Models for change
Name
MMSL 6000 - Dynamic Leadership
2022
Models for change.
Kurt Lewin (1951) developed one of the early models of planned change. This model involves
three steps; ‘unfreezing’ the present pattern, ‘changing’ or developing a new pattern, and then
‘refreezing’ at the new desired level Nickols (2004). As a starting point, Lewin’s model has an
attractive simplicity because it identifies the general stages to be considered and therefore the
process to be followed. More recent views, however (such as Moorhead and Griffin, (2008),
consider managing change as a continuous process and argue that Lewin’s three-stage model has
little practical relevance. Apart from Lewin’s three-stage model, other linear models are also
proposed by a number of different authors (Burnes, 1992, Grundy1993, Kotter, 1995). In
reviewing these models it is possible to identify a number of common themes which fall into five
basic process categories as: Identification and diagnosis Consultation, exploration and
negotiation, planning, implementation and monitoring.
Although common themes can be identified, it is important to note that the five categories should
not be seen as clearly distinct, discrete steps. In practice, and in most situations, there is a fair
degree of integration and therefore blurring between the stages (Burnes, 1992; Clarke, 1994;
Vandermerwe and Vandermerwe, 1991).The first step involves determining the need for change,
analysing the organization’s current position and defining the ideal future state that the
organization would like to reach (Hill and Jones, 1992). The need for change can be diagnosed at
any level within the organization from operational to senior level (Thompson, 1993).
The second stage involves wider exploration of the problem environment including consultation
and negotiation with stakeholders. The third stage, planning, requires consideration of the
resources available, culture, amount of commitment required and the capabilities of the
management team within the context of the issues identified in stage 2. Objectives, timetables
and implementation methods are then defined as part of the planning process. The advantages of
using analytical tools prior to the implementation stage have been identified by various authors;
these include the systems approach (Carter et al., 1984), stakeholder analysis (Grundy, 1993) and
force field analysis (Lewin, 1951; Thomas, 1985). It is claimed that these tools facilitate a wider
consideration of the change environment, including analysis of possible resistance, identification
of those likely to be affected by change and the advantages and disadvantages of various change
strategies.
Stage four involves the implementation of change. It is widely accepted that this is the most
difficult step because it involves moving from the known to the unknown and is therefore risky,
stressful and complex (Clarke, 1994). Jick (1995)highlights the contingent nature of change in
terms of the importance of choosing the right time and pace at which to implement the change
process; Kanter (1993), in looking at aspects of organizational culture and structure that are
related to successful change, identifies the ‘change masters’ as ‘literally – the right people in the
right place at the right time’.
Finally, the results of the process are monitored and evaluated against the original objectives; the
extent to which they have been achieved and whether further adjustments or changes are needed.
It is tempting to see evaluation as the last stage in the process but it is important to view change
as an on-going process where through evaluation further opportunities for improvement are
identified (Clarke, 1994). It could therefore be seen as the starting point of a cyclical approach to
change.
Prosci’s change management process.
A change management process provides the structure for managing the people side of change.
Like processes for managing the technical side of a project, the change management process
describes the sequence of activities that a change management practitioner would follow on a
particular project or initiative.
Prosci's organizational change management process has three distinct phases: Phase 1 - Preparing for
change; Phase 2 - Managing change; Phase 3 Reinforcing change.
CFigure2.2 Prosci’s model.
Phase 1 - Preparing for change
The first phase in Prosci's process is aimed at getting
ready. It answers the question of how much change
management is needed for the specific project. The
first phase provides the situational awareness that is
critical for effective change management.
Outputs of Phase 1:
Change characteristics profile
Organizational attributes profile
Change management strategy
Change management team structure
Sponsor assessment, structure and roles
Phase 2 - Managing change
The second phase of Prosci's process is focused on
creating the plans that are integrated into the project
activities - what people typically think of when they
talk about change management. Based on Prosci's
research, there are five plans that should be created to
help individuals move through the ADKAR Model.
Outputs of Phase 2:
Communication plan
Training plan Coaching plan
Phase 3 - Reinforcing change
Equally critical but most often overlooked, the third
phase of Prosci's process helps project teams create
specific action plans for ensuring that the change is
sustained. In this phase, project teams develop
measures and mechanisms to see if the change has
taken hold, to the see if employees are actually doing
their jobs the new way and to celebrate success.
Outputs of Phase 3:
Reinforcement mechanisms
Compliance audit reports
Corrective action plans
Individual and group recognition approaches
Success celebrations ,after action review
Source: Prosci (2010).
The linkage between individual change management and organizational change management is the key and is
what sets Prosci's approach apart from other change management methodologies. The difference with Prosci's
methodology is that it integrates individual change management and organizational change management to ensure
the achievement of business results and performance improvement.
ADKAR change management model.
CADKAR is a goal-oriented change management model that allows change management teams to
focus their activities on specific business results. CThe model was initially used as a tool for
determining if change management activities like communications and training were having the
desired results during organizational change. The model has its origins in aligning traditional
change management activities to a given result or goal.
Managers, can use this model to identify gaps in their change management process and to
provide effective coaching for their employees. The ADKAR model can be used to: diagnose
employee resistance to change, help employees transition through the change process, create a
successful action plan for personal and professional advancement during change, and develop a
change management plan for employees
REFERENCES
Ansoff, I.H. (1990), Implanting Strategic Management, London: Prentice Hall International, Ltd.
Burnes, B. (1994). Managing Change, London: Pitman Publishing.
Fevzi, O. (1999). Management of the change process in hotels, Oxford Brookes University.
Go and Pine, (1995). Globalization Strategy in the Hospitality Industry, London: Routledge.
Grundy T. (1993). Implementing Strategic Change, London: Kogan Page Limited.
Hill and Jones, R.G. (1992). Strategic Management, An Integrated Approach , Boston :Houghton
Company.
Hiatt,J.&Creasey,T. (2010). Change Management, Prosci Research.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1997).Exploring Corporate Strategy, Hertfordshire: Prentice-Hall.
Lewin,K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science, New York : Harper and Row.
Mugenda, O., Mugenda, A. (1994). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques.
Nairobi : African Centre for Technology Studies.
Nadler, A. and Tushman, M.L. (1999). Beyond the charismatic leader: leadership and
organisational change, California Management Review, 32 (2), pp. 77-97.
