The sources highlight that **change efforts are often rejected** by organizations, even if they are well-intentioned and effective, as a direct consequence of the **core principle** that **the underlying structure of anything will determine its behavior**.

This rejection of change efforts is explained in the following ways:

*   **Analogy of Organ Rejection**: The phenomenon is compared to **"the same way the body rejects an implanted organ"**. This vivid analogy underscores that if the fundamental, underlying structure of an organization is not aligned with or conducive to the change, it will be naturally expelled, regardless of how beneficial the change might seem on the surface.
*   **Irrelevance of Change Effort Quality**: The sources explicitly state that **"if the underlying structure is not conducive to change no matter what kind of change effort you put in no matter how good it might be... it doesn't really matter the quality of the actual change effort what will happen is the organization itself will reject it"**. This means that even highly regarded movements, like the quality movement inspired by Deming, which once saw "senior vice presidents of quality" positions, can fade over time if the deep-seated structures within the organization do not support them.
*   **Contrast with Structural Change**: In direct opposition to the rejection of surface-level changes, the core principle posits that **"a change of underlying structure will lead to a change of behavior almost invariably"**. This suggests that sustainable transformation requires addressing the fundamental dynamics, rather than merely implementing new programs or solutions.
*   **Consultant's Dilemma**: This structural dynamic explains a common experience for consultants: after doing their "best work" and achieving initial success, they may return two years later to find **"it's as if it never happened"**. This is not a personal failing of the consultant or the quality of their work, but rather because **"it wasn't an adequate change of underlying structure that would have created sustainability in those changes"**. The sources emphasize that this rejection is "not personal," but "structural," like "nature" or "physics," because "structure seeks equilibrium".
*   **Western Tendency**: The sources note that a common Western tendency is to immediately ask **"how do we change it?"** when confronted with a situation. However, structural thinking advocates for first asking **"how do we understand what's giving rise to the predictable patterns of behavior that we're seeing?"**. This emphasizes that understanding the underlying structure must precede any effective attempt at change, to avoid the eventual rejection of efforts.

In summary, the core principle of "underlying structure determines behavior" provides the fundamental reason why many change efforts are rejected: they fail to alter the deep-seated structural dynamics that govern an organization's behavior, leading to a natural return to the previous equilibrium state.