CHAPTER 4

Change Models

No Silver Bullets

Leaders facing an unstable environment attempt to deal with change through the conception and implementation of change management programs. Many change management programs or frameworks have been offered by academic theorists and practitioners since the 1970s. These programs often are presented in a form that suggests that change is an event or cycle to be managed (e.g., Kotter, Jick, and Bridges). It could be argued that event- or cycle-focused change management models may not be as effective in a chaotic environment because these models often present change management models as linear, one-dimensional responses. Additionally, the impression could be created in a practitioner that these models have a cycle, and once completed, will effectively manage the change initiative. These models present a series of prescriptive steps that suggest a sequential approach to change management will be effective. However, if change is messy, multilevel, multidimensional, and continuous, it then can be argued that these models may no longer be as appropriate and may contribute to the sources of stress impacting employees. Abrahamson (2004) notes that “most management advice today—whether it is from books or articles, prescribed in courses or by consultants—says that change is good and more change is better” (p. 93). Most change management models are based on three features: (1) “change or perish,” (2) “creative destruction,” and (3) “no pain, no change.” This has led to an environment of “change for change’s sake” and has resulted in “initiative overload” (p. 93).

The seeds of the change management theory came with the work of Kurt Lewin (1947) and the notion of resistance to change. Lewin evolved his concept based on the “person as a complex energy field in which all behavior could be conceived of as a change in some state of a field” (Dent and Goldberg 1999, 27). Lewin (1947) wrote, “Change and constancy are relative concepts; group life is never without change, merely differences in the amount and type of change exist” (p. 13). In a section of the paper titled “Constancy and Resistance to Change,” Lewin said, “Only by relating the actual degree of constancy to the strength of forces toward or away from the present state of affairs can one speak of degrees of resistance or ‘stability’ of group life in a given respect” (p. 14). In the same paper, Lewin says that “the practical task of social management, as well as the scientific task of understanding the dynamics of group life, requires insight into the desire for and resistance to, specific change” (p. 14).

Lewin’s force-field theory (see Figure 4.1) held that organizations are in dynamic tension between forces pushing for change and forces resistant to change (Trompenaars and Woolliams 2003). Lewin’s theories are essentially the foundation for many of the change management models that came years later.

Many change management programs or frameworks have been offered by academic theorists and practitioners since the 1970s but many emerged in the early 1990s. As noted previously, these programs often are presented in a form that suggests that change is an event or cycle to be managed with a clearly defined beginning and ending. Kotter, Jick, and Bridges offered one of the first “n-step guides” (prescribed steps) for change management. Jick’s (1991) tactically oriented 10-step model was developed to guide the implementation of major organizational change. Bridges (1991) theorized that “it isn’t the changes that do you in, it’s the transitions” (p. 3). Kotter (1996) is one of the most prolific and cited change management theorists in the field. Kotter (1996) offered an “eight-step” process for creating major change and addressed the common errors that undermine change initiatives: “establishing a sense of urgency, creating a guiding coalition, developing a vision and strategy, communicating the change vision, empowering broad-based action, generating short-term wins, consolidating gains, and producing more change, and anchoring the new approaches in the culture” (p. 21). While this may sound like a linear approach, it is worth considering that this approach can be used for multiple initiatives in a nonlinear fashion. For example, a multinational company can take this approach to change in different locations at different times based on business needs. A linear approach that is bound to fail for a multinational company would be to use a step-by-step change process for the entire company, all locations, and all departments. Instead, if this company takes a decentralized approach and uses these steps in fashion most adaptable to each business unit, there is a greater chance for success.

Figure 4.1 Adapted from Lewin’s Force-field Theory

Other change management models that emerged include the McKinsey 7-S Framework, the ADKAR model from Prosci, the Satir System, and a practical example—the Change Acceleration Process (CAP) that is used at General Electric.

The McKinsey “7-S Framework” was developed in the 1980s. Essentially this framework analyzes firm’s organizational design by looking at seven key internal elements: strategy, structure, systems, shared values, style, staff, and skills, in order to identify if they are effectively aligned and allow organization to achieve its objectives. The model has been widely used by academics and practitioners and remains one of the most popular strategic planning tools. It sought to present an emphasis on human resources (Soft S), rather than the traditional mass production tangibles of capital, infrastructure, and equipment (Hard S), as a key to higher organizational performance. The most common uses of the framework are:

The model can help guide organizational change. Managers must act on all Ss in parallel and understand that the factors are interrelated. This interconnectivity creates a dynamic system where one change requires the system to adapt to a new equilibrium. It helps align the processes, systems, people, and values of an organization. Since it analyzes each element and the relationship between them in detail, it ensures that you miss no gaps caused by changed strategies. It has been criticized for focusing on internal elements, while paying no attention to the external elements that may affect organizational performance (creately 2021). This model can be effective in leading change and may be more effective than misinterpreted “n-step” models as long as a practitioner does not see the seven steps as linear in nature. The 7-S model has shown particular success with companies or teams that experience a change in scale and size. For example, a company that is either doubling in size due to consumer demand or merging with another company in order to increase market share can benefit from the 7-S model to help align values, strategy, structure, and staff. The 7-S method helps to identify areas of stagnation or lack of equilibrium, thus shining a light on where the decisions for change need to be concentrated. An example is from Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola used this model to create its “6P” Strategic Plan (profit, people, portfolio, partners, planet, productivity). Coca Cola management adjusted its strategy and created it’s “6P” strategy based on the McKinsey 7S Framework. The company leadership credits the framework as one of the drivers for why Coca-Cola is still identified as one of the best brands in the world (Jason 2020).

The ADKAR model from Prosci offers a five-stage approach including awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. It has been widely deployed because of its practical format and “out of the box” orientation. It is highly prescriptive in delivery. That is also one of the criticisms that it is too “cookie cutter” and prescriptive and can be interpreted as a “one approach fits all” model (Smith 2019).

The model is different from many other change management models because it focuses on guiding change at the individual level. In contrast, most change models drive change at the organizational level.

The criticism of this model is that it ignores the complexity of change. It may be better suited to smaller change initiatives. Only focusing on the people dimension is not enough to make large-scale change happen (EPM n.d.).

The Satir system developed by Virginia Satir offers a five-stage change model. Her model was based on the notion of transforming from “old status quo” to “new status quo” and included these stages: Late status quo, resistance, chaos, integration, and new status quo. It was based on the idea that organizations that “create a safe environment where people are encouraged to cope increase their capacity for change and are much more able to respond effectively to whatever challenges are thrown their way” (Smith 1997). This model follows the Lewin’s (1947) “unfreeze and re-freeze” elements that are inherent in most change models. It does recognize that conditions are more fluid and somewhat chaotic, but again to the practitioner, it could be interpreted as another n-step model with its five stages.

The Change Acceleration Process (CAP) that is deployed by General Electric (GE) is another form of a n-step approach. It was developed in 1990. The model was created out of research done by GE, which resulted in the realization that even projects with a high degree of technical expertise, without consideration of cultural factors, will likely fail. CAP is a change management strategy and set of tools that ensures effectiveness of change through cultural acceptance.

It offers seven elements: leading change, creating a shared need, shaping a vision, mobilizing commitment, making change last, monitoring progress, and changing systems and structures. Like the others, it has a foundation of Lewin’s “unfreeze and re-freeze” bookends and also is similar to Kotter’s eight steps.

It is a mixed approach in that it offers a “pilot’s checklist” for leading change but also can offer a nonlinear and more flexible approach than the other n-step models (Zhang 2014). The skills and tools contained in CAP model guide organizations through the process of accepting change, from creating a shared need, shaping a vision, and mobilizing commitment, to teaching them how to make change last, monitor processes, and change systems and structures to ensure the process can move from its current state to an improved state. CAP has been used at GE in a myriad of ways across all divisions and scope of changes. It was used, as an example, in GE Healthcare Lifesciences on a package consolidation project in the Consumables Division. This resulted in a reduction of the types of packages being deployed by 40 percent and an annual savings of $1.3 million through the carrying of less inventory and also more efficient processing.

N-step change management models may not be as effective in our chaotic environment because these models often are interpreted by practitioners as linear, sequential, one-dimensional responses. These models present a series of prescriptive steps that change leaders may interpret as directed initiatives that must be done in order. These models often treat change as linear, simple, and static, but the actual employee experience is “nonlinear, complex, and dynamic” due to the continuous and overlapping stream of environmental demands (Sikora, Beaty, and Forward 2004, 4).

Yet, many in the greater change community, especially practitioners, still seem to think that following a process, or static change method is the way to go. A few studies in 2015 noted that change often fails for these and other reasons:

We have plenty of reasons for why we think change fails, but can static methods or standards solve that problem?

Good change practitioners take relevant components from many processes/methods/frameworks and use the parts that fit their context. The n-step models provide an illusion of certainty by giving change managers and executives hope that everything will be okay (Little 2015).

A newer approach to leading change may be needed to meet the messy, fast paced, and somewhat chaotic environment in which leaders must navigate. As Aims, Slack, and Henings (2004) caution, the nature of change at the suborganizational level can consist of reversals and oscillations while the archetypal level consists of incremental changes of one change program after the other. Consequently, the need for change leadership and the understanding of all types and dimensions of change are compounded with the estimate that 70 percent of change programs fail (Maurer 2010).

The point here is that organizations that are successful with change own their own change and build their own method to suit their organization. A more tailored change framework may be more effective in the environment. One that is framed with “meaning,” that is, the “why” of the change (the Change Vision). Little (2015) noted the approach needs to be equipped with feedback-driven practices and using an off-the-shelf method puts the focus on executing the method, not building meaning. He also noted that “you cannot plan change to a finite certainty.” Finally, Little (2015) stated:

This was the primary driver for the creation of our new change framework: C⁶ framework.