See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357187710

Comparative analysis of change management models

Conference Paper · December 2021

DOI: 10.14267/978-963-503-867-1_10

CITATIONS READS

2 28,680

1 author:

Anara Bekmukhambetova
Corvinus University of Budapest
2 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anara Bekmukhambetova on 20 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparative analysis of change management models

Anara Bekmukhambetova
Corvinus University of Budapest, Business and Management
[email protected]

Deutsch Nikolett, Associate Professor

Abstract
Nowadays lot of companies faced with the urgency of change in their daily operations. This is
especially relevant in modern business development conditions when constant changes are
considered critical for a company to adapt to changing market requirements and the global
economic situation. The paper presents a basic audit of famous change management models.
Change management is a persistent cycle and it requires a sound vision, plan, time, aptitudes,
inspiration, monetary and automatic endeavors to execute the change. Successful change
management is a venture and contributes in hierarchical turn of events. There are a few models
of change management and choosing a fitting models of change management is essential for a
fruitful and smooth changes. For this, a literature review was conducted. The article describes
the main differences between the change models. The analysis led to the conclusion that it is
impossible to pick up an optimal approach to change management. Every approach to change
management attracts attention to various aspects of this problem, but at the same time, they do
not exclude but complement each other.

Keywords: change management, change models, organizational change.

Funding: the author did not receive any grant or institutional support in relation to the study’s
preparation.

1. Introduction

This paper aims to discuss significance of change management models, and compare popular
models used by organizations to effectively manage the transition stage. The author has studied
four mostly used models adopted by organizations for change management and has compared
these models. This study explains the importance and necessity of change management and
discusses some of the main theories of change management models. The term ‘Change
Management’ is explained in the literature by different authors in different ways. For this paper
the change management is considered as the transformation and what necessities to change in

1
strategy, processes and human resources. International research by McKinsey shows that 70%
of transformations fail. 39% of failures are explained by the resistance of employees to changes,
33% by the lack of support for changes from the managers, and only 14% by inadequate
resources and other reasons. Thus, the corporate culture is a key factor in making changes (A.
Shapenko, 2017). There are many reasons to study change management for organizations and
individuals, because change management helps to understand the environment at the micro and
macro levels; it also helps the organization set goals, develop and implement effective strategies
to know the impact of change on external and internal activities. Change management is also
important for the employees themselves. Employees receive change management plans, hence
their understanding and involvement in change is important for the growth of the organization.
Therefore, implementing change management through training and establishing high-
performance practices is critical to building robust organizations. The article attempts to
systematize knowledge in change management and the main models related to this issue. To
achieve this goal, an analysis of the literature on this topic was carried out, oriented approaches,
and the models based on which effective change management is carried out.

2. Theoretical background

Nowadays, change is synonymous with standard business practice, and business needs to
change to develop and be competitive. There is a large number of literature from several
disciplines about change management and what makes it succeed. It is a complex topic with
many contradictions (A. Anyieni, 2016). Though the term change management did not
discourse much before the 1990s, other term "organizational" had been used, yet shared almost
similar meaning to change management (Farias & Johnson, 2000; Worren, Ruddle, & Moore,
1999). The exact term of 'change management' was only concretized later in the 1960s and
developed since then (Cooperrider & Sekerka, 2006). Though none of the earlier-mentioned
literature stated precisely who coined the term 'change management' during the time, most
scholars back then, and now, think of Kurt Lewin (1951).

Moran and Brightman (2001) characterized change management as "the process of continually
renewing an organization's direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing
needs of external and internal customers". According to Fincham and Rhodes (2006), "change
management is the leadership and direction of the process of organizational transformation,
especially with regard to human aspects and overcoming resistance to change." Anyieni, Bcom,

2
and Campus (2013) further argue that change management means planning, initiating, realizing,
controlling, and stabilizing change processes on both corporate and personal levels. Nickolas
(2006) argues that the task of managing change includes its impact on people, and many
managers find this difficult. Change may cover such diverse problems as strategic direction or
personal development programmers for staff. Strategic, technological, and structural changes,
as well as changes in attitudes and behaviors, are all aimed at competitiveness and viability.
Change Management is important for the sustainability and growth of organizations (Lozano,
2013). The aim of the change within organizations is to progress from the existing state to a
required state (Ragsdell, 2000). This range from small changes (Dawson, 1994; Doppelt, 2003a;
Gill, 2003) to more fundamental ones (Dawson, 1994; Maurer, 1996; Meyerson, 2001;
McGahan, 2004).

To date, the theory of organizational change offers a large number of different models of change
management that allow you to develop a common ideology and concept of change and are an
excellent practical guide. In this paper four well-known models are discussed which are:
Lewin's model of change; the theory of E and the theory of O organizational changes; ADKAR
model; and Kotter's model. This section provides information on the indicated change models
and is based on the extensive literature in this area.

Kurt Levin's model of changes

Lewin's change model is one of the first models of organizational change and can be called
classical. The three-step approach by Kurt Lewin suggests that understanding change involves
an awareness of the concept of stability. The factors that "push" for change and the forces aimed
at maintaining stability, he called, respectively, "motivating" and "limiting" forces. If these
forces are equal, the organization remains stable. Lewin suggested a way of looking at the
overall process of making changes. He proposed that organizational changes have three steps:

1. "Unfreezing." The first step involves unfreezing the current state of affairs. This means
defining the current state, surfacing the driving and resisting forces and picturing a desired end
state (E. Cameron, M. Green, 2019). It is necessary to justify the need for changes and describe
in detail the proposed methods of reform. This stage aims to motivate the business for a change.

2. "Moving." This step is about moving to a new state through participation and involvement.
At this stage, planned actions are performed to change the behavior of employees.

3
3. "Freeze." The third focuses on refreezing and stabilizing the new state of affairs by setting
policy, rewarding success and establishing new standards (E. Cameron, M. Green, 2019).
Activities aimed at the consolidation of new organizational practices. It is necessary to convince
the staff of the organization of the effectiveness of new methods, promoting the benefits of the
new system.

The three-step approach to change requires investment in significant resources (Levin, 1951).
Despite its apparent simplicity, it is also argued that Lewin's theory focused on the magnitude
of change while ignoring the speed of change hence not applicable in radical processes (Quinn,
1980-1982). Quinn opines that it is often a question of time before incremental change results
in comprehensive transformations. Of note is the fact that Lewin's change model focuses on
behavioral changes from diverse angles such as group, organizational and societal change
(Dickens and Watkins, 1999), but to the contrary applicability of rapid and transformational
changes only work best in situations that demand major structural adjustments (Cummings &
Worley, 1997). The other argument established was that Lewin's theory ignored the role played
by politics and power as far as conflicts in organizations are to be discussed (Dawson, 1994);
Hatch, 1997); Wilson, 1992). The other criticism was derived from Lewin's idea that top-down
management systems worked best for change implementation, unlike the bottom-up system of
management (Dawson, 1994); Wilson, 1992).

Theory E and O of organizational change.

Every business’s change initiative is unique and s there are two archetypes, or theories, of
change. These archetypes are based on very different and often unconscious assumptions by
senior executives—and the consultants and academics who advise them—about why and how
changes should be made. Theory E is change based on economic value. Theory O is change
based on organizational capability. Both are valid models; each theory of change achieves some
of management’s goals, either explicitly or implicitly (N. Nohria ,M. Beer, 2020). Theory E
and Theory O are not mutually exclusive. For example, reducing occupancy costs (Theory E)
while increasing flexible work policies (Theory O) are not at odds with each other; they are
complementary strategies. The managers who follow the “E theory” apply rather hard methods
as a rule, dwelling upon changes fulfillment up and down and attaching importance to the
creation of certain structure, which means that mechanistic approach is applied. The followers
of “O theory” – are mostly oriented to the staff training and development, changes of

4
corporation culture and the changes up and down. The characteristics of these theories are
presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Theory E and O

Characteristics “Theory E” (authoritarian style “Theory О”

of management) (democratic style of management)
Changes Goal Income Rise (economic goals) The Development of organizational changes
Is spread according to the principle
Leadership All Links are Involved
up and down
The Structure and System ("hard"
The Object of Changes Organizational structure ("soft" elements)
elements)
Spontaneous Changes (the reaction to
Changes Planning Programmed Planned Changes
possibilities which occur)
Changes Motivation Financial stimulus The Combination of Different stimulus
Consultants apply ready Staff Involvement into the decision-making
The Consultants Part
technologies and decisions process
According to an approach
The Formation of Measures for All Management Links Involvement to form
to organizational
Organizational Changes in the the measures concerning organizational
changes fulfillment in the
System of management of higher changes in the system of company
system of company
link of managerial staff management
management
Source: Michael Beer and Nytin Norhia, (2000)

Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement (ADKAR) Model

The ADKAR Model (Hiatt, 2013) focuses on people change adaptation, as opposed to the
change itself. ADKAR is an acronym that represents the five tangible and concrete outcomes
that people need to achieve for lasting change: awareness, desire, knowledge, ability and
reinforcement.

Figure 1. ADKAR Model

Awareness Desire Knowledg Ability Reinforce

e Skills required to Toment
maintain and
Understand need Support of change. How to change and
for change Participate and what the change implement sustain change
engage entails change

Source: Haitt, J.M. and Creasey, T.J. (2013).

Kotter’s 8-Step Model

Kotter's 8-step change model is a popular framework for successful organizational change
implementation that is used in many industries. Kotter's change model emphasized the
importance of a holistic approach to change, and the probability of successful implementation
of organizational changes is only 30%. Although employees will see progress, leaders must be

5
 prepared to face opposition from within the organization. The way forward is by formally
addressing the opposition and highlighting the contradictions in the resistant idea that the new
practice is intended to overcome (Hultman, 2003). However, the theory does not understand
that there is no fixed parameter to legitimize a vision. It is also the duty of the leadership to
estimate the vision set based on a shared understanding with the coalition team. While it focuses
primarily on rolling out your changes everywhere, Kotter's model is essentially a top-down
approach. The employees don't have input or the choice to share thoughts before strategic vision
creation. Another drawback happens if a stage is skipped or executed erroneously. This
influences different advances and leaves the association and venture group to defer or relapse.
As a result, there could be wasted time and effort (B. J. Galli, 2018).

Figure 2. Kotter`s 8-Step Model

8. Make it stick
Implementing & sustaining for change
7. Build on change

6. Create quick wins

Creating the climate for
change 5. Empower action

4. Communicate the vision

3. Create a vision of change

Engaging & enabling
the organization 2. Form a powerful coalition

1. Create urgency

Source: Adapted from Kotter, 1996

3. Methods

Methodologically, this article is a comprehensive literature review that explores, criticizes, and
synthesizes representative material on key variables in effective change management. Essential
research findings have been incorporated into the literature, and new concepts have been
developed on this topic that can be empirically tested in future research. The methodological
and theoretical basis of the article is scientific research by Kotter, J.P., Lewin, K. Michael Beer,
and Nytin Norhia and others. Search Code: TITLE-ABS-KEY ("Change Management " OR "
Change management models, " AND “Approaches" OR " Business Transformation " OR

6
Organizational Change "). The main information base of the study was data from EconBiz,
Emerald Insight, McKinsey & Companies. In the process of writing the article, Kazakh and
foreign periodicals were also analyzed. Information sources on the Internet, official websites of
international organizations also served as sources of additional information.

4. Results

To date, the theory of organizational change offers a large number of different models of change
management that allow to develop a common ideology and concept of change. The most
exciting and useful are Lewin's model of change; the theory of E and the theory of O
organizational changes; Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement (ADKAR)
model; Kotter's model. Each model understands the basic concept of change management,
which begins with the current state and realizes the need for change, enters the transition phase,
implements the change, and then moves to the desired state and bellow the author detailed
comparative analysis of change management models:

Table 2. Comparison change management models

Lewin’s change Theory E and O of Kotter`s change ADKAR

Point management model organizational change management model model
The model is suitable The choice of an The first few phases are Focuses on the
for cases where a approach depends on fantastic - it set the stage activities for
business needs to factors: the nature and for success by creating a achieving results,
change dramatically in scale of the problem sense of urgency and model is more
order to be successful. facing the organization; convincing everyone beneficial for
Strength

It also does a great job the personal why change is needed. integrating the
of spotting hidden bugs characteristics of This gives the incentive management
that were taken for employees; the nature it needs to implement the concepts
granted as there are and content of work in change, and enough
need to analysed every the organization; the people are working to
aspect of what you are value orientation of implement it, and this
changing management and should quickly become
leadership style standard practice
The model cannot be While it focuses Model is limited
Due of the scale of the
executed efficiently in primarily on rolling out when seeking large-
defrosting process, the
a short time or in a changes everywhere, scale
Levin model can be
short period of time. Kotter's model is implementations.
Weaknesses

difficult and time-

You will not have the essentially a top-down Failure to
consuming to
necessary knowledge to approach. This is likely effectively
implement, meaning
evaluate every element because much of Kotter's understand and
that the use of the
of your company, and experience came from manage why
model is often only
therefore need to working with large change
needed for in-depth
allocate additional time companies, but it can management
analysis and overhaul.
and resources to build nevertheless be a initiatives are

7
 Massive changes (for problem for companies labelled nebulous
an overview and
which this model is relying on more and trivial
evaluate viable changes
suitable) are fraught collaborative businesses
with the risk of customization. Not
employee churn, as suitable for a small
their workflow will be company.
radically different from Model the most limited
the previous one on the people aspect
Must use Must use financial Provides a simple,
Motivation

organizational incentives that support, Must use cultural- easy-to-use

incentives that support, not lead the desire for organizational incentives framework for
not lead the desire for people to make change that support, not lead the everyone involved
people to make change real. desire for people to make in managing change
real change real
Lewin emphasized the Incorporates relevant Use of key business
importance of change agents, The guiding coalition leaders as sponsors
preparing individuals stakeholders and team and volunteer army are of change, and of
Drivers

for change (unfreezing) members to make an important steps in managers and

and reinforcing the effective change that Kotter’s process. They supervisors as
need for change accelerates the process both play crucial coaches to
(freezing). Sponsorship of change sponsorship roles employees during
would certainly play a the change process
part in this
Top-down: the Top-down: the The model works
Involving the people
employees do not have employees do not have best with
in the process, allowing
input or the input or the individuals, rather
them time to shift, and
Approach

option to share ideas option to share ideas than groups or

talking to external
before strategic vision before strategic vision entire
stakeholders (e.g.,
creation creation organizations. Invo
employee
lving the people in
organizations) if
the process
required

Defined as the Must be participative Need a strong leadership Allows leaders and
influence of certain top-down, so that the culture. The leaders need change
individuals in the group top leaders quickly to develop a well- management teams
to achieve common develop the goals and designed plan to focus their
goals. A well-planned encourage middle activities on what
change process layers of management will drive
to adopt them, and individual change
Leadership

requires defining a
vision and motivation middle management and therefore
works influence achieve
upward organizational
results
Except technology Must be on changing The model proposes Focused on goals
which was hardly the organization design transforming rather than the path
(unfreezing, and culture to embrace organizations must create towards them, so it
discussed, human and new methods and an artificial void for can be an adaptable
strategy were somehow thought models, establishing a sense of tool that fits many
move and act, reflected including the urgency for a change to types of
Focus

in those strategies. This successful integration be accepted and driven organizations

signifies that and of financial and by the people
refreezing) these operations metrics
aspects are main
ingredients for all
changes before, now
and then

8
 A combination of The need to create short- Most effective
Given the absent of planned/programmatic wins can actually when managing
technology, changes change with increase the sense of true individual
per se were static. The opportunistic capture of urgency and actually employees or staff
results of change could emergent practices accomplishing these members in helping
Process

thus be predicted; the goals does much to them see and accept
methods to manage cement the change the value of change
change do not vary, initiative and his or her role
and hence planning has within the
a critical role in the organization in
management of change helping to make
that change happen

Source: Completed by the author on the basis of sources considered.

Lewin`s model has had a significant impact on the further development of the theory of
organizational change. Lewin’s model requires deep analysis and process improvements. By
uncovering the roots of your methods and completely changing processes and practices where
necessary, can change an organization at a critical time in its life cycle. Lewin’s ideas are
valuable when analyzing the change process at the start of an initiative. His forcefield analysis
and current state/end state discussions are extremely useful tools. However, the model loses its
worth when it is confused with the mechanistic approach, and the three steps become ‘plan,
implement, review’. Theory E and Theory O are two polar approaches to organizational change,
representing two different strategies for the process of change. Theory E and O of
organizational change`s model is suited for those, who want to know how they can change for
the better. Having created an overview of how consistent and effective various elements of the
company are, there are needed leaders and good employee support. Then proceed to analyze
the current situation and develop changes to solve the problem model combines a number of
key elements management model of organizational change together in a neat process. The
ADKAR model is founded on three phases and it deals with the process and steps to manage
change. It is a goal-oriented model and focuses on the activities for achieving results. The
ADKAR model is more beneficial for integrating the management concepts in the change
management process (S. Siddiqui, 2017). Kotter’s theory is great as a checklist, but lacks the
necessary actionable instructions to be taken as a step-by-step process. Kotter`s model should
be supplemented with other approaches or at least elements of them to make up for its
shortcomings. The model places most emphasis on getting the early steps right: building
coalition and setting the vision rather than later steps of empowerment and consolidation.
Change is seen as linear rather than cyclical, which implies that a pre-designed aim.

9
 5. Discussion and recommendations

According to the reviewed material, it should be noted that there is no one ideal specific version
of change management. The choice of an approach should be based on consideration of real
conditions, as well as on the integration of several models. In an attempt to compare popular
change management models from the theoretical part were considered and this study is open to
future research and a deeper understanding of the changes and will help future researchers with
suggestions.

The study suggests that for future research, sufficient time should be allocated for more in-
depth analysis, and the practical component should also be considered. This is beneficial to the
extent that it allows the researcher to find many companies that will be included in the data
collection process. This will provide a true picture of the theories from the practice side in real
organizations. Therefore, future researchers are encouraged to constructively criticize, propose
alternatives and solve academic problems, and most importantly-to be flexible and adaptive to
new concepts of change management.

References

• Abel Anyieni (2016), Organisational Change: A Critical Review of the Literature,

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Organisational-Change%3A-A-Critical-Review-of-
the-Anyieni/168d486f3a71fd19bd9a92e8623e808728ddd9ce
• Dawson, P. (1994). Organizational change: A processual approach. London: Paul Chapman.
• Esther Cameron & Mike Green (2009). Making sense of change management, Lndon and
Philadelphia 2nd edition.
• Fincham, R. and Rhodes P. (2005).Principals of Organisational Behaviour. Oxford University
Press
• Galli B.J. (2018). Change Management Models: A Comparative Analysis and Concerns IEEE
Engineering management review. 46, NO. 3.
• Haitt, J.M and Creasey, T.J.(2013). Change Management: the people side of change. Colorado:
Prosci Learning Center Publication
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Lewin, K. (2016). Available: http://change-management-consultant.com/kurtlewin.html.
• Lozano, R. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Are
companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of
three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it, 20(5), 275-295.
• Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2001). Career Development International,6(2). Leading
organizational change, pp. 111 –118.
• Nitin Nohria and and Michael Beer (2000). Business Harvard review. Cracking the Code of
Change, https://hbr.org/2000/05/cracking-the-code-of-change.
• Saima Tabassum Siddiqui (2017). International Journal of Advanced Research. A critical review
of change management strategic and models, 5(4), 670-676
• Shapenko A, Filippova M. (2010) Business Harvard review. The burden of change.

10

View publication stats