assumptions is not a fast process. The model is less suitable for short-term or compliance-oriented change.
-
Facilitation dependent: The quality of outcomes often depends on skilled coaching. Without guidance, participants may misidentify assumptions or stay at a surface level.
-
Not ideal for technical change: The model is most useful when change involves behavior, identity, or mindset. For procedural or technical shifts, it may be unnecessary.
-
Not predictive: The model does not specify how long the process will take, nor does it guarantee success. Some individuals may still resist change even after insight is gained.
Still, for complex, persistent, or identity-based change challenges, it remains one of the most respected frameworks in executive development and organizational psychology.
Implications for Corporate Learning and Development
For L&D professionals, the Immunity to Change model has clear relevance—especially in leadership development, coaching, and behavior-focused training.
Address the limits of conventional training
Many L&D efforts focus on transferring knowledge or practicing skills. But when participants don’t apply what they’ve learned, the problem is often not instructional—it is psychological. The model offers a way to explore why behavior doesn’t change even when knowledge is present.
Use in coaching and leadership programs
The four-column process is well-suited to executive coaching, manager development, and cohort-based programs. It helps leaders uncover what holds them back from adopting new behaviors (e.g., delegating, listening, giving feedback) and build capacity to grow beyond those limits.
Supplement learning with reflection
The model encourages deep reflection and experimentation. L&D programs can incorporate exercises that surface assumptions, test them through real-world experiments, and share findings in a safe environment.
Apply to cultural change
At the group level, the model helps identify collective assumptions that block organizational change. These insights can be used to align learning, leadership communication, and system design to remove hidden friction.
Integrate into performance conversations
Because the model focuses on behavioral contradiction, it can be integrated into conversations about growth, coaching, or feedback—especially when progress appears stuck despite good intentions.
Conclusion
The Immunity to Change model provides a powerful framework for understanding why behavior change is often so difficult—despite motivation, effort, and knowledge. By surfacing the hidden commitments and assumptions that silently block progress, it enables individuals and organizations to make adaptive, durable changes.
For corporate learning and development professionals, the model serves as a reminder that training alone is not enough when psychological defenses are in play. When applied thoughtfully, Immunity to Change allows L&D to address the deeper layers of behavior, identity, and meaning that shape performance—and to design learning experiences that unlock real, sustained growth.