When adoption is low, most teams solve the wrong thing.
Low adoption is a diagnostic problem before it is an execution problem. Most change frameworks tell you where someone is stuck. They do not tell you why, or what is actually keeping them there.
Who it is for
Change managers, HR leads, transformation directors, and L&D professionals responsible for getting people to work differently.
How to use it
Pick the pattern you are seeing right now, open the card, and read what is driving it. The actions inside are specific to the cause, not the symptom.
Why this order
Material barriers come first because they are the most commonly missed. Most teams default to individual-level responses when the system is the actual problem.
The framework behind it
Built on the ISM model: three levels that shape behavior (what sits inside people, what sits between people, and what sits in the environment around them). Used alongside ADKAR and Kotter, not instead of them.
aimforbehavior.com ↗M
Material
What sits in the environment: tools, time, incentives, processes, defaults
S
Social
What sits between people: norms, role models, relationships, identity, social consequences
I
Individual
What sits inside the person: knowledge, beliefs, motivation, habit
Worked examples
Same adoption problem.. different barrier, different fix.
Two scenarios showing how common frameworks diagnose the situation, and what the ISM lens adds when you run the same problem at each level.
These examples are based on common patterns in organizational change work, not documented case studies from any specific organization.
The situation
A new claims platform. Six months in, people are still using the old system alongside it.
A financial services organization replaced a legacy claims system with a new platform designed to cut processing time and error rates. Previous rollouts had hit every technical milestone but failed on benefits because people built workarounds instead. This time the team ran ADKAR from the start: baseline surveys, role-based training, strong comms throughout. Six months later the benefits still were not materializing.
What ADKAR found
Desire low. Ability low.
Agents: another tool, more clicks. Underwriters: trained but struggling in real cases.
What ADKAR prescribed
WIIFM messaging, role-based microlearning, super-user network, data war room
Aimed at individuals, addressed awareness and knowledge.
What did not shift
Adoption below target
Benefits case not materializing despite improved training scores
What ADKAR is designed to do
It correctly identified that Desire was low and Ability was low, and gave the team a shared language to have those conversations. The war room for data issues was a practical response that got close to the real problem.
What it does not cover on its own
ADKAR identifies which element needs attention, and it is designed to do that well. What it does not map is the reason behind the score, which is where ISM adds to the picture rather than replacing what ADKAR already provides.
The question ADKAR did not ask
ADKAR gives you a score at each element, but not the reason behind it. In this case, low Desire had three different causes across three teams: a structural incentive problem, a social norm signal, and a specific belief about consequences. Same score, completely different fixes. The ISM lens is what tells the difference.
Running it through the ISM lens
M
Material
The real barrier
The new platform required more steps than the old workflow, and performance targets had not been adjusted during ramp-up. Completing the new process correctly meant missing daily numbers, and nobody had said this was acceptable. The incentive system had not moved, and doing the right thing carried a real cost that everyone on the floor knew about.
What to do about it
1
Adjust performance targets during ramp-up explicitly. If using the new behavior correctly means missing existing metrics, you are asking people to choose between compliance and their performance review. Fix the conflict before anything else.
2
Remove steps from the new workflow until it reaches parity. The war room addressed data bugs, but it also needed to address process steps that only existed because of legacy system constraints.
S
Social
The real barrier
Team leads had high Awareness but were not using the platform themselves, and the informal signal on the floor was that the new system was optional for experienced staff. Nobody said this out loud, but every team lead's visible behavior confirmed it. ADKAR identified that managers needed to reinforce. It did not ask what their own behavior was signaling.
What to do about it
1
Get team leads using the platform visibly in real work. Not a briefing, but a real case, in front of their team, with the new platform open. The norm changes when people observe it, not when they are told about it.
2
Name the gap between what was said and what was modeled. Acknowledging that team leads had not been using it themselves, and naming what they are committing to going forward, often moves teams faster than pretending the gap was not there.
I
Individual
The real barrier
A specific group of senior processors believed the new system made their errors more visible to auditors in ways the old one did not. That is not general resistance to change, it is a specific belief about a specific consequence. ADKAR would have addressed it with WIIFM messaging, but that would not have reached it.. the issue was not motivation, it was a specific fear about what would actually happen.
What to do about it
1
Ask what they think will happen, specifically. One-on-one rather than in a group session, then address that specific concern with specific evidence, not a general reassurance about the platform's benefits.
2
Start with lower-visibility case types. Identify a case type where the audit concern is lower, and ask them to begin there. Direct experience updates beliefs faster than any conversation.
The situation
A collaboration initiative with executive sponsorship. Teams are still working in silos.
A large FMCG organization launched an initiative to shift from siloed performance to cross-functional collaboration. The program had executive backing, a guiding coalition, a clear vision, and a structured rollout. The team followed all eight Kotter steps. Six months in, most teams were still working the same way they always had.. and the guiding coalition had already declared the barriers removed.
What Kotter diagnosed
Barriers present. Urgency not yet felt.
Short-term wins generated but not anchored in day-to-day behavior.
What Kotter prescribed
Renewed urgency comms, stronger coalition messaging, more short-term wins
All aimed at the organizational level.
What did not shift
Cross-functional working remained superficial
Collaboration happening in meetings, not in practice
What Kotter is designed to do
It built the organizational conditions for change: executive alignment, a clear vision, short-term wins to build momentum. Without those, the initiative would not have gotten off the ground. Kotter did exactly what it is designed to do.
What it does not cover on its own
Kotter is designed to orchestrate the organizational conditions for change, and it does that well. What it does not map is why specific people in specific teams are still not changing once those conditions are in place, which is exactly where ISM sits alongside it.
The question Kotter did not ask
Kotter Step 5 is "remove barriers." The coalition worked through that list and declared it done. What Kotter does not specify is what type of barriers to look for. The performance system still rewarding silos, team leads not modeling the behavior, people's prior experience making them rationally skeptical.. those are all barriers. They just sit at Material, Social, and Individual levels that a Kotter process is not designed to see.
Running it through the ISM lens
M
Material
The real barrier
Performance reviews still measured silo output, there was no protected time for cross-functional work in anyone's schedule, and the internal systems had rigid departmental boundaries that made sharing information genuinely cumbersome. Someone could want to collaborate and still find that every structural signal in their day made it the more expensive choice.
What to do about it
1
Update performance criteria to explicitly include cross-functional contribution. If the appraisal system still rewards silo excellence, collaboration is a personal sacrifice, not a career move. The system has to change before the behavior will.
2
Build a cross-functional step into an existing workflow. Not an additional meeting, but a required joint input at a point in a process that already runs, where the work cannot proceed without it.
S
Social
The real barrier
Senior leaders were not visibly modeling cross-functional behavior, and team meetings continued to spotlight individual and departmental wins. A story circulated about what had happened to people who pushed cross-functional agendas in previous cycles. The prevailing belief, grounded in direct experience, was that the organization announced collaboration but rewarded silo performance. The Kotter coalition had executive support, but not visible behavioral modeling at the level where teams actually took their day-to-day cues.
What to do about it
1
Senior leaders need to model the behavior in observable, specific ways. Not a message about the importance of collaboration, but an action, in a real setting, that demonstrates cross-functional working and is named as such in the moment.
2
Address the story about what happened to people who tried before. If that story is still circulating, new behavior will not emerge at scale until it is corrected directly and publicly.
I
Individual
The real barrier
Many people had tried cross-functional working before and seen it produce nothing. The belief was not that collaboration was a bad idea, it was that this organization would not sustain it, and that belief was grounded in direct experience rather than stubbornness. More urgency messaging does not address a rational expectation.
What to do about it
1
Create a visible, early result that is different from prior attempts. Something small, fast, and cross-functional that produces a concrete, observable outcome. The goal is to give people a different data point from the one they already have.
2
Acknowledge the prior experience directly. We know previous cross-functional initiatives did not stick.. here is what is specifically different this time: named actions, not renewed commitment. People update beliefs through specific evidence, not renewed enthusiasm.
ISM Framework: Darnton & Horne (2013), Scottish Government · ADKAR and Kotter are widely-used frameworks referenced in the CMI Change Management Body of Knowledge · These examples are based on common patterns in organizational change work, not documented case studies
Toolkit
If this feels familiar, you don’t have a bias problem — you have a system problem.
This tool is one part of a broader diagnostic system for change practitioners.
✔ Diagnose what is actually driving behavior
✔ Design interventions that match the real barrier
✔ Measure what actually changes
Consulting
Think this might be happening in your organisation?
Most teams don’t have a resistance problem, they have a diagnosis problem.
We work with organisations to identify what is actually driving behaviour and redesign their approach.