Mechanistic Change Models

1. Planning a Change Management Process

In the next three tutorials, we will share four common approaches to Organizational Development (OD) and organizational change. First, in this tutorial, we will learn common planned change processes that usually rely on the mechanisms of formal organization. We will then look at models that promote emergent change.

However, these are a very brief menu of the options that are available to leaders as they consider how to manage change. In reality, many of these can be used together, and they should not be considered as mutually exclusive. For example, a common model like Kotter’s can be seen as an overall framework for designing a long-term change process but may have elements of an emergent change model like appreciative inquiry in the creation of a guiding coalition or vision for the change.

Moreover, there are many practices and methodologies that may align in different ways to the needs and culture of an organization. These can be used in different combinations to design change processes that meet the needs of a particular context.

2. Lewin's Change Model

Psychologist Kurt Lewin (pronounced “Leveen”) proposed one of the first models of change in 1847. Lewin’s change model shows organizational change occurring in three phases.

First, an organization must be "unfrozen" in that existing norms, routines, and practices need to be disrupted. This can be done in several ways. For example, structural changes that cause a disruption in the system can be introduced to the organization. Similarly, the introduction of a new technology or policy can cause an organization to "unfreeze." Whatever the cause, unfreezing sets the stage for change.

Next, changes are introduced in the organization to shift the system to a new state or reality. Typically, people react to moments of disorder by creating a new form of order. As changes are introduced, managers might provide a number of interventions that help people adjust to the new norms of reality they are facing. For example, they might require employees to go through a training program, or they might hold discussion sessions about the changes. The intent of this phase is to help people adjust to the expected change.

The final phase is to "refreeze" the organization. That is, leaders of the organization reinforce the new norms or practices that should accompany the change. They might adjust the resources, policies, and routines to fit the new expected norms.

Lewin’s model explains a very basic process that accompanies most organizational changes. That is, many people prefer a stable, predictable organization, and they become accustomed to the routines that exist in their organizational environment. For this reason, common routines and behaviors need to be disrupted. When past routines and behaviors are no longer available, people naturally adjust. As they react to a new reality, they establish new routines and patterns of behavior.

However, Lewin’s model is most understandable when we assume that an organization is generally stable unless otherwise acted upon. That is, this model seems to fit in organizations in which any change is likely to last for a long period of time. Such a stable organizational context is increasingly rare in contemporary society.

Still, Lewin’s model really describes a basic pattern of change that plays out in all organizational systems: Stability gives way to instability, something shifts in the system, then stability emerges once again. An understanding of this pattern can be viewed through either deficit-based or abundance-based lenses, and it applies in either top-down or bottom-up approaches.

term to know

Lewin’s Change Model

A three-phased model for planning change that includes unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. The assumptions behind this model are that organizations are fairly stable, and that change is minimal and infrequent.

3. Kotter’s Change Model

John Kotter is a management consultant, author, and professor at Harvard Business School. Kotter’s change model is one of the most widely used in organizations today. Generally, it aligns with a mechanistic view of structure, and thus, it may be especially useful in organizations where there is a strong, hierarchical structure. This is an eight-step model that relies on a centralized, top-down process for creating planned change.

In the first step, managers establish a sense of urgency. They do this by creating a narrative about why the change is necessary. Top managers often use diagnostic tools to gather data that supports the case for change. They strive to convince key organizational leaders and employees that the change is absolutely necessary. A common metaphor is to “create a burning platform,” or to make it clear that the organization cannot survive if it continues doing what it has done.

In the second step, form a powerful guiding coalition, managers assemble a group of influential people to help shape the planned change. Ideally, the guiding coalition should represent the areas of an organization that will be affected by the change. The guiding coalition should become ambassadors for the change as it unfolds. The advantage of leveraging influential people is the ability to apply an appreciative mindset (as opposed to a conventional one).

In the third phase, create a vision of change, the manager and guiding coalition together create a vision of the expected change. They outline the scope of the change, the reason for the change, and what will be better or different as a result of the change.

The fourth step is to communicate the vision—reach out to all members of the organization and communicate the vision for change. Ideally, they connect with all the key areas of the organization that will be affected. They clearly explain why the change is needed and how the change should unfold. If needed, they answer questions and clarify problems.

The fifth step is to remove any obstacles. This step is intended to reduce the resistance to change and/or to provide the necessary resources to make the change successful. The success of this step helps to smooth the way for successful implementation and ensures employee buy-in for the change.

The sixth step is to create small wins. A very powerful way to encourage people to support change is to help them to see the path to success. Short wins signal to the organization that a change is possible and that tangible benefits will come once the change is fully implemented.

The seventh step is to consolidate improvements. Small changes build up over time and become big changes. As the organization successfully moves toward implementation, it is important to consolidate and solidify successes. Managers should reinforce and celebrate small wins and milestones. The unfolding success of the change helps to convince all members of the organization that the change is real and will produce its intended benefits.

The last step is to anchor the changes. In this step, the new norms and practices that accompany the change are standardized and refined. The mode of change moves from transformational to incremental. Refinements are implemented to fine-tune the change and to capture all the intended benefits.

Kotter’s model is especially useful in situations where the desired change is reasonably predictable and where leaders are empowered to drive the change down through an organization. One challenge is that many employees may resist change if they have had no hand in shaping the plans (assuming a conventional mindset). This is especially true if they do not fully comprehend the urgency of the change or the vision for the change. In this regard, it tends to be used when leaders hold a deficit-based view and are generally inclined to take a top-down approach from a conventional perspective. Still, where leaders need to clearly define and implement a large-scale change, Kotter’s model may work very effectively.

term to know

Kotter’s Change Model

An eight-step model for change that considers how to motivate people to make the changes, with strategies like creating a sense of urgency, communicating a vision, and creating small wins.

4. A Comparison of Lewin’s and Kotter’s Models

Placing Lewin’s and Kotter’s models side by side reveals their similarities and differences. Most importantly, we can see that Kotter’s eight steps can be aligned with Lewin’s three phases but provide further direction for each phase. Like Lewin’s model, Kotter’s best applies to stable organizations.

think about it

Imagine a simple change you’ve undergone with a group of people at work, at school, or in an organization you belong to. Which of the two models do you find easier to understand and apply to the situation? Which would you use if you had to plan for that change now? Are there any limitations to both models that make neither of them useful for your situation?

Recall the story we introduced earlier with the Quenchbliss soft drink company expanding into new territory, and Jestina overseeing the development of the new Mexican arm of the company. Let’s look at how Jestina might apply these two change models for an abundance-based change. Her larger organization has identified resources are available to create two new flavors specifically for the Mexican market which Jestina manages:

Now that you understand how change models are applied, in the next tutorial we will address some even more specific methods to plan for a change.