Organizational Change Models

Why This Matters

Organizational change is one of the most tested topics in Organizational Behavior because it sits at the intersection of leadership, motivation, group dynamics, and organizational culture. You're being tested not just on whether you can recall the steps in Kotter's model, but on whether you understand why change fails, how resistance emerges, and what distinguishes managing tasks from managing people through transitions. These models show up in case analyses, short-answer questions, and essays asking you to recommend or critique a change approach.

The models below represent different philosophies about how change actually happens—some focus on sequential phases, others on psychological transitions, and still others on systemic alignment. When you study them, ask yourself: Does this model prioritize the organization or the individual? Is it linear or dynamic? Does it address resistance directly? Don't just memorize acronyms—know what problem each model solves and when you'd choose one over another.

---

Phase-Based Models: Change as a Linear Process

These models treat change as a series of discrete stages that organizations move through sequentially. The underlying assumption is that change requires deliberate unfreezing of current behaviors, implementation of new practices, and stabilization to prevent backsliding.

Lewin's Three-Step Model

• Foundational framework—Kurt Lewin's 1947 model remains the conceptual ancestor of most change theories you'll encounter
• Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze sequence emphasizes that existing equilibrium must be disrupted before new behaviors can take hold
• Refreezing is the most overlooked step in practice—without it, organizations regress to old patterns, explaining why 70% of change initiatives fail

Kotter's 8-Step Change Model

• Expanded Lewin into actionable leadership behaviors—steps 1-4 correspond to unfreezing, 5-7 to change, and 8 to refreezing
• Create urgency and form a coalition address the political realities Lewin's model ignored; change requires power, not just logic
• Quick wins (step 6) build momentum and silence skeptics—this is your go-to example for how motivation theory applies to organizational change

Lippitt's Phases of Change Theory

• Seven phases extend Lewin by adding diagnostic and evaluative stages before and after the core transition
• Change agent role is explicit—Lippitt emphasized that external consultants or internal champions must guide the process
• Assessing motivation and capacity distinguishes this model; readiness for change is treated as a variable, not an assumption

---

Individual-Focused Models: Change Happens One Person at a Time

These models shift attention from organizational phases to individual psychological journeys. The core insight is that organizations don't change—people do—and each person moves through change at their own pace.

ADKAR Model

• Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement—a sequential framework for moving individuals from resistance to adoption
• Desire is the critical bottleneck; people may understand the need for change but still refuse to participate
• Prosci developed ADKAR for practitioners—it's highly testable because each element maps to specific interventions (communication builds awareness, training builds knowledge, coaching builds ability)

Bridges' Transition Model

• Psychological transition vs. situational change—Bridges distinguished between what happens (change) and how people experience it (transition)
• Neutral Zone is where most change efforts stall; this uncomfortable middle period generates anxiety, creativity, and vulnerability simultaneously
• Endings come first—counterintuitively, successful change requires explicitly mourning what's being lost before embracing what's new

Kübler-Ross Change Curve

• Borrowed from grief research—Elisabeth Kübler-Ross's stages of dying were adapted to explain emotional responses to organizational change
• Denial → Anger → Bargaining → Depression → Acceptance sequence helps leaders anticipate and normalize resistance
• Not strictly linear—individuals may cycle back through stages, making this model better for understanding resistance than managing it

---

Systems Models: Change Requires Alignment

These models view organizations as interconnected systems where changing one element affects all others. The key insight is that isolated changes fail because misaligned structures, cultures, or processes pull the organization back to its original state.

McKinsey 7-S Model

• Seven interdependent elements—Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Style, Staff, and Skills must all align for change to succeed
• Hard S's (Strategy, Structure, Systems) are easier to change; Soft S's (Shared Values, Style, Staff, Skills) are harder but more powerful
• Shared Values sit at the center—this model explicitly argues that culture is the linchpin of organizational effectiveness

Prosci's Change Management Model

• Three-tier framework integrating project management, change management processes, and individual change (ADKAR)
• Organizational change requires both technical and people-side management—Prosci's contribution is showing how these connect
• Research-backed benchmarks make this model popular with consultants; Prosci publishes data on what distinguishes successful change initiatives

---

Psychological and Behavioral Models: Understanding the Human Response

These models draw on psychology to explain why people resist change and how subtle interventions can shift behavior. They're particularly useful for understanding informal resistance and designing change approaches that work with human nature rather than against it.

Satir Change Model

• Five stages track performance and emotions: Late Status Quo → Resistance → Chaos → Integration → New Status Quo
• Chaos is productive—Virginia Satir argued that the disorientation phase, while painful, is where genuine learning and creativity occur
• Performance dips before it improves—this model explains why organizations often abandon changes right before they would have succeeded

Nudge Theory

• Behavioral economics applied to organizations—small environmental changes can produce large behavioral shifts without mandates or incentives
• Choice architecture designs contexts that make desired behaviors easier and undesired behaviors harder, preserving autonomy while guiding decisions
• Opt-out vs. opt-in is the classic example—changing the default option dramatically changes participation rates in everything from retirement savings to training programs

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two models both emphasize "refreezing" or anchoring change, and how do their approaches differ?

2. A manager notices that employees understand why change is needed but still aren't participating. According to ADKAR, what element is missing, and what intervention would address it?

3. Compare and contrast Bridges' "Neutral Zone" with Satir's "Chaos" phase. How would a leader's response differ depending on which model they're using?

4. If an FRQ describes an organization where a new strategy was implemented but the reporting structure and reward systems remained unchanged, which model best explains why the change failed?

5. When would you recommend Nudge Theory over Kotter's 8-Step Model? Identify a specific organizational change scenario where each would be more appropriate.