Change management models guide

Need help with a undergraduate or MBA management assignment? Our UK-qualified management experts are ready to assist. Visit our management assignment help page now for more info.

Change management refers to the structured approach of transitioning individuals, teams, and organisations from a current state to a desired future state. It is a crucial skill for managers at all levels because organisational change is inevitable and often difficult.

Many change initiatives do not achieve their intended outcomes. In fact, roughly two-thirds of major organisational change projects fail to meet their objectives (Nelson-Brantley and Ford, 2017). This high failure rate is often attributed to factors such as poor planning, inadequate communication, and resistance from employees.

Therefore, understanding how to manage change effectively is essential. By applying established change management models, leaders can increase the likelihood of success and mitigate common pitfalls.

These models provide frameworks that guide the planning, execution, and sustainment of change. They help ensure that key factors like stakeholder engagement, communication strategy, and cultural alignment are addressed.

Moreover, a solid grasp of change management theory is valuable for management students and professionals. It bridges academic knowledge with practical strategies for real-world organisational challenges.

Overview of change management models

Over the past several decades, numerous change management models have been developed by scholars and practitioners. Each model offers a unique perspective on how to implement change. Yet they also share many common principles (Cameron and Green, 2019).

For example, most models emphasise the importance of securing leadership support, communicating a clear vision, and addressing human factors. Such human factors include managing employee emotions and securing their buy-in.

Some models are linear, step-by-step processes, while others provide more holistic frameworks focusing on organisational elements or personal transitions. There is no single “one-size-fits-all” model for every situation, because organisations vary in culture, structure, and context.

Consequently, managers are encouraged to familiarise themselves with multiple models and build a toolkit of approaches. By selecting or combining models as appropriate, change leaders can tailor their strategy to the specific needs of the initiative.

In the following sections, we explore several influential change management models. We explain their key components and discuss how they can be applied in practice.

Key change management models

Lewin’s three-step change model

Kurt Lewin developed his three-step model in the 1940s, making it one of the earliest and most influential change management theories (Lewin, 1947). Despite its simplicity, it remains a foundational concept in understanding organisational change.

Lewin proposed that successful change involves a three-stage process:

• unfreezing,
• changing (or moving), and
• refreezing.

In the unfreezing stage, the organisation breaks from the status quo by recognising the need for change and preparing people for new ways of working. This often involves creating awareness of problems or opportunities and challenging existing beliefs or behaviours.

The changing stage is when the actual transition occurs – new processes, structures, or behaviours are introduced and implemented. This period can be challenging as employees learn and adjust, so clear direction and support are vital.

Finally, in the refreezing stage, the new changes are solidified into the organisation’s culture and practices. This may include updating policies, providing training, and reinforcing desired behaviours so that the change endures rather than slipping back into old habits.

Example: If a hospital is implementing a new patient handover protocol to improve safety, leaders might first unfreeze by explaining the rise in patient falls and building urgency for a better system. They would then change by piloting and rolling out the new handover procedure with staff training and support. Over time, they refreeze by embedding the new protocol into standard policy and monitoring compliance.

Lewin’s model is valued for its clarity and focus on preparing and stabilising change, but it has been critiqued as too abstract or static for complex, continuous changes (Cummings, Bridgman and Brown, 2016). Nonetheless, many later models have built on Lewin’s insights. His concept of “unfreezing” organisational inertia remains highly relevant.

Kotter’s eight-step model for leading change

John Kotter’s eight-step model, first introduced in 1995, is a widely used framework that provides a detailed roadmap for large-scale organisational change (Kotter, 1996).

Kotter’s model is prescriptive and emphasises the role of leadership in driving change. The eight steps are:

1. Create a sense of urgency: Highlight the need for change and the risks of maintaining the status quo.
2. Build a guiding coalition: Form a powerful team of leaders and influencers to champion the change.
3. Develop a vision and strategy: Create a clear vision of the future state and a strategic plan to achieve it.
4. Communicate the vision: Consistently and transparently communicate the change vision and strategy across the organisation.
5. Remove obstacles and empower action: Identify and tackle barriers (such as inefficient processes or resistant attitudes) that impede progress. This step enables employees to implement the change.
6. Generate short-term wins: Achieve and celebrate quick, visible successes that build momentum and credibility.
7. Consolidate gains and build on change: Use the early wins to drive further change. Continue improving and avoid declaring victory too soon.
8. Anchor the change in the culture: Reinforce the new ways through recognition, training, and cultural norms so that the change sticks.

Kotter argues that skipping any of these steps or executing them poorly can undermine the entire initiative.

His model has been applied in diverse sectors. For example, a healthcare trust might use Kotter’s approach to implement an electronic health records system by first creating urgency around patient safety, then assembling a cross-departmental team to lead the project through each of the eight steps.

Because the model is comprehensive, it is particularly useful for complex changes that require broad buy-in. However, it can also be time-consuming, and some critics note that real-world change is not always linear.

Despite these caveats, Kotter’s framework remains a cornerstone of change management education and practice. This is largely due to its clear guidance on sequencing and leadership actions (Appelbaum et al., 2012).

ADKAR model of individual change

Jeff Hiatt and his Prosci organisation developed the ADKAR model in the early 2000s as a goal-oriented approach focusing on individual change. ADKAR is an acronym for five building blocks of successful change: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (Hiatt, 2006).

The model posits that for a change to succeed, each person affected must progress through these five stages.

• Awareness represents an individual’s understanding of the need for change – why it is happening.
• Desire signifies the person’s willingness to support and participate in the change.
• Knowledge involves training and information so the person knows how to change (for example, learning new skills or procedures).
• Ability is the capability to implement the required skills and behaviours – practicing and developing proficiency in the new way.
• Reinforcement refers to sustaining the change through incentives, feedback, and recognition so that the new behaviour is maintained.

ADKAR’s strength lies in highlighting that organisational change succeeds only when each employee transitions successfully.

It also serves as a diagnostic tool. If a change is faltering, managers can assess which ADKAR element is lacking. For instance, a struggling change may suffer from low desire among staff or from insufficient knowledge of the new process. Identifying the weakest element allows managers to address that gap.

This model is widely used in corporate change programmes and has been adopted in healthcare settings as well.

Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a large hospital system in Texas applied ADKAR to rapidly change its nursing care model. The leaders built awareness of the need by communicating the urgency of safe staffing and created desire by securing staff buy-in. They also provided knowledge through training on new team procedures, ensured nurses had the ability to perform in new team roles, and used positive reinforcement to solidify the new practices (Balluck et al., 2020).

Overall, ADKAR is practical and straightforward, and it complements other process-oriented models by focusing on the human side of change.

McKinsey 7-S framework

Consultants Robert Waterman, Tom Peters and Julien Phillips at McKinsey & Company developed the 7-S framework to offer a holistic approach to organisational change and analysis (Waterman, Peters and Phillips, 1980).

Rather than prescribing steps, this model identifies seven interdependent elements that must be aligned for an organisation to achieve successful change. These elements are:

1. Strategy
2. Structure
3. Systems
4. Shared Values
5. Skills
6. Style, and
7. Staff.

Strategy is the organisation’s plan and competitive positioning.

Structure is how the company is organised (for example, its hierarchy or departmental setup).

Systems are the processes and routines (such as IT systems or workflows) that support operations.

Shared Values are the core values and culture that influence employee behaviour.

Skills refer to the competencies and capabilities of the organisation’s employees.

Style denotes the leadership and management style.

Staff concerns the workforce and talent – essentially who is employed and how their development is managed.

The 7-S framework is commonly used as a diagnostic tool. It helps leaders understand how a change in one area may impact other areas. It reminds managers that all these organisational elements are interconnected. Neglecting any one of the seven dimensions can undermine a change effort.

This model has been used in many industries, including healthcare.

Example: A company implementing a new digital strategy might use the 7-S framework to ensure alignment across all elements of the organisation. They may need to create a new digital division or team (Structure) and update their technological processes (Systems). Management might retrain or recruit employees with digital expertise (addressing Staff and Skills). It could also adopt a more innovative, agile management approach (Style). Throughout the process, leaders would reinforce a culture of innovation and customer focus (Shared Values) to support the transformation.

By considering each of the seven factors, the organisation can identify misalignments and then adjust so that strategy, culture, and operations are all moving in the same direction. In this way, the McKinsey 7-S framework helps change leaders ensure comprehensive alignment. This breadth makes it a valuable model for understanding organisational complexity.

Bridges’ transition model

William Bridges’ transition model focuses on the psychological transition people go through during change, rather than the external change event itself (Bridges, 1991).

Bridges argued that change is situational (for example, a new boss, a reorganisation, or a policy change). Transition, however, is the internal emotional process of adapting to that change.

The model outlines three phases of transition:

• Ending, Losing, and Letting Go (the first phase),
• The Neutral Zone (the second phase), and
• The New Beginning (the final phase).

In the first phase, people grapple with the end of the old ways – there may be feelings of loss, anxiety, or resistance as they let go of familiar routines or identities. Effective change management at this stage means acknowledging these feelings and helping people to mark the closure of the past (for instance, by openly discussing what is ending or by ceremonially celebrating the “old” team or process before moving on).

The second phase, the Neutral Zone, is a limbo period of confusion and uncertainty, but also potentially of innovation. In organisations, this might be the time when the old structure has been dismantled. The new structure or process is not yet fully functional at this time. Employees in this phase may feel disoriented or less productive as they adjust. Managers should provide direction, support, and quick wins during the Neutral Zone. They should also encourage feedback and ideas, since this phase can spark creative solutions.

The final phase, the New Beginning, is when people have accepted the change and start to embrace the new situation. Energy and confidence in the change gradually build as people develop a new sense of identity and purpose under the new reality.

Bridges’ model is particularly useful for understanding and managing the human side of change. It reminds leaders to go beyond project plans and consider how people are experiencing the transition.

For example, in a corporate merger, employees often experience Bridges’ three phases:

• They first mourn the loss of their old company’s culture or processes (Ending phase).
• Next, they go through a period of uncertainty and mixed signals as the two organisations integrate (Neutral Zone).
• Finally, with time and support, they reach a point of acceptance and new stability (New Beginning).

By recognising these stages, managers can tailor their communication and support strategies.

For example, they might provide counselling or Q&A sessions during the Ending phase, offer clear information and encouragement during the Neutral Zone, and celebrate milestones in the New Beginning phase. The Bridges transition model complements more process-driven change frameworks by ensuring that the “people side” of change is addressed thoughtfully and thoroughly.

Kübler-Ross change curve

The Kübler-Ross change curve originates from psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s five stages of grief, but it has been widely adapted to describe individuals’ emotional responses to major change (Kübler-Ross, 1969).

The model outlines a sequence of emotional stages that people often experience when faced with a significant change or loss: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

In an organisational context, when a significant change is announced – such as layoffs, a restructuring, or a dramatic shift in policy – employees may initially react with Denial, refusing to believe that the change is real or necessary.

As reality sets in, they may feel Anger, expressing frustration or resentment towards management or the situation.

Bargaining can follow, where employees hold out hope that the change can be adjusted or that compromises can be made (for example, an employee might attempt to negotiate different terms or ask if the old system can continue in some form).

When it becomes clear that the change will proceed, Depression or discouragement may set in – people might feel anxious, demoralised, or mournful about what is being lost.

Finally, with time and support, Acceptance emerges – individuals come to terms with the new reality and begin to move forward, possibly finding positive aspects in the change or at least resigning themselves to it.

Managers often use the Kübler-Ross change curve as a guide to anticipate and respond to the emotional trajectory of their teams during change. Not everyone goes through these stages in order, and some individuals move faster or slower than others. Nevertheless, the model provides a useful framework for understanding common reactions.

By recognising that denial, anger, or skepticism are natural early responses, leaders can plan appropriate interventions. For example:

• During the Denial stage managers should patiently provide information and clear reasoning.
• They must also listen to concerns and acknowledge feelings during the Anger stage.
• In the Bargaining phase, managers need to clarify what can and cannot be adjusted.
• During the Depression stage, it is important to offer reassurance, support, and perhaps counselling resources.
• As employees reach Acceptance, managers can encourage involvement in shaping the new ways of working. They should also highlight success stories to reinforce optimism.

With empathy and good communication, leaders can help shorten the more difficult phases of transition. They can then guide people more quickly towards acceptance and engagement with the new state. In essence, the Kübler-Ross change curve highlights that even when a change is logically necessary, people’s emotional adjustment is a journey that must be managed with care.

Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory

Everett Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory, originally developed in the 1960s, provides valuable insight into how new ideas and practices spread within a population (Rogers, 2003).

In the context of organisational change, Rogers’ theory helps managers understand that different people adopt a change at different rates.

The theory categorises individuals into five adopter groups: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards.

• Innovators are a small fraction of people who are eager to try new things and willing to take risks – in a company, these might be the employees who volunteer to pilot an unfamiliar tool or process.
• Early Adopters are those who, while not as risk-seeking as innovators, are open to change and often serve as opinion leaders; they tend to adopt new ideas early and can influence others by demonstrating enthusiasm and success.
• Early Majority individuals are more cautious. They adopt a change only after some time has passed and they see that it has been tested and is working for others.
• Late Majority are the more skeptical or reluctant individuals – they will only embrace the change after it has become mainstream, often due to peer pressure.
• Laggards are the last to adopt a change, if they do at all – they are strongly attached to tradition and may only change when old ways are no longer feasible.

This distribution of adopter types is often depicted as a bell curve, with Innovators and Laggards at the tails and the Majorities in the center.

For change managers, Rogers’ model underscores the need for tailored strategies to engage each group.

• Leaders should involve Innovators and Early Adopters at the outset of a change initiative to build momentum and gather feedback.
• Early Adopters in particular can be champions who persuade the Early Majority by showcasing successes and advocating for the benefits of the change.
• To win over the Late Majority, management may need to provide extra reassurance, training, and evidence (for instance, sharing data or testimonials that the new system works), since this group will only move when they feel confident that most others have done so.
• Laggards might require one-on-one support. Organisations may even allow them to continue some old methods in parallel until they gradually come on board, if time and policy permit.

Rogers’ theory also describes stages that individuals go through in the adoption process (from gaining knowledge of the innovation, to being persuaded of its value, to deciding to adopt, implementing, and then confirming the adoption).

In practice, a manager introducing a new project management software might first pilot it with a few enthusiastic Innovators. Then they can have respected Early Adopters train their peers. As positive results are communicated and peer pressure builds, the Early Majority and then the Late Majority would follow, with the most resistant Laggards perhaps only adopting when the old system is finally retired.

The diffusion of innovations perspective reminds us that social dynamics and peer influence are powerful forces in organisational change. It complements other change models by focusing on the spread of acceptance among people. It also suggests that achieving widespread adoption depends as much on understanding networks and influence as on issuing directives.

Burke-Litwin causal change model

W. Warner Burke and George H. Litwin developed a comprehensive framework that links organisational change to performance, known as the Burke-Litwin model (Burke and Litwin, 1992). This model presents a causal diagram of how different factors within an organisation interact to drive change.

The key factors in the Burke-Litwin model include the external environment, leadership, mission and strategy, and organisational culture. It also encompasses structural and managerial elements such as organisational structure, management practices, and internal systems (policies and procedures).

Additionally, it considers factors at the work-unit and individual level. These include work unit climate, tasks and skills, individual needs and values, and motivation. All of these ultimately influence individual and organisational performance.

Notably, the model distinguishes between transformational factors (external environment, leadership, strategy, culture – elements that can cause major shifts in an organisation) and transactional factors (structure, systems, management practices, and work climate – elements that can be adjusted within the existing organisational paradigm).

The essence of the Burke-Litwin model is that effective change requires understanding the cause-and-effect linkages among these variables. It is often used by organisational development professionals to diagnose issues and plan comprehensive change interventions.

For instance, if a company’s performance is declining, the model encourages leaders to check for misalignment among these factors. Perhaps the external environment has shifted but the company’s strategy and culture have not adapted. Or maybe the internal systems and employee skills are not supporting the strategic goals.

In a practical scenario, if a public sector agency undergoes a significant policy change (an external environmental shift), the Burke-Litwin model guides its leaders to consider corresponding changes internally.

• Does the agency’s mission and strategy need to be updated?
• Do leadership behaviours and organisational culture need to change to embrace the new policy?
• Does the organisational structure support the new objectives, and do management practices and systems need adjustment?

Through this comprehensive lens, the Burke-Litwin model ensures that deep, systemic issues are addressed. It prevents change leaders from focusing only on surface symptoms. In academic and professional practice, it has been praised for integrating human and organisational variables into one view, helping managers to plan and execute transformations in a structured, holistic way.

Applying change management models in practice

Understanding these models is only the first step – effective change leaders also need to know how to apply them flexibly in real-world scenarios.

In practice, change initiatives often benefit from using multiple models or adapting elements from each. For example, a manager might use Kotter’s steps to structure the overall rollout of a project while simultaneously employing ADKAR to coach individual team members through their personal transitions.

It is also important to consider the context: industry, organisational size, and the complexity of the change. Healthcare organisations often face high-stakes outcomes and complex hierarchies. In these settings, models like Lewin’s or Kotter’s are frequently used to implement clinical protocols and quality improvements (Barrow and Annamaraju, 2022). Indeed, the healthcare sector developed a tailored framework known as the NHS Change Model. This model combines best practices into eight components (NHS England, 2018), showing how general change principles can be customised to fit a particular context.

Another key aspect of applying change models is managing resistance to change. Nearly every model recognises the challenge of resistance. Some do so explicitly: for example, Lewin’s model stresses the need to “unfreeze” old behaviours, Kübler-Ross’s model focuses on emotional stages, and Kotter’s model emphasises empowering employees and removing obstacles.

Successful change leaders use comprehensive communication and engagement strategies to address resistance. For instance, when a global manufacturing company introduced a new production technology, they applied the McKinsey 7-S framework to ensure structure, systems and skills were aligned, and they leveraged Rogers’ diffusion of innovations by enlisting enthusiastic operators as early adopters who championed the new technology. By doing so, they not only identified and fixed misalignments in processes and training, but also created peer influence that helped overcome initial scepticism and accelerated the adoption of the change.

Models, however, are not rigid rules but guiding tools. Effective change leadership often involves interpreting and blending these frameworks with sound judgement and empathy. Change initiatives can be unpredictable, so leaders must be prepared to iterate and adjust their approach. It is wise to measure progress – for example, by using short-term wins as checkpoints or gathering feedback on employee sentiment.

Leaders should also be willing to modify the strategy if the situation changes. Finally, after any major change effort, reflective learning is essential. Managers and students of management should analyse what went well and what did not, and consider which model assumptions held true. Over time, this experiential learning combined with a strong foundation in change management models will equip professionals to navigate future changes with greater confidence and skill.

Need help with a undergraduate or MBA management assignment? Our UK-qualified management experts are ready to assist. Visit our management assignment help page now for more info.

References and further reading:

• Appelbaum, S.H., Habashy, S., Malo, J-L. and Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764–782.
• Balluck, J., Asturi, E. and Brockman, V. (2020). Use of the ADKAR and CLARC change models to navigate staffing model changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nurse Leader, 18(6), 539–546.
• Barrow, J.M. and Annamaraju, P. (2022). Change management in health care. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
• Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
• Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2019). Making Sense of Change Management (5th ed.). London: Kogan Page.
• Cummings, S., Bridgman, T. and Brown, K.G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33–60.
• Hiatt, J.M. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community. Loveland, CO: Prosci Research.
• Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2006). How to implement a new strategy without disrupting your organization. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 100–109.
• Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan.
• Nelson-Brantley, H.V. and Ford, D.J. (2017). Leading change: a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(4), 834–846.
• NHS England (2018). The Change Model Guide. London: NHS England.
• Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
• Waterman, R.H., Peters, T.J. and Phillips, J.R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14–26.