The story goes that 70% of all change efforts fail, which means I’m sure many of you have experienced transformational change that failed to achieve its goals. While we can debate the precision of the figure but no doubt it is high. But is it really because we human beings are that bad at it? Or are there factors that make it utterly intractable?

In this inaugural episode, I argue that the answer to the second question is probably 'yes,' which makes the first question irrelevant. The design, functions, or behaviors of certain organizations carry persistent tensions that can be paradoxical in nature, such that any transformational change triggers opposition that is invested in one side of the tension or the other. Along with being a natural source of resistance, how might such tensions color the way members assess the success or failure of change, particularly when it is easier to level claims of failure? I will use military organizations as my example, also as a way of contrasting some ways that such organizations differ from private sector or other forms of public sector firms.