Organization Development

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Using Kotter’s Eight Stage Process to Manage an Organisational Change Program: Presentation and Practice

Julien Pollack • Rachel Pollack

Published online: 23 March 2014 � Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Kotter’s eight stage process for creating a major change is one of the most widely recognised models for change management, and yet there are few case studies in the academic

literature that enquire into how this process has been used in practice. This paper describes a

change manager’s action research enquiring into the use of this Process to manage a major

organisational change. The change was initiated in response to the organisation’s ageing

workforce, introducing a knowledge management program focusing on the interpersonal

aspects of knowledge retention. Although Kotter’s process emphasises a top-led model for

change, the change team found it was necessary to engage at many levels of the organisation

to implement the organisational change. The process is typically depicted as a linear sequence

of steps. However, this image of the change process was found to not represent the complexity

of the required action. Managing the change required the change team to facilitate multiple

concurrent instances of Kotter’s process throughout the organisation, to re-create change that

was locally relevant to participants in the change process.

Keywords Change management � Organisational change � Kotter’s eight stage process � Knowledge management � Aging workforce � Action research

Introduction

This research reports on action research (AR) into an organisational change program in the

Australian Finance and Insurance Sector. The use of Kotter’s eight stage process of cre-

ating a major change (Kotter 1996) is studied in detail, providing insight into the use of this

process that can be of benefit to other change managers seeking to apply it.

J. Pollack (&) University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123 Broadway, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

R. Pollack Sydney, Australia

123

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 DOI 10.1007/s11213-014-9317-0

The relevance of this research becomes clear on recognising the significant divide that

has been identified between the academic and practitioner change management commu-

nities. In 1993, it was identified that a boundary existed between theoreticians and prac-

titioners (Buchanan 1993, p .684), with both being dismissive of each others’ work, and

that there was little connection between their contributions (1993, p. 685). More recently,

Saka (2003, p. 481) identified a similar division between how change management is

described and how it is practiced. This situation has apparently not changed, with Ap-

pelbaum et al. (2012), p. 764) calling for a greater emphasis on producing research in a

form that is usable by those who practice change management.

There appears to be little research that enquires into the practicalities of using change

management techniques to effect organizational change, either with regard to their suit-

ability or appropriateness. Although there is a significant body of literature which provides

advice for practitioners, there remains little research on how to actually apply change

management techniques, or critically questions their effectiveness (Raineri 2011, p. 267); a

lack that this research helps to address.

Kotter’s (1996) eight stage process of creating a major change has been recognised as

one of the most well known approaches to organisational transformation (Mento et al.

2002, p .45), as the mainstream wisdom for leading change (Nitta et al. 2009, p .467), and

the most compelling formula for success in change management (Phelan 2005, p .47).

Kotter’s work became highly sought after by leaders of organizations who were planning

on implementing organizational change initiatives (Brisson-Banks 2010, p. 248). The

Process ‘‘…became an instantaneous success at the time it was advocated and it remains a key reference in the field of change management’’ (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 765).

Given the popularity of Kotter’s eight stage process it may be reasonable to assume that

claims of a divide between research and practice are not relevant in this case. However, a

thorough study of the literature by Appelbaum et al. (2012) has revealed that this is not

necessarily true. Their review of the change management literature revealed that ‘‘…most of the evidence found during the search points to data that has been compiled by Kotter

himself … In essence Kotter validated Kotter’’ (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 776). Aca- demics appear to have used Kotter’s findings about change management as if verified and

tested. ‘‘Kotter’s change management model appears to derive its popularity more from its

direct and usable format than from any scientific consensus on the results’’ (Appelbaum

et al. 2012, p. 764).

A variety of reviews of the field of organisational change can be found in the literature

(e.g. Cao and McHugh 2005). Although some authors (e.g. Tsoukas and Papoulias 2005)

refer to an abundance of case studies examining organizational change, there are few case

studies of changes managed using Kotter’s Process (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 776). The

weight of research that references Kotter’s work does not investigate how the process can

be used, but instead either discusses Kotter’s writing in the context of the broader literature

on change management, or uses the process as a framework for conducting a post hoc

analysis of a change (e.g. Yauch and Steudel 2002; Sikorko 2008; Smith 2011; Casey et al.

2012; Nitta et al. 2009; Goede 2011; Gupta 2011).

Studies by Cole et al. (2006, p.363) and Paper et al. (2001), p.85) have found the actual

execution of a change to be one of the key factors in determining success or failure. Of the

various ways in which Kotter’s work has been used in the change management literature, it

is arguably AR, rather than literature reviews or post hoc analyses, that have the greater

potential to contribute to improved execution. Some case studies of changes managed

using Kotter’s process do stand out (e.g. Springer et al. 2012; Lintukangas et al. 2009; Day

and Atkinson 2004; Ansari and Bell 2009; Joffe and Glynn 2002), and it is to this small but

52 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

important literature to which this research contributes. This research critically examines

how Kotter’s (1996) eight stage process of creating a major change has been used to

manage an organisational change; a process that despite its popularity, has rarely been

studied in the academic literature.

The Eight Stage Process of Creating a Major Change

The eight stage process is ‘‘…as a vision for the change process’’ (Mento et al. 2002, p .45) describing a series of steps to be taken to achieve mandated organisational changes. A wide

variety of models for managing organisational change exist in the literature (Sikorko 2008,

p. 307; Stewart and Kringas 2003, p .676; Buchanan 1993, p. 684; Smith 2011, p. 115;

Pillay et al. 2012, p .59), and is not the place of this research to analyse Kotter’s process in

relation to other models. Readers are instead referred to authors who have already done this

(e.g. Brisson-Banks 2010; Stewart and Kringas 2003). However, it is worthwhile to note

some ways in which the Process has been characterized: as placing a strong emphasis on

leadership (Pillay et al. 2012, p .61; Raineri 2011; Choi et al. 2011, p. 12) and viewing

change as top-led (Abraham et al. 2002, p. 36; Choi et al. 2011, p. 12; Day and Atkinson

2004, p. 258). Kotter’s approach has also been described as focusing on organisational

culture (Casey et al. 2012, p. 112), and of being typical of private sector change models

(Stewart and Kringas 2003). Disagreement also exists, with some (Pillay et al. 2012, p. 60)

describing the process as centrally planned change, while By (2005) has described it as

emphasising an emergent, rather than a planned, approach to change management.

Kotter’s eight stage process of creating a major change as detailed in Leading Change

(1996) and later works can be summarised as follows:

1. Establishing a sense of urgency

2. Creating the guiding coalition

3. Develop a vision and strategy

4. Communicating the change vision

5. Empowering broad-based change

6. Generating short-term wins

7. Consolidating gains and producing more change

8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture

The efficacy of Kotter’s process has been broadly supported in the literature (e.g. Ansari

and Bell 2009, p. 160; Cegielski et al. 2006, p. 311). Despite its popularity, the process has

also been criticised. It has been claimed that this, and other, change management processes

describe what has to be done but provide little detail in how it should be achieved (Pfeifer

et al. 2005, p. 297), and that it is not sufficiently detailed to guide change management in

all situations (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 775). Conversely, the Process has also been

criticised as not general enough for some kinds of change (Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 157),

and of being overly planned, and therefore not representation of the realities of organi-

sational life (Hay et al. 2001, p. 243). However, these criticisms need to be tempered by

Sikorko (2008) observation that ‘‘…no single model can provide a one-size-fits-all solution to organisational change.’’

Springer et al. (2012)provides a detailed case study which reviews the use of the process

to implement a cultural change at the Boise State University School of Nursing. The case

provides detail about the changes that were implemented within the organisation, but does

not focus on how the process was used to facilitate this change. This case study leaves the

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 53

123

reader with the impression use of Kotter’s Process was uncontentious. Perhaps this was the

case, although without specific comment to this effect it is not possible to say.

The Process was also used to facilitate change in an aerospace industry study presented

by Day and Atkinson (2004). In this case, the process was used as a planning tool and to

communicate the nature of the change to procurement functions in the early stages of the

change program. However, the practitioners in this case study had limited success using the

process as a guide for future action, finding the process to be of ‘‘…limited use over and above the raising of personal awareness about the range of factors that are to be considered

throughout a change programme…’’ (Day and Atkinson 2004, p. 266). Kotter’s process was also used in the implementation of a Shell Gabon strategic cost

initiative in the initial planning phases of the change program (Ansari and Bell 2009).

However, the change team found that not all stages of Kotter’s process suited their

environment, needing to add other conceptual frameworks. Joffe and Glynn (2002) also

present a study of the use of Kotter’s process in the pharmaceutical industry, while

Lintukangas et al. (2009) present a case study of a forestry company which aimed to follow

Kotter’s process in implementing an organisational change. However, neither of these

latter two cases provide significant critical reflection on the use of the process, and so are of

limited use in understanding how the process can be applied in practice.

Methodology and Structure of the Paper

This research was conducted at UGF (a pseudonym), an Australian organisation in the

Finance and Insurance Sector with over 10,000 employees and offices worldwide. The

change manager used Kotter’s eight-stage process of creating a major change to guide and

structure change management action, and the use of this process forms the focus for this

research.

This research was managed using AR. There are a wide variety of forms of AR,

although it would be fair to say that most could be described as cyclic and reflective

methodologies (Swepson 2003, p. 102), which are primarily focused on intervention, rather

than observation (Midgley 2003, p. 81). AR is an approach to research which allows a

researcher to engage in an organisation, and simultaneously create knowledge about that

process (Olsen and Myers 1999, p. 323).

AR is particularly appropriate for organisational settings, where the need to produce

organisational outcomes may be more significant in securing ongoing research participa-

tion than the promise of research outcomes. AR requires involvement in problem situations

and a ‘‘… readiness to use the experience itself as a research object about which lessons can be learned by conscious reflection’’ (Checkland and Scholes 1990, p. 16). AR has also

been identified as appropriate for organisational change research, as it assists in developing

an understanding of the ways that social systems change (Lau 1999, p. 149), and has been

used to study a wide variety of business problems, including: organisational change and

transformation; marketing; product development; manufacturing; engineering; information

systems and e-commerce; accounting; small business; and management development

(Sankaran and Tay 2003, pp. 1–2).

Flood (1999, p. 53) has noted the development of a unique form of AR as one of the key

strands in Checkland’s work. Checkland’s FMA model has been identified as one of the

most widely used forms of AR (Champion 2007, p. 455), and it is this model which has

been followed in this research. The main components of this model are a research

framework (F); a methodology (M); and an area of application (A). Simply, particular ‘‘…

54 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

linked ideas F are used in a methodology M to investigate an area of interest A’’

(Checkland and Howell 1998, p. 13). Being explicit about these three elements may lead to

learning not only about the area of application, but also about the adequacy of the

methodology and the research framework (Checkland and Howell 1998, p. 13). Indeed, the

majority of learning resulting from the research presented in this paper is at the level of

methodology.

Clear distinction between a framework of ideas and a methodology for the organised

application of those ideas differentiates this approach to AR from others (Checkland 2003,

p. 291). Most other AR ‘‘… omits the need for a declared-in-advance intellectual frame- work of ideas, a framework in terms of which what constitutes ‘knowledge’ about the

situation researched will be defined and expressed’’ (Checkland and Holwell 1998,

pp. 22–3). What constitutes knowledge in a problem situation should not be taken as given.

In defining F, the researcher is in effect defining the epistemology of the research and

defining what will count as knowledge (p. 24). Declaring the intellectual framework for an

AR project can be thought of as a way of contextualising the research in relation to the

range of possible forms of knowledge extant, allowing any research findings to be

appropriately judged and understood.

It is perhaps because of clear identification of the components of research that

Checkland’s FMA model has been found to add rigour (Sarah et al. 2002, p. 537) and

provide clarity (p. 539). The FMA model has been used to study organisational change

(Molineux and Haslett 2002), and readers are referred to West and Stansfield (2001, p. 251)

for an in-depth review of the use of the FMA model.

In terms of the FMA model, this research can be summarised as follows:

• F: Interpretivist epistemology and the academic literature on organizational change • M: Kotter’s eight stage process of creating a major change • A: Action taken at UGF

Data for this paper was gathered through semi-structured interviews between the

authors as a way of facilitating reflection, one of whom was the change manager for the

Knowledge Management Program at UGF. At the time of initial submission of this

research for publication, the organisational change had been running for over 2 years.

The remainder of this paper will be structured according to Kotter’s process. Each stage

will be discussed in terms of principles for action as described in the literature, before

actions taken at UGF are examined. Observations and conclusions about the overall use of

the process will then follow.

Stage 1: Establishing a Sense of Urgency

The first stage in Kotter’s eight stage process is to create a sense of urgency; an awareness

of the need for the organisation to change. Kotter notes the failure to create a sense of

urgency to be the single biggest error made when trying to change organisations (Kotter

2008, p. viii), and has written a whole book, A Sense of Urgency, exclusively focusing on

this stage.

Establishing a sense of urgency is crucial to gaining needed cooperation. With

complacency high, transformations usually go nowhere because few people are even

interested in working on the change problem. With urgency low, it’s difficult to put

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 55

123

together a group with enough power and credibility to guide the effort (Kotter 1996,

p. 36).

Complacency, rather than a desire for change, has been identified as more likely to be

the norm in established organisations (Kotter 2008, p. 15). Considerable effort may be

required to motivate organisational personnel to invest their time and effort and to put up

with the inconveniences of change (Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 157).

Although in Australia the Financial and Insurance Services sector has a relatively

younger workforce than many other sectors (Department of Education, Employment and

Workplace Relations 2010, p. 12), the issues that could result from a failure to respond to

their aging workforce were apparent to the senior management team at UGF. It was

identified that aging workforce issues could negatively impact upon core business areas if

left unaddressed. In particular, senior product roles were identified as under threat, due to a

lack of younger personnel able to fill these roles.

An aging workforce is typically represented as a threat; as a ‘‘… demographic time bomb…’’ (Crampton et al. 1996, p. 243), a ‘‘…baby-boom-retirement tsunami…’’ (Leonard and Swap 2004, p. 90), or ‘‘…a threat to sustaining competitive advantage’’ (DeLong 2004, p. 19). However, the risks associated with an aging workforce are typically

faced equally by all companies within that industry sector. Risks can be considered to

include both threat and opportunity (Hillson 2003). There is an opportunity for competitive

advantage for those companies who respond most effectively to these issues.

Senior management at UGF established a Knowledge Management Program to mitigate

retirement knowledge loss. The initial focus in the Knowledge Management Program was

on exploring the risks associated with continuing with business as usual, and why change

was needed. Change management personnel reported that the need for change was easy to

sell as a message, due to widespread awareness of the looming demographic shift, but that

it was important to raise awareness that this was an issue that the company was looking to

do something about.

Stage 2: Creating the Guiding Coalition

The second stage in Kotter’s process involves forming a group who have enough power to

lead the change (Kotter 1996, p. 21). Guiding coalitions for the Knowledge Management

Program were created at multiple levels. Most prominently, the executive management

coalition was championed by the CEO and direct reports, and provided ongoing strategic

direction for the program.

The General Management Advisory Group, the second coalition, was also formed to

provide project governance. It has been identified that it is often problematic to identify

isolated factors that are responsible for the successful implementation of changes in or-

ganisations (Van der Meer 1999). However, Helm and Remington (2005) have identified

that the role of program sponsor is vital. This is particularly true in complex organisational

change programs (Remington and Pollack 2007). The involvement of these groups of

senior personnel met the need for a strong guiding coalition for the program, something

that Kotter (1996) identifies as essential.

A third prominent coalition was formed at a technical level of the organisation. One of

the projects within the program involved the development of a mentoring network, using a

risk based approach to knowledge management consistent with the approach reported on

by Sherman (2008). The change manager put considerable effort into bonding the senior

56 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

personnel invited to be coaches into a group. It was made clear that the success of the

program depended upon their involvement and drive for change. The group received

personalised communication from the sponsor EGM and CEO, and would go on to have

guiding influence beyond the limits of their project.

Stage 3: Develop a Vision and Strategy

UGF was described by the change manager as an organisation that culturally understands

and responds to risk. One of the key strengths of the organisation lay in the knowledge of

talented senior technical personnel. The organisation was already in a strong market

position. However, long-term contextual changes threatened this key strength. Upon

retirement employees take the unique skills, knowledge, experience and relationships that

they embody with them as they walk out the door. This is a commonly acknowledged

threat (e.g. Malone 2002, p. 112; DeLong 2004; Burke and Ng 2006, p. 88). Transfer of

knowledge from an older generation of experienced personnel to the generations following

was considered vital to UGF maintaining performance. This is consistent with the litera-

ture. Burke and Ng (2006) noted that those organisations that effectively transfer knowl-

edge between generations will be the least susceptible to issues associated with retiring

workers (p. 88). Knowledge transfer programs are acknowledged as a significant response

to an aging workforce in a wide variety of research (IAEA 2004, pp. 18–9; Krail 2005,

p. 35; Sherman 2008, p. 45). The vision for the program was to minimise this large risk to

the organisation’s competitive advantage, and was mostly defined in negative terms, as the

need to avoid the consequences of inaction.

The strategy to address this issue involved launching a wide variety of projects,

including: a mentoring project; developing communities of practice; role redefinition to

allow for accelerated specialist development; the introduction of a graduate program;

introduction of software supported discussion forums and analysis tools; development of

seminars focused on knowledge sharing; and a retirement preparation project focusing on

retention and workload issues. It was found that developing a vision and gaining accep-

tance for projects was relatively uncontentious. This can be attributed to broad and

common acceptance of the need to change. Of the four types of organisational change

identified by Cao et al. (2004, p. 105), this program would come to emphasise change of

cultures and values.

Stage 4: Communicating the Change Vision

The fourth Stage in Kotter’s Process is to communicate the vision for change. However,

Kotter notes that managers underestimate the amount of communication required to

develop a consistent understanding, an effort which may be hampered by inconsistent

messages, and lead to a stalled change implementation (1996, p. 85). Other research has

observed that ‘‘…in any company there is twice as much discussion about the weather than about new strategies’’ (Pfeifer et al. 2005, p. 302). Ansari and Bell (2009, p. 159) have

identified the need to communicate the change as one of the two most important stages in

Kotter’s process.

Kotter identifies the error of ‘‘…under communicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or 100 or even 1,000)…’’ (1996, p. 9). In this organisational change at UGF more time and effort was devoted to spreading the message and developing the visibility of the program

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 57

123

than any other program activity. However, adequately communicating the program vision

proved to involve more than repetition; something which is consistent with Sikorko (2008)

findings about change communication.

The change team focused on two broad groups of activities in communicating the

vision: visible senior support; and harnessing existing activities. Senior leaders were

regularly enlisted to talk about the need for change, and this was found to be an effective

strategy in developing senior support. For instance, on one occasion it was noted that an

executive appeared bored with the progress reports he had received. However, when he

was given slides and asked to present on the topic he became interested. In front of an

audience, he was animated and engaged, and afterwards requested more material to

present. This approach of engaging senior leaders through presentation to their teams and

to other product areas was reported as effective. It was also reported that the change team

needed to take the initiative to find new forums at which senior leaders could present,

rather than assuming this would happen without prompting. Despite CEO endorsement of

the Program, initiative could not be assumed.

The change team built on already planed activities within the organisation, often taking

senior managers’ presentation slides on other topics to draw out links to the program,

rewriting parts of the presentations to provide examples of the importance of the change,

including for the CEO. One example included the annual CEO and Executive road-show,

which was adapted to feature a strong emphasis on the program. The change team also

approached the EGM of HR and suggested that he may also want to discuss the program at

the road-show. This gave the EGM of HR an opportunity to join a politically expedient

movement, and helped to promote the program in multiple forums; at the road-show itself,

and later again when the EGM of HR reported to his leadership team.

Developing relationships with the organisation’s communications department also

proved significant. Good news articles about the program, such as updates about recent

coaching workshops, would be posted on the intranet. The change team nurtured positive

relationships with the communications department, which helped to keep news about the

Program at the top of the intranet news list for longer and with greater prominence.

Stage 5: Empowering Broad-based Change

The fifth stage in Kotter’s process involves removing obstacles to change, changing

structures or systems that undermine the vision, and encouraging innovative ideas (Kotter

1996, p. 21). As relationships with the communications team helped in the previous stage,

relationships with HR and other business units helped to remove structural barriers to

empowerment. For instance, unit business plans were centrally controlled for some units,

and locally controlled for others. The change team talked to each unit individually and to

the group overseeing central control of business plans to have aspects of the program

included in all business plans. Relationships with key personnel in HR helped to ensure

approval, and when it was approved the relationships with the communications team

helped to ensure that the program priorities featured prominently in unit plan

documentation.

Many of the blocks removed were at the project, rather than the program, level and can

be most clearly illustrated through reference to the mentoring project. To ensure coach

performance, all coaches attended training. The need for coaching training is consistent

with observations in the literature (Lubit 2001 p. 176). It has been identified that many

organisations have lost the ability to coach upcoming generations (Crawford et al. 2006,

58 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

p. 727). Coaches were also provided with a resource to assist with ongoing coaching on

coaching.

The sponsor encouraged coaches, protégés, and participants to experiment, with the

intention of empowering them to take independent action. Coaches were allowed to define

their coaching roles to suit their interests and skills. For instance, at one community of

practice it was revealed that a coach had taken his protégés on a field trip. Another coach

felt that their protégés’ negotiation skills needed to be further developed, and engaged an

external training provider. These actions were neither suggested nor pre-sanctioned, but

when revealed were actively supported.

Emphasis was also placed on ensuring that the coaches knew they had senior man-

agement support. At one point, a coach approached the change team identifying that a

protégé’s manager was making participation in the program difficult. The change manager

didn’t have the line authority to remove the block, but had access to those who could, and

did, resolve such issues.

The existing role design for many protégés also did not align with the program goals,

with many protégé’s in generalist product roles that did not allow for rapid specialist

development. The GM who oversaw many protégés was opposed to changing their role

description, so the change team started talking to everyone they could to garner support.

Coaches were surveyed and approximately 80 % identified specialisation as the better

option. It became clear that public opinion was for role specialisation and so the GM

redefined roles for the protégés.

Stage 6: Generating Short-term Wins

Short-term wins help to demonstrate the viability of change and to build momentum.

Kotter (1996, p. 123) identifies that short-term wins need to be visible; unambiguously

successful; and clearly related to the direction of change. Although not all researchers

consider short-term significant in all change programs (Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 159), they

did play a significant part in the management of the Knowledge Management Program. The

change team’s role involved less of the direct creation of short-term wins than in adver-

tising the successes of those wins.

Survey results were one way that the progress was advertised within UGF. For instance,

although at the time of writing it was too early to prove the impact of the mentoring project

on the speed of development of specialist product knowledge, the project has been lauded

as successes. Survey responses indicated a positive perception of the impact on develop-

ment speed. For instance, 94 % of coaches had noticed a positive change in protégés’

confidence and knowledge. Survey results were also used in the case study documented by

Springer et al. (2012, p. 84), although in that case they were used to develop a sense of

urgency rather than to communicate short-term wins.

Another tactic used to raise awareness of program progress was through storytelling.

Kotter (2008, p. 54) has stated that ‘‘Neurologists say that our brains are programmed

much more for stories than for PowerPoint slides and abstract ideas’’, and has referred to

‘‘…the incredible power of good stories to influence behaviors over time…’’ (Kotter 2005, p. 142). Indeed, Kotter’s Our Iceberg is Melting (2005) is almost entirely delivered through

story. The significance of using metaphors and compelling stories to develop awareness of

the need for change or to explain a specific initiative has also been identified by Roberto

and Levesque (2005, p. 56).

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 59

123

The change team sought out examples of positive change throughout UGF that illus-

trated the successes of the Program, including structuring stories based on Denning’s

framework for the springboard story (Denning, 2001), a story structure designed to

facilitate and encourage organisational change. Senior leaders were then supplied with a

drip-feed of new scripted stories for upcoming organisational events.

The change team found that some coaches started to comment that change was too hard

to continue; that they didn’t feel they had made progress. Many of the changes that had

already occurred were intangible and easy to forget. Communicating short-term wins were

useful in soothing flagging spirits, but finding ways of communicating intangible and

diffuse wins often required considerable effort.

Stages 7 and 8: Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change, and Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture

At the time of interview, the Knowledge Management Program was in the seventh stage of

Kotter’s process. The program had gained considerable momentum through the short-term

wins, the involvement of the program’s guiding coalitions of senior personnel, and the

persistent use all possible communication channels to increase the visibility of the

Program.

The change team now had to deal with the consequences of their success. Due to

increased access to senior management and a perception that they were on a fast-tracked

development path, participants in some projects were perceived as members of an

‘exclusive club’. In the early stages of the Program this had contributed to an aura of

success. However, the ‘exclusive club’ approach would not suit the larger and more

inclusive group involved in the next stage of growth. The change team were coming to

terms with the need to change their personal conceptualisation of the Program.

During stage seven other projects that were contributing to aligned goals and relatable

projects that were in the early stages of initiation were brought under the program banner.

It was reported that effort was required to keep the program true to the vision during this

stage of growth and to resist the manoeuvres of other parties from subverting, or changing,

the program approach. For instance, some parties were interested in changing the focus

from developing interpersonal networks of knowledge sharing to an IT-focus on devel-

oping knowledge repositories. However, it has been identified in the literature that tacit

knowledge is not easily codified and that ‘‘While it’s true that merely describing experi-

ences to people (or telling them what to do or giving them rules) may create some mental

receptors upon which to hang experience, the tacit dimensions of an expert’s deep smarts

have to be re-created to take hold’’ (Leonard and Swap 2004, p. 94). At UGF, knowledge

was being re-created through protégés’ vicarious experience of mentors’ stories, and access

to world-views developed over decades in the industry. A move towards a greater emphasis

on IT investment over interpersonal network development was resisted.

Stages seven and eight of this change process were reported as likely to take a long time

to complete. It has been noted that large scale change can take a long time to complete, and

that this is particularly true in larger organisations (Kotter 1996, p. 132). New messages

were being sought to maintain organisational interest in the change. ‘‘Whenever you let up

before the job is done, critical momentum can be lost and regression may follow. Until

changed practices attain a new equilibrium and have been driven into the culture, they can

be very fragile’’ (Kotter 1996, p. 133). As noted by Appelbaum et al. (2012) Stages 7 and 8

are complicated to evaluate. It will likely be many years before definitive statements can be

60 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

made about how well the Knowledge Management Program was embedded in the culture

of UGF.

Discussion of the Use of Kotter’s Process

It is difficult to make categorical statements about the efficacy of an approach to change,

due to the complexity of their use in practice (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 776). ‘‘This is one

of the inherent problems with organisational change management; nobody can know what

would have happened if a different course of action (or no action at all) had been taken …’’ (Reissner et al. 2011, p. 427). With regard to evaluating the use of a process, Checkland

and Scholes (1990, p. 299) have noted that ‘‘…there is in principle no way in which it could be proved or disproved that this was the best way to do it, or that a more competent

use … would have achieved the results more quickly.’’ These statement are generally true for any assessment of change management involving the implementation of a process by

unique practitioners in a unique context. However, it is possible to make observations of

the interpretation of the approach which may be of benefit to future practitioners.

Kotter’s Process has been described as ‘‘…structured linear steps’’ (Day and Atkinson 2004, p. 257), an ‘‘… ‘n’ step change…’’ process (p. 265), ‘‘…a linear progression…’’ (Nitta et al. 2009, p. 483) or ‘‘…a sequential procedure…’’ (Pfeifer et al. 2005, p. 297). Indeed, Kotter (1996) identifies the ‘‘…importance of sequence…’’ (p. 23) and that ‘‘…skipping even a single step or getting too far ahead without a solid base almost always creates problems’’ (p. 23). Other writers have criticised linear approaches as they ‘‘…they lack flexibility to deal with the vast assortment of problems and issues that may be

experienced during change’’ (Sikorko 2008, p. 308), and that a traditional reading of

Kotter’s work does not account for how democratic organisational change can be (Reissner

et al. 2011, p. 426).

It is clear from the number of authors that have interpreted Kotter’s work in this way,

that his writing gives the impression that organisational change involves one sequence of

movement through the eight Stages. However, Kotter does acknowledge that earlier stages

may have to be revisited, suggesting the possibility of some break to the sequence.

Although this research paper has related the change at UGF in linear fashion, use of the

Process in practice was found to be significantly more complex than a single linear series

of steps. The distinguishing characteristic is not whether the change was linear or cyclic, or

whether it was top-down or bottom-up change. The distinction being made is between

viewing change as one cohesive Process or the sum of many coordinated Processes.

At UGF, there were many different stakeholder groups involved in delivering the

change; from the many guiding coalitions to project teams delivering individual pieces of

work. These different groups started the change process at different times, and multiple

concurrent instances of the Process were needed. To engage with stakeholders it was

necessary to treat them individually, not as part of a one-size-fits-all package. Kotter’s

description of the process does not make explicit allowance for this. Nonetheless, the eight

stage process was found to be an accurate description of the change process at the indi-

vidual group level. This is depicted in Fig. 1.

Different stakeholder groups also moved through the stages at different speeds. For

instance, little effort was needed to develop a sense of urgency in the coalition of EGMs.

By contrast, ten months after the Program had started, the change team met with a group of

managers five levels below the CEO who had not yet had much involvement in the

Program. It was clear that the managers were not engaged. Although the organisation was

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 61

123

celebrating the short term wins from other parts of the Program, this group did not

understand the urgency. In order to engage this group, it was necessary to start the change

process again separately. This involved bringing in senior managers to discuss the need for

change, forming this group into their own coalition to lead their manifestation of the

change, and defining a vision for what the change meant for them. Senior management’s

vision for the change needed to be re-created at a local level for this group to own their part

of the change process.

This can also be seen in discussion of Stage 2. One interpretation of this stage suggests

the need to create a single guiding coalition. Kotter’s work tends to only refer to a guiding

coalition in the singular, and is silent on the possibility of using multiple distributed

guiding coalitions. However, Day and Atkinson criticise the idea of a guiding coalition as

unable to address a ‘‘…multiplicity of agendas…’’ (2004, p. 265), and it is possible that a single coalition would not have been able to address all agendas in the Program at UGF.

However, in this Program multiple guiding coalitions were created at different organisa-

tional levels and in different areas of the organisation. One executive coalition set the

original strategy, and a second significant coalition addressed governance issues, while a

third took ownership of two prominent projects. In addition, as the Program developed, still

more groups provided leadership for the parts of the Program that were relevant to them,

with the change management team providing a guiding force to maintain alignment

between these different groups. Each coalition was given responsibility for pushing change

at a level that was appropriate to their scope of work. This finding echoes an observation

made by Sikorko (2008).

‘‘…what eventuated was that several ‘‘guiding coalitions’’ were established, not necessarily at the same time and with different yet complementary charges that were

appropriate to the need at the particular point of time in the change process. Kotter

makes no allowance for such complexities.’’ (Sikorko 2008, p. 310)

Kotter’s work remains ambiguous and relatively silent with respect to the issue of

whether change should be managed as a single instance of his Process or as multiple

instances distributed throughout an organisation. His silence on this issue may be delib-

erate, with the intention of preserving a simple account of the process of organisational

change. While this simplicity may have aided in communicating the change process, it may

also have given the impression that change in a large organisation can, or should, be

Fig. 1 Multiple concurrent change processes through the organisation

62 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

managed as a single iteration through the Process, with all parts of the organisation moving

in unison. Such an approach that would have been problematic at UGF where different

stakeholder groups started the Process at different times, and progressed through it at

different speeds.

At an organisational level, when roughly summing the effort applied by all stakeholder

groups at UGF, each of which were at different stages of progress through the Process, the

organisation could be depicted as moving through the eight stage process in a linear way

(See Fig. 2). This suggests that it is important to think of the change process at both the

organisational level and at the level of separate stakeholder groups. Kotter’s eight stage

process is linear, but for large-scale change that top-level appearance of linear sequence

may be made up of many small stakeholder groups moving in parallel, with the sequence

representing an overlapping change in focus over time. This also suggests that an effective

change team will need the flexibility to be able to work on many stages of change at once,

depending on the stakeholder group they are engaging with at that time.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the case of an organisational change using Kotter’s eight stage

process for creating a major change at UGF, a company in the Australian Finance and

Insurance Sector. Kotter’s process was found to be an effective way of managing the

change, although some adaptation was required to suit the process to the needs of the

organisation. Kotter’s work has been interpreted by other authors as suggesting that the

process should be used as a simple set of linear steps. However, it was found that in

practice the use of the process was significantly more complex.

Although the change started with the UGF leadership team, developing momentum

within the leadership team was not sufficient to create the change. Many other stakeholder

groups needed to be separately engaged by the change team, first through developing a

sense of urgency within these teams, then forming a group to lead the change, and defining

what the change would locally mean to them. The Process of creating change was found to

be linear, but throughout the organisation it was comprised of multiple instances of the

Process, each with overlapping stages, and each moving at their own speed, with the

Fig. 2 Overlapping focus on different stages during the change

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 63

123

change management team providing support to maintain strategic alignment between these

processes.

This research has contributed to a much needed link between change management

theory and practice. It has also contributed to the small literature which enquires how

Kotter’s Process can be applied in practice, providing some validation of one of the more

popular change models; one which has hereto been the subject of little external practice

based research. This research has provided one example, but more are needed to enquire

into how others have applied Kotter’s Process in practice so that practitioners have greater

opportunity to learn from others’ experience in changing their organisations.

References

Abraham M, Sullivan T, Griffin D (2002) Implementing NAGPRA: the effective management of legislated cange in museums. Manag Decis 40:35–49

Ansari S, Bell J (2009) Five easy pieces: a case study of cost management as organizational change. J Account Organ Change 5:139–167

Appelbaum S, Habashy S, Malo J, Shafiq H (2012) Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. J Manag Dev 31:764–782

Brisson-Banks C (2010) Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models and their commonalities. Library Manag 31:241–252

Buchanan D (1993) Review of ‘a strategy of change: concepts and controversies in the management of change’. J Manag Stud 30:684–686

Burke R, Ng E (2006) The changing nature of work and organizations: implications for human resource management. Hum Res Manag Rev 16:86–94

By R (2005) Organisational change management: a critical review. J Change Manag 5:369–380 Cao G, McHugh M (2005) A systemic view of change management and its conceptual underpinnings. Syst

Pract Action Res 18:475–490 Cao G, Clarke S, Lehaney B (2004) The need for a systemic approach to change management—a case study.

Syst Pract Action Res 17:103–126 Casey M, Payne W, Eime R (2012) Organisational readiness and capacity building strategies of sporting

organisations to promote health. Sport Manag Rev 15:109–124 Cegielski C, Hall D, Rebman C (2006) Enterprise resource planning systems implementation success. Int J

Inf Syst Change Manag 1:301–317 Champion D (2007) Managing action research: the PEArL framework. Syst Pract Action Res 20:455–465 Checkland P (2003) From optimizing to learning: a development of systems thinking for the 1990s. In:

Midgley G (ed) Systems thinking, Volume III. Sage, London, pp 290–303 Checkland P, Holwell S (1998) Action research: its nature and validity. Syst Pract Action Res 11:9–21 Checkland P, Howell S (1998) Information, systems and information systems—making sense of the field.

Wiley, West Sussex Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, Chichester Choi S, Holmberg I, Lowstedt J, Brommels M (2011) Executive management in radical change—the case of

the Karolinska University Hospital merger. Scand J Manag 27:11–23 Cole M, Harris S, Bernerth J (2006) Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of

organizational change. Leadersh Organ Dev J 27:352–367 Crampton S, Hodge J, Mishra J (1996) Transition-ready or not: the ageing of America’s work force. Public

Pers Manag 25:243–256 Crawford L, Morris P, Thomas J, Winter M (2006) Practitioner development: from trained technicians to

reflective practitioners. Int J Project Manag 24:722–733 Day M, Atkinson D (2004) Large-scale transitional procurement change in the aerospace industry. J Purch

Supply Manag 10:257–268 DeLong D (2004) Lost knowledge: confronting the threat of an aging workforce. Oxford University Press,

Cary Denning S (2001) The springboard. Butterworth-Heinmann, Oxford Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2010) Employment outlook for financial

and insurance services. Australian Government, Canberra Flood R (1999) Rethinking the fifth discipline: learning within the unknowable. Routledge, London

64 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

Goede M (2011) Globalization of small islands: the role models of Curacao. Int J Commer Manag 21:192–212

Gupta P (2011) Leading innovation change—the Kotter way. Int J Innov Sci 3:141–149 Hay G, Beattie R, Livingstone R, Munro P (2001) Change, HRM and the voluntary sector. Empl Relat

23:240–255 Helm J, Remington K (2005) Effective project sponsorship: an evaluation of the role of the executive

sponsor in complex infrastructure projects by senior project managers. Proj Manag J 36:51–61 Hillson D (2003) Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. Int J Proj Manag 20:235–240 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2004) The nuclear power industry’s ageing workforce:

Transfer of knowledge to the next generation (IAEA-TECDOC-1399). International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

Joffe M, Glynn S (2002) Facilitating change and empowering employees. J Change Manag 2:369–379 Kotter J (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Kotter J (2005) Our iceberg is melting. St. Martlings Press, New York Kotter J (2008) A sense of urgency. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Lau F (1999) Toward a framework for action research in information systems studies. Inf Technol People

12:148–175 Leonard D, Swap W (2004) Deep smarts. Harv Bus Rev 82(9):88–97 Lintukangas K, Peltola S, Virolainen V (2009) Some issues of supply management integration. J Purch

Supply Manag 15:240–248 Lubit R (2001) Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: the keys to sustainable competitive advan-

tage. Org Dyn 29:164–178 Malone D (2002) Knowledge management: a model for organizational learning. Int J Account Inf Syst

3:111–123 Mento A, Jones R, Dirndorfer W (2002) A change management process: grounded in both theory and

practice. J Change Manag 3:45–59 Midgley G (2003) Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity

for the philosophy of science. Syst Pract Action Res 16:77–97 Molineux J, Haslett T (2002) Working within organizational cycles—a more suitable way to manage action

research projects in large organizations? Syst Pract Action Res 15:465–484 Nitta K, Wrobel S, Howard J, Jimmerson-Eddings E (2009) Leading change of a school district organi-

zation. Public Perform Manag Rev 32:463–488 Olsen K, Myers M (1999) Trying to improve communication and collaboration with information technol-

ogy: an action research project which failed. Inf Technol People 12:317–332 Paper D, Rodger J, Pendharkar P (2001) A BPR case study at Honeywell. Bus Process Manag J 7:85–99 Pfeifer T, Schnitt R, Voigt T (2005) Managing change: quality-oriented design of strategic change pro-

cesses. The TQM Mag 17:297–308 Phelan M (2005) Cultural revitalization movements in organization change management. J Change Manag

5:47–56 Pillay J, Hackney R, Braganza A (2012) Informing strategic IS change: towards a ‘meta-learning’ frame-

work. J Strateg Inf Syst 21:58–71 Raineri A (2011) Change management practices: impact on perceived change results. J Bus Res 64:266–272 Reissner S, Pagan V, Smith C (2011) ‘Our iceberg is melting’: story, metaphor and the management of

organisational change. Cult Organ 17:417–433 Remington K, Pollack J (2007) Tools for complex projects. Gower, Aldershot Roberto M, Levesque L (2005) The change art of making initiatives stick. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46:53–60 Saka A (2003) Internal change agents’ view of the management of change problem. J Organ Change Manag

16:480–496 Sankaran S and Tay B (2003) Action research models in business research. ANZSYS Conference. 1–19.

Melbourne, Australia Sarah R, Haslett T, Molineux J, Olsen J, Stephens J, Tepe S, Walker B (2002) Business action research in

practice—a strategic conversation about conducting action research in business organizations. Syst Pract Action Res 15:535–546

Sherman R (2008) Lost knowledge: confronting the challenges of an aging nursing workforce. Nurse Lead 6:45–56

Sikorko P (2008) Transforming library and higher education support services: can change models help? Library Manag 29:307–318

Smith I (2011) Organisational quality and organisational change: interconnecting paths to effectiveness. Library Manag 32:111–128

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 65

123

Springer P, Clark C, Strohfus P, Belcheir M (2012) Using transformational change to improve organiza- tional culture and climate in a school of nursing. J Nurs Educ 51:81–88

Stewart J, Kringas P (2003) Change management—strategy and values in six agencies from the Australian Public Service. Public Adm Rev 63:675–688

Swepson P (2003) Some common ground that can provide a basis for collaboration between action researchers and scientists: a philosophical case that works in practice. Syst Pract Action Res 16:99–111

Tsoukas H, Papoulias D (2005) Managing third-order change: the case of the Public Power Corporation in Greece. Long Range Plan 38:79–95

Van der Meer F (1999) Evaluation and the social construction of impacts. Evaluation 5:387–406 West D, Stansfield M (2001) Structuring action and reflection in information systems action research studies

using checkland’s FMA model. Syst Pract Action Res 14:251–281 Krail K (2005) Retaining the retiring nurse. Nurse lead 3(2):33–36 Yauch C, Steudel H (2002) Cellular manufacturing for small businesses: key cultural factors that impact the

conversion process. J Oper Manag 20:593–617

66 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

Copyright of Systemic Practice & Action Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.