Analysis of Change Theories

Analysis of Change Theories

Introduction

Organisations undertake projects and initiatives to perform better, find opportunities, and address issues. When they take the project, they often require changes in the organisational structure or change in technology. Therefore, there is a need for a discipline that will guide how the organisation prepare and support employee to adopt the change effectively. It is known as change management. Change management refers to how organisations implement changes in companies, or between teams to drive it to success and positive outcomes. There are various models used to explain change management. Lewin Kurt and Kotter’s model among them and are commonly used to describe change management in organisations.

Analysis

            Lewin’s and Kotter’s model are similar in content, although they still have some differences. Organisations use either one of the models to implement changes in the organisation. Lewin’s model of change management was the first and people refer it to the fundamental approach of managing change. Lewin Kurt developed the model in the 1940s. According to this model, organisations break the change management model into three manageable stages: unfreeze, change, and refreeze (Cummings et al., 2016, p.35). Lewin used an example of a cube of ice which could later turn to cone after unfreezing it and changing its form.

In the same way, an ice change and organisational change should take place in the same form. That is, unfreezing the current structure and then implementing an organisational change.

Kotter, on the other hand, developed his model in 1995. According to Kotter’s model, transforming organisation must create an urge for establishing a sense of urgency which in turn makes people accept and welcome the change (Rajan & Ganesan, 2017, p.184). Kotter’s change model is the 8-step model that focuses more on the employees on the organisation other than the change itself. The eight steps are, create a sense of urgency, build a strong coalition, form a strategic vision, get everyone’s buy-in, enable action by removing barriers, generate short term wins, sustain accelerations and institute change. Kotter’s model creates trust, transparency and teamwork in organisations.

Kotter’s principles of change management also align with the Lewin’s model. Both models offer an excellent insight into bringing change in an organisation and can help to outdo the weaknesses of the other. According to Calder (2013, p.14), the three steps in Lewin’s model stand for the eight models in Kotter’s model. That is, the unfreezing step is the same as the first four steps. The changing stage is the same as the fifth to the seventh step in Kotter’s, and the refreezing step is the same as the 8^th. It means that Lewin’s stages are more complex than Kotter’s. Kotter’s model breaks down those steps into smaller and manageable steps. Both steps also support the significance of reducing resistance and preparing people to support the change before actually implementing it (Calder, 2013, p.15). The two models involve people in the organisation. Kotter’s model first four steps: the sense of urgency to change, guiding coalition, vision and strategy and communicating the vision, all involve the employees. While the unfreezing stage in Lewin’s model also involves the employees. Therefore, the two models have some similarities since Kotter’s model is an advanced Lewin’s model.

Kotter’s model of change has both its weaknesses and strengths and that why some companies implement it, but others don’t. The greatest strength of Kotter’s model is its first two steps: creating urgency and guiding coalition (Rajan & Ganesan, 2017, p.182). The first two steps involve letting everybody in the organisation know about the intended. When people know the intended change, they can bring in their ideas. Individuals rarely have all the skills and ideas needed to bring change; that why it’s necessary to engage the others. As Kotter puts it, organisations need a guiding coalition.

On the other hand, Kotter’s model has its weaknesses. Appelbaum et al. (2012, p.775) state that one weakness of Kotter’s approach is that the eight steps according to Kotter, should follow a sequence and skipping a step may compromise the whole process. It means that the approach only works when used in those steps. Also, some steps are not relevant in the context (Appelbaum et al., 2012, p.776). Although the model is strong in implementing changes, it’s weak in sustaining the changes. For example, steps seven and eight don’t show how to maintain changes in the organisation. Therefore, the two steps are not necessary.

Lewin’s model also has both strengths and weaknesses that make it applicable to organisations. Like, Kotter’s model, one of the strengths of Lewin’s model is that the study dictates a dominant role in leadership, employee involvement and sharing of knowledge among people (Hussain, 2018, p.6). Employee’s participation and good leadership skill is a good agent of organisations. Organisations also grow, and they are more successful. Also, Lewin provides a visual summary that supports a common idea (Hussain, 2018, p.6). The main purpose is to bring change to the organisation. The three steps are a summary of the steps an organisation should take, and therefore it’s simple and straight forward. On the other hand, like Kotter’s model, the model has weaknesses, and this makes it vulnerable to failure. The model doesn’t provide the direction of leadership, and although there is the involvement of employees, it’s minimal (Zenters, 2015, p.2). Lack of full participation of employees may lead to resistance of little enthusiasm of employees which is not good for the productivity of an organisation. Also, there is a lack of fundamentals to the unfreeze period that is a strong communication structure, a collaborative environment and access to information by everybody (Zenters, 2015, p.2). It means that the organisation will have poor communications in the organisation that consequently lead to poor feedback and lack of clarity.

The change management models by Lewin Kurt and Kotter are feasible in an organisation since they lead to change. However, although all organisations can use either of the models, most of the organisations prefer Kotter’s model. Kotter’s model majorly focuses on accepting and preparing for the change rather than the change itself. Therefore, when organisations implement the Kotter’s model, it’s more likely to stay longer than the Lewin’s change model. It’s also a step by step model. The small steps make it better since they are essential contents but go more in-depth to a great extent to the issue. Kotter’s model stresses on a practical working of the change process. Most organisations prefer it since it a long lasting, and it’s workable. Lewin’s model is also great for smaller teams, and it also has the same primary content as Kotter’s although it’s shallow. It means that it may not last for long. Therefore, Kotter’s model is more feasible than Lewin’s model for a long-lasting change.

Conclusion

            Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organisations from a current state to a desired future state. It is methodical in dealing with change from an organizational and individual level. Change management in the organisation, therefore, requires a model that is workable for them. Lewin’s and Kotter’s models are an example of the change management model that drives a company to the desired goals. Lewin’s model is a three-step model, which is, freezing, changing, and refreezing. In the freezing stage, there’s little involvement of the employees of the organisation. The model focuses more on the change other than preparing the people for the change. It is a disadvantage of the theory since it means the change is short-lived. Kotter’s model is an 8-step theory that focuses on involving the employees on the changes and therefore, it’s a long lasting one. The steps, however, should follow in that order and skipping of the steps may make the change not to happen. Therefore, Kotter’s model goes in depth than the Lewin’s models. And, consequently, it leads to a long-lasting change.

References

Appelbaum, S. H., Hasashi, S., Malo, J., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782. doi:10.1108/02621711211253231

Calder, A. M. (2013). Organisational change: models for successfully implementing change (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utah State University, Utah, UT.

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2015). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33-60. doi:10.1177/0018726715577707

Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (2018). Kurt Lewin’s change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organisational change. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 123-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002

Rajan, R., & Ganesan, R. (2017). A critical analysis of John P. Kotter’s change management framework. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 7(7), 181. doi:10.5958/2249-7307.2017.00106.2

Zenters, A. (2015). A Fork in the road of change: a comparison of simple and complex organisational change models. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-3. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2670285