When your change model needs changing.
TL;DR: Why PACER beats ADKAR when you’re racing toward adaptability
I’ve been trained in Prosci’s ADKAR model for years. It’s a solid, widely accepted framework for change management, and I’ve seen it work. But like any model, it deserves periodic scrutiny, especially when real‑world applications start revealing blind spots.
At Big Things Fast, we believe every tool should be fit for purpose. And as you evolve as a leader, it’s worth interrogating whether your tools are still serving you, or just reinforcing old patterns.
That’s where my issue with ADKAR’s “D” (Desire) comes in. Desire is well‑intentioned. But over time, across a multitude of different applications, I’ve seen it create more friction than flow.
First, it’s highly personal: Desire varies dramatically by individual and is hard to influence at scale in the same consistent way as awareness or training.
Second, it’s difficult to measure consistently: Yes, you can survey it, but subjectivity and response bias make comparisons unreliable.
Third, it’s easily weaponized: “They just don’t want it enough” becomes a dismissal, not a diagnosis.
Finally, it’s often misplaced in corporate life: While engagement is monitored, we ultimately pay for outcomes and value creation, not for “wanting” (“desiring”) those outcomes.
Generally speaking, the rest of ADKAR holds up well, especially in structured change initiatives. But when it comes to navigating cultural transformation, developing change receptivity, and—most importantly—building adaptability as a leadership skill, I posit that we need something different.
Enter: PACER.
PACER: A Change Receptivity Model for Adaptive Leaders
P – Primed for Change (Are conditions right? Has the need for change been communicated, and is there leadership alignment?) → Replaces “Readiness” with a more active, environmental framing.
A – Active Engagement (Are people contributing ideas, raising concerns, participating meaningfully?) → Builds on “Engagement” and signals action over passive buy‑in.
C – Capability to Execute (Do they have the skills, tools, and support required?) → No change needed here.
E – Evidence of Adoption (Are we seeing behavioral shifts in the wild?) → Slightly rephrased “Adoption + Proof” to keep E tight and outcomes‑based.
R – Reinforcement in the System (Are leaders reinforcing the change through recognition, routines, KPIs?) → Strengthens the organizational follow‑through piece of your “Proof.”
Note: ADKAR’s Reinforcement step also tackles systemic levers; PACER simply puts greater weight on them.
Side‑by‑side snapshot comparison
In Book #2, we’ll get into the details of PACER and how it compares to other prominent frameworks like Kotter's 8‑Step, Heifetz's Adaptive Leadership, and the McKinsey Influence Model.
For now, though, let’s do a quick side‑by‑side vs. ADKAR.
Why the swap?
More objectively measurable: Each PACER stage leaves a clear data trail—no reliance on wishful thinking about “desire.”
Systemic: Moves beyond individual feelings to org‑level levers.
Coach‑able: Gives leaders concrete feedback loops to adjust in real time.
Actionable takeaways to consider this week
Audit readiness (P): Look for signals—capacity, psychological safety, change‑fatigue scores.
Design engagement (A): Replace tiger‑team monologues with mini-workshops and quick polls.
Load capability (C): Budget for training and decision rights; tools without authority = “shelfware”.
Instrument adoption (E): Define two or three behavior metrics you can see on the floor this month.
Bake reinforcement (R): Align KPIs, recognition, and rituals so new behaviors stick.
Pick one weak link to shore up this week. After all, momentum loves momentum.
Closing thoughts
Like any good tool, its true worth only reveals itself over time—in the hands of real leaders, in real organizations, facing real complexity. And after years of applying ADKAR in a range of environments—CPG, healthcare, transformation—I found myself circling back to a core philosophy I now teach every new manager and executive I coach:
Every model deserves a scrubbing.
Not because it’s broken, but because we’re evolving. Our teams, our problems, our pace (see what I did there?). And if we expect our organizations to adapt, we’d better hold ourselves—and our frameworks—to the same standard.
Again, you don’t have to bin ADKAR, but if you’re steering enterprise‑wide transformation, bolt on PACER. It keeps you in the race long after the launch ribbon is cut.
Simple, not easy.
