back

5 Main Change Management Models: ADKAR vs Kubler Ross vs McKinsey 7S vs Lewin’s vs Kotter’s 8 Step

Last Updated on August 21, 2026 by Status.net Editorial Team

Change management models help companies organize solutions, plan for potential pitfalls, and keep the team informed about the progress of the transition. There are a number of ways leaders can go about facilitating change, but there are 5 standard methods that have been used by many organizations.

Leaders need to take a lot of factors into account when selecting a change model. The size of the company, existing cultures, the amount of preparation, cost, and other things play a role in which change management model company should undertake.

Part 15 Main Change Management Models: Pros and Cons

Compared are five of the most popular:

  1. Change Model 1: Lewin’s Change Management Model

    Psychologist, Kurt Lewin developed this three-step management model process in the 1940s. It was created with the idea of helping leaders facilitate and understand transitions.

    1. First, leaders “unfreeze” the status quo by creating a compelling message to encourage employees to let go of the way things have always been done to open up to something new. Leaders should lead people to accept a new “core” belief system involving the new changes. Emphasizing the “why” is critical here.
    2. Then, leaders can focus on change by often communicating, destroying any rumors, and involving people in the process.
    3. The last step is to then refreeze by adding the transition to the culture and developing ways to sustain it long term.

    Pros:
    The Lewin’s Change Management Model is easy to understand and provides visual language that excellently displays the actions leaders should take. This also allows leaders to think past quantitative analysis, and take into account qualitative means of working through change.
    Cons:
    This model does not discuss ways that leaders can deal with people who are resistant to changes and are reluctant to change their positioning. It assumes that through enough motivation and encouragement everyone will come around, and this is not always the case. This model is rational and sounds great, but implementation may not mirror this, and it does not list ways to overcome that.

  2. Change Model 2: The McKinsey 7S Model

    The McKinsey model was created in the 1980s by consultants who worked for McKinsey and Company. This model emphasizes the importance of leaders assessing every component of their organization before jumping into the action of change. It is characterized by seven primary factors:

    1. Strategy
      The first step in the plan is the identification of problems that need to be addressed and creating a plan to meet goals and objectives associated with them.
    2. Structure
      Leaders then acknowledge the unique challenges and opportunities the structure of their organization brings to change, as well as the way that different departments interact with one another.
    3. Systems
      Assessing the day-to-day activities and the effect the transition would have on them.
    4. Shared Values
      The core values by which the organization runs.
    5. Style
      The way in which leaders adopt and implement changes, and the overall cultural feel of the group.
    6. Staff
      The makeup of the workforce and their capabilities and roles within the company.
    7. Skills
      The core competencies and skills of workers operating within the company.

    This model is meant to take all of the above factors into account when creating a change management plan.

     

    Pros:
    The McKinsey 7S Model is holistic and requires leaders to take an in-depth look at all parts of an organization that can have a positive or negative effect on transitions. It offers a lot of different ways and perspectives on how companies can view change. Each factor (strategy, structure, systems, etc.) are a lens through which leaders can assess the differences. Another helpful part of this model is that each component is given equal weight in importance to the transition.
    Cons:
    One of the most significant disadvantages of this model is one that is also an asset. The fact that seven different factors are considered makes them interrelated. This means that if a part of the plan fails in one, other areas can also become impacted. Because of this, the model brings complexity to leaders.

  3. Change Model 3: Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model

    John Kotter, professor of leadership at Harvard University, developed his eight-step change model after analyzing 100 transitions in organizations. Instead of primarily focusing on the change, Kotter addresses the people affected by it. His model incorporates a sequential list of steps leaders can follow to be successful:

    1. Creating a Sense of Urgency
      Leaders need to show employees in the organization why this change matters. Managers can start the conversation by including colleagues and workers into discussions about problems in the company, and how their involvement can help push the organization to where it needs to go.
    2. Building a Core Coalition
      Leaders should then form a coalition of stakeholders from various parts of the company to commit to helping promote the changes.
    3. Developing a Strategic Vision
      The act of defining change and developing a complete vision to make it come to fruition.
    4. Involving Everyone in the Plan
      Convincing the whole organization that changes are necessary and being open to feedback from everyone about how to move forward.
    5. Reducing Obstacles
      Change managers should then analyze processes and the overall structure of the organization to preempt any problems that could occur.
    6. Focusing on Short-term Wins
      There will be tough times in an organization, this makes it imperative for leaders to develop milestones for employees to celebrate to keep them motivated.
    7. Keeping the Momentum Going
      Leaders should create a plan for continuing to set new goals for work teams to meet, and keep everyone up-to-date on failures and success.
    8. Add Some Stability
      Times of transition can be rough and uncomfortable on the work team as a whole. Changes need to be solidified in documentation and company culture, and the coalition who helped to bring it about should be recognized.

    Pros:
    This model is great for leaders who know they will have a rough time getting employees on board who are resistant. It has essential elements for creating an effective communication plan and preparing employees to cope with the changes.
    Cons:
    At its heart, the Kotter model is a top-down strategic approach. This is not necessarily a problem, but it will require leaders who utilize this method to take have to find ways to include times for feedback. While feedback is included as a part of step four, there would be more attention paid to creating a level that heavily refers to addressing frontline employees and allowing time for feedback.

  4. Change Model 4: The Kubler Ross Change Curve

    The Kubler Ross Change Curve has a unique origin. The framework was initially created by psychiatrist, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and was originally the five stages of grief; emotions people go through while dealing with the death of a loved one. Over the years, researchers have begun to see its use in the business world and the five steps have translated it to helping employees deal with change. Below are feelings employees will likely deal with and ways for leaders to coach them through to the next phase.

    1. Denial
      Leaders should hear employees out about what their concerns are and make face-to-face communication a priority. Changes should be discussed and rolled out gradually so as not to overwhelm.
    2. Anger
      Pre-planning for how to deal with this emotion from employees will help them to be led to the next phase.
    3. Bargaining
      Leaders should be open to feedback and opinions, but they should also set clear expectations so employees know what is expected of them regardless of if the input can be used.
    4. Depression
      Moving into any training lets employees know the change is inevitable, this may make many feel depressed about changes. Positive feedback and reminders that make them feel secure will help them move through this emotion.
    5. Acceptance
      Managers need to keep acknowledging successes and encouraging employees to continue to contribute to the changes and provide feedback.

    Pros:
    This model is all about employee resistance and helping to ease the potentially damaging impact initial bad feelings can have on the team. It helps managers prepare for how to deal with every emotion workers will feel about the change, and they can even connect this process to effects on productivity.
    Cons:
    Leaders can feel this framework will help them guide every employee through the emotional rollercoaster that arises as a result of the change. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Some employees could feel these emotions out of order, or some may not follow this pattern at all. It is a one-size-fits all for walking through the process of coaching employees through what they are feeling.

  5. Change Model 5: The ADKAR Model

    Former engineer and change manager, Jeff Hiatt developed the ADKAR Model. The primary purpose of this model is not to focus on a set of steps, but is instead a group of goals that leaders should try to hit:

    1. Awareness
      Like many other models, this one starts off with creating a line of communication with employees to spread the word of the change and why it is needed. Justification is key here.
    2. Desire
      Leaders have to appeal to the emotional and logical side of employees and convey how the change directly relates to their current position. The overall goal is to inspire desire.
    3. Knowledge
      Tell employees what they need to know. Instead of rattling off a list of changes, each employee that is a part of a larger team should be given step-by-step instructions on how they need to implement the transition.
    4. Ability
      Knowing something and carrying it out are two different things. Leaders need to assess an employee’s ability to carry out their job and provide extra education if needed.
    5. Reinforcement
      Identify any fundamental mistakes to keep them from happening again, but for leaders to keep the momentum going, they should instill incentives and rewards for exemplary work.

    Pros:
    This model focuses on how leaders can help employees understand, interact with, and carry out changes. Since the model is focused on goals, it is easy for leaders to take it and adapt it to its company structure and culture. It focuses on people, and in turn, will make employees feel like employers care.
    Cons:
    This model is built for incremental change and has a narrow focus. If leaders wanted to make a macro-level change or were not exactly sure of how deep they needed to go with transitions, this method would probably not get the job done.

Related: Change Management Principles and Concepts

Change Management Communication (Key Strategies)

Part 2Change Management Models Comparison: Side-by-Side Analysis

One of the most common questions leaders face when planning a transformation initiative is how the major change management models stack up against each other. Each model was designed to solve a different problem, and understanding those differences at a glance can save weeks of trial and error.

Here is a high-level comparison of the five core change management models covered in this article:

  • Lewin’s Change Model breaks change into three phases: Unfreeze, Change, and Refreeze. It is best suited for straightforward, clearly defined changes where the goal is to shift a group from one stable state to another. Its simplicity is a strength for small to mid-size initiatives, but it can feel too linear for complex, ongoing transformations.
  • Kotter’s 8-Step Model provides a sequential, leadership-driven framework that builds urgency, forms coalitions, and anchors change into culture. It excels in large-scale organizational transformations that need broad buy-in. The trade-off is that its rigid sequence can slow teams down if the environment demands rapid adaptation.
  • ADKAR Model (Prosci) focuses on individual change: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement. It is especially useful for diagnosing exactly where employees are stuck in their personal adoption journey. Organizations that need granular insight into resistance patterns often gravitate toward ADKAR.
  • Kübler-Ross Change Curve maps the emotional journey people experience during change, from shock and denial through acceptance. It does not prescribe action steps; it helps leaders anticipate emotional reactions and time their communications and support accordingly.
  • McKinsey 7-S Model examines seven interdependent elements of an organization: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff. It is a diagnostic tool that reveals misalignment across these elements. When a change initiative fails for reasons no one can pinpoint, the 7-S framework often surfaces the root cause.

The models differ along several important dimensions. Lewin’s and Kotter’s models are process-oriented, giving you a roadmap of phases. ADKAR and Kübler-Ross are people-oriented, focusing on what individuals experience. McKinsey 7-S is systems-oriented, analyzing how organizational components interact. Choosing the right lens often depends on whether your biggest risk is process confusion, human resistance, or structural misalignment.

A comparative analysis also reveals that some models overlap in useful ways. Kotter’s first three steps (create urgency, build a coalition, form a vision) map loosely onto Lewin’s “Unfreeze” phase, while Kotter’s final step (anchor change in culture) mirrors “Refreeze.” Recognizing these parallels makes it easier to combine frameworks when a single model does not cover every angle of your initiative.

Part 3Lewin vs Kotter: Key Differences Between These Change Models

Lewin’s three-stage model and Kotter’s 8-Step model are often compared because they share a common DNA. Kotter himself has acknowledged that his work built on earlier change theories, including Lewin’s. Yet the two models serve different purposes and work best in different contexts.

Structural difference: Lewin offers three broad phases: Unfreeze (prepare for change), Change (implement), and Refreeze (stabilize). Kotter expands this into eight detailed steps that prescribe specific leadership actions within each phase. You can think of Lewin’s model as the architectural blueprint and Kotter’s as the construction manual.

Level of guidance: If your team already has strong change management experience, Lewin’s simplicity can be an advantage. It gives you the conceptual frame without dictating tactics, leaving room for customization. For teams that are newer to managing large-scale change, Kotter’s step-by-step detail reduces ambiguity and provides clearer accountability at each stage.

When Lewin often works well:

  • Smaller or mid-size changes within a single team or department.
  • Situations where the change is well understood and the primary challenge is overcoming inertia.
  • Environments that need a quick, conceptual framework to align stakeholders on the basics.

When Kotter often works well:

  • Enterprise-wide transformations that span multiple business units.
  • Changes that require sustained executive sponsorship and broad coalition support.
  • Initiatives where the organization has a history of “change fatigue” and needs a structured approach to rebuild trust.

One important nuance: Lewin’s “Refreeze” stage assumes you will reach a new stable state. In fast-changing industries, some critics argue that organizations never truly refreeze. Kotter’s final step, “Anchor new approaches in the culture,” addresses this somewhat by focusing on cultural embedding, though it too assumes a point of consolidation. If your organization operates in a state of continuous change, you may need to adapt either model accordingly.

Part 4ADKAR vs Kotter: Which Change Management Model Fits Your Needs

The ADKAR model and Kotter’s 8-Step model are two of the most widely adopted change management frameworks in the world, and for good reason. Both have strong track records. But they solve different problems, and picking the wrong one can create blind spots in your change effort.

Where they diverge most is scope. ADKAR is an individual-level model. It helps you understand precisely where each person stands in their journey toward adopting a change: Do they lack Awareness of why the change is happening? Do they have the Desire to support it? Each element becomes a diagnostic checkpoint. Kotter’s model, on the other hand, is an organizational-level playbook. It tells leadership teams what to do at each stage to move the entire company forward, from building urgency to embedding change in culture.

In practice, this means ADKAR tends to shine in situations like technology rollouts, process changes, or any initiative where adoption rates among individuals determine success. If your problem sounds like “people understand the change but still aren’t using the new system,” ADKAR’s Ability and Reinforcement elements will help you pinpoint the gap.

Kotter’s model is often a better fit when you need to mobilize an entire organization behind a strategic shift, a merger integration, or a cultural transformation. Its emphasis on coalition-building and vision communication addresses the political and motivational dynamics that large-scale change demands.

Key practical differences:

  • Assessment approach: ADKAR gives you a measurable score for each employee across five elements, making it possible to run surveys and identify exactly where resistance lives. Kotter’s model does not include a built-in assessment mechanism; progress is typically evaluated through leadership judgment and milestone tracking.
  • Flexibility: Prosci, the organization behind ADKAR, positions the model as part of a broader methodology that includes project-level and organizational-level tools. Kotter’s model is more standalone and often requires supplementation with project management practices.
  • Speed: ADKAR can be applied quickly to a single team or department. Kotter’s eight steps generally require more time because they involve building coalitions and communicating a vision across the entire organization before action begins.

Many experienced change practitioners use both. They use Kotter’s steps to structure the organizational game plan and ADKAR to coach individual managers and employees through the personal transition. The two are complementary when layered intentionally.

Part 5ADKAR Model Strengths and Weaknesses for Change Management

The ADKAR model, developed by Prosci founder Jeff Hiatt, has become one of the most recognized frameworks in the change management profession. Its focus on individual transitions makes it uniquely powerful, but it also has limitations that practitioners should understand before committing to it as their primary framework.

Strengths of the ADKAR model:

  • Diagnostic precision. Each of the five elements (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) acts as a checkpoint. When adoption stalls, you can pinpoint which element is the barrier. This specificity is rare among change models and makes coaching conversations far more productive.
  • Scalable assessments. Prosci provides survey tools that allow you to measure ADKAR scores across an entire workforce. This quantitative data helps change teams allocate resources where resistance is highest.
  • Accessible language. The five elements are intuitive enough that frontline managers can learn and apply them without extensive training. This lowers the barrier to entry for organizations adopting a formal change methodology for the first time.
  • Versatility across change types. ADKAR applies to technology implementations, process redesigns, organizational restructuring, and cultural shifts. Its individual focus means it works wherever people need to adopt new behaviors.

Weaknesses of the ADKAR model:

  • Limited organizational-level guidance. ADKAR tells you what individuals need to experience, but it does not prescribe how to structure an organization-wide change program. Teams often supplement it with a project management methodology or a second framework like Kotter’s for the macro-level plan.
  • Assumes a linear progression. The model implies that people move from Awareness to Reinforcement in sequence. In reality, employees can regress. Someone with strong Ability may lose Desire after a leadership change. Experienced practitioners learn to treat the model as iterative.
  • Certification and licensing costs. Prosci’s training and licensing program is well regarded, but the cost can be significant for smaller organizations. The full methodology, including tools and templates, is proprietary.
  • Can underemphasize emotional dynamics. ADKAR is practical and action-oriented, which is a strength, but it does not explicitly address the emotional stages of change the way the Kübler-Ross Change Curve does. Pairing ADKAR with an emotional awareness framework can fill this gap.

Understanding these trade-offs helps you deploy ADKAR where it adds the most value while layering in other tools where it falls short.

Part 6Kübler-Ross Change Curve in Change Management Explained

The Kübler-Ross Change Curve was originally developed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross to describe the emotional stages of grief. Over time, organizational psychologists adapted it for the workplace because employees facing significant change often experience a remarkably similar emotional arc: shock, denial, frustration, depression, experimentation, decision, and integration.

In a change management context, the model serves as an emotional roadmap. It helps leaders anticipate how people will feel at different stages of a transition and calibrate their leadership response accordingly.

How the curve typically unfolds in organizational change:

  • Shock and denial. When a major change is first announced, many employees struggle to process the implications. Productivity often dips because people are distracted or disbelieving. Leaders who mistake this silence for acceptance frequently make the error of moving too fast.
  • Frustration and resistance. As the reality of the change sets in, emotions intensify. Employees may push back openly, complain to peers, or disengage. This is the critical window where change efforts often stall if leaders respond with pressure and ignore the underlying emotional needs.
  • The valley (depression or low morale). This is the lowest point on the curve. Morale bottoms out, and the old ways of working are gone while the new ways have not yet become comfortable. Leaders who maintain consistent communication and visible support during this trough often see the fastest recovery.
  • Experimentation and acceptance. Employees begin testing the new approach, finding small wins, and regaining confidence. Momentum builds as early adopters share their positive experiences with peers.
  • Integration. The change becomes the new normal. Energy and productivity return to, or exceed, pre-change levels.

The Kübler-Ross model does not give you action steps or project phases. Its value lies in helping managers develop empathy and timing. When you know that frustration is a predictable and healthy part of the process, you are far less likely to panic and abandon a well-designed change initiative halfway through. Pairing this model with a more structured framework like ADKAR or Kotter’s gives you both the emotional intelligence and the tactical roadmap your change effort needs.

Part 7McKinsey 7-S Model for Change Management: When to Use It

The McKinsey 7-S Model is sometimes overlooked in change management conversations because it was originally designed as an organizational effectiveness tool. But that diagnostic power is precisely what makes it valuable when change efforts keep failing and no one can explain why.

The seven elements fall into two groups:

  • Hard elements (easier to define and manage): Strategy, Structure, and Systems.
  • Soft elements (harder to measure but equally important): Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff.

The central insight of the 7-S framework is that all seven elements are interconnected. Changing one without adjusting the others creates misalignment that undermines results. For example, you might launch a new customer-centric strategy (Strategy) but leave the old departmental silos in place (Structure) and continue rewarding individual performance over team collaboration (Systems). The strategy will struggle because the surrounding elements are pulling in a different direction.

When the McKinsey 7-S model is especially useful:

  • Post-merger integrations where two organizations need to reconcile different cultures, processes, and structures.
  • Strategic pivots where leadership suspects the organization is not aligned to execute a new direction.
  • Troubleshooting failed change initiatives. Running a 7-S analysis often reveals the hidden misalignment that caused the failure.

Practical tips for applying the model:

  • Start with Shared Values at the center. These are the foundational beliefs that influence every other element. If shared values are unclear or contested, start there.
  • Map the current state of all seven elements before designing the change. Then map the desired future state. The gaps between the two maps become your change agenda.
  • Involve leaders from across the organization in the assessment. No single leader has full visibility into all seven elements.

The 7-S model does not prescribe a sequence of steps, which means it pairs well with a process-oriented model like Kotter’s or Lewin’s. Use 7-S for the diagnosis and a step-based model for the execution.

Part 8Individual vs Organizational Change Management Models

One of the most important distinctions in change management is the difference between models that focus on individual change and models that focus on organizational change. Choosing the wrong level of focus is one of the most common reasons initiatives underperform.

Individual change models examine how a single person moves from their current state to a new way of working. ADKAR is the most prominent example: it tracks an individual’s Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement. The Kübler-Ross Change Curve is another individual-level model, mapping the emotional arc a person travels during a disruptive change. These models are valuable when adoption depends on personal behavior change, such as learning a new software system, adjusting to a new reporting structure, or embracing a new safety protocol.

Organizational change models focus on structures, systems, and collective dynamics. Kotter’s 8-Step model addresses leadership actions needed to move an entire organization. The McKinsey 7-S framework diagnoses alignment across seven organizational elements. Lewin’s model, while simple enough to apply at any level, is most often used to describe the arc of an organizational transition.

Why this distinction matters in practice:

  • If you apply only an organizational model, you may create a perfect change plan that ignores the fact that individuals are confused, afraid, or unprepared. The plan looks good on paper and fails in the field.
  • If you apply only an individual model, you may coach every employee through their personal transition while neglecting to align the organization’s structure, incentives, or governance to support the new way of working. People adopt the change briefly and revert because the system around them has not shifted.

The strongest change strategies address both levels. They use an organizational model to design the macro plan and an individual model to ensure that every person affected has what they need to succeed. This dual approach is especially important for large or complex changes where both the organizational architecture and daily human behaviors need to shift.

Part 9How to Select the Best Change Management Model

Choosing a model can be daunting, but leaders have a lot to work with:

  • If leaders have a concern about how employees will take a change or if there has been a long-standing company culture, managers need to look into methods like The Kubler-Ross or Lewin’s Change models to help people move through their emotions.
  • If leaders want to make a large-scale change that needs to start at the top the Kotter or McKinsey model would be acceptable alternatives to make this happen.
  • For managers who know exactly what they want to do, the ADKAR model shines.

Leaders need to take into account:

  • The size of the organization
  • How connected stakeholders are to the culture
  • How long changes will take
  • The overall goals associated with the future of the company.

If leaders assess and analyze their company’s needs and culture, then they can find a model that works effectively and efficiently for them.

Part 10Who Implements Change Management Models in an Organization

A well-chosen change management model is only as effective as the people who carry it out. Understanding who owns what during a change initiative prevents the common scenario where everyone assumes someone else is handling the people side of the transition.

Key roles in implementing change management models like ADKAR or Kotter’s:

  • Executive sponsors. Senior leaders who authorize the change, allocate resources, and visibly champion it. Their active, ongoing participation is one of the strongest predictors of change success. A sponsor who announces the change and then disappears creates a credibility gap that is difficult to recover from.
  • Change management practitioners or teams. These are the professionals, sometimes internal and sometimes external consultants, who design the change strategy, build the communication plan, conduct readiness assessments, and coach managers. In organizations that use Prosci’s methodology, these practitioners are often ADKAR-certified.
  • People managers and frontline supervisors. Research consistently shows that employees look to their direct manager for cues about whether a change is real and worth supporting. Managers translate the organizational change plan into local, team-level actions. They also surface resistance early because they are closest to the people affected.
  • Project managers. They own the technical side of the change: timelines, deliverables, milestones. The most effective implementations integrate the project plan and the change management plan so that technical go-lives and people readiness activities are synchronized.
  • HR and organizational development professionals. They often support training design, talent assessments, and cultural alignment work. During large-scale changes, HR may also manage workforce transition logistics like role redesigns or redeployments.

In smaller organizations, one person may wear several of these hats. In larger enterprises, a dedicated change management office (CMO) may coordinate across multiple workstreams. The specific model you choose can influence how these roles interact. Kotter’s model, for example, places heavy emphasis on building a “guiding coalition,” which requires deliberate cross-functional team assembly early in the process. ADKAR distributes responsibility more broadly because every manager becomes a change agent for their direct reports.

Part 11How to Combine Multiple Change Management Models Effectively

Experienced change professionals rarely rely on a single model for a complex initiative. Each framework illuminates a different dimension of change, and layering them intentionally creates a more complete approach. The key is knowing which models complement each other and where they overlap.

Common combinations that work well in practice:

  • Kotter’s 8 Steps + ADKAR. Use Kotter’s steps to structure the organization-wide game plan (building urgency, forming coalitions, communicating the vision). Use ADKAR to assess and support individual employees within each step. For example, during Kotter’s “Communicate the Vision” step, ADKAR’s Awareness and Desire elements help you evaluate whether the communication is actually landing.
  • Lewin’s Model + Kübler-Ross Change Curve. Lewin’s Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze structure gives you the project phases. The Kübler-Ross curve helps you anticipate and respond to the emotional dynamics within each phase. During “Unfreeze,” expect shock and denial. During “Change,” prepare for the frustration valley. During “Refreeze,” look for signs of integration.
  • McKinsey 7-S + any process model. Start with a 7-S diagnostic to identify where the organization is misaligned. Then use Kotter’s steps or Lewin’s phases to plan the sequence of changes needed to close those gaps.

Practical guidance for combining models:

  • Designate one model as the “primary” framework for project governance and communication. This keeps everyone on the same page.
  • Use the secondary model for specific purposes: coaching conversations, stakeholder analysis, diagnostic assessments.
  • Avoid overwhelming your team with terminology from multiple frameworks at once. Translate everything into plain language during team meetings and training sessions.
  • Document which model is guiding which set of activities so that accountability remains clear.

Combining models is not about adding complexity. It is about filling gaps. If your primary model does not address the emotional side of change, pair it with one that does. If it lacks organizational diagnostic power, add that lens. The goal is a single, coherent change plan informed by the best insights each model offers.

Part 12Common Mistakes When Applying Change Management Models

Selecting the right change management model is only the first step. How you apply it determines whether the initiative succeeds. Here are the mistakes that derail even well-planned change efforts.

  • Treating the model as a rigid checklist. Every change management model is a framework meant to be adapted to your organization’s context. Teams that follow Kotter’s eight steps mechanically, without adjusting for their culture, timeline, or scale, often find that the model feels disconnected from reality. Tailor the language, pacing, and tools to your specific situation.
  • Skipping the emotional dimension. Process-oriented models like Kotter’s and Lewin’s can lead teams to focus entirely on milestones and deliverables while neglecting how people feel about the change. If morale is tanking and no one is addressing it, adoption will stall regardless of how well the project plan is structured.
  • Underinvesting in the middle managers. Most models emphasize executive sponsorship and employee adoption. The layer between them, the middle managers, is frequently under-supported. These managers absorb pressure from above and resistance from below. Without coaching, tools, and clear expectations, they become the bottleneck.
  • Declaring victory too early. Lewin called it “Refreeze” and Kotter called it “Anchor change in the culture” because both recognized that change only sticks when it is reinforced over time. Organizations that celebrate the go-live date and immediately redirect attention to the next initiative often see employees revert to old behaviors within weeks.
  • Using one model for every type of change. A small process update does not need an eight-step organizational campaign. A company-wide digital transformation probably cannot be managed with a three-phase model alone. Match the scale and complexity of the model to the scale and complexity of the change.
  • Failing to measure progress. Models like ADKAR provide built-in assessment tools. Others require you to define your own success metrics. Without regular measurement, change teams operate on assumptions and often miss early warning signs of resistance or fatigue.

The organizations that get the best results from change management models treat them as living tools: constantly revisited, discussed, and adjusted as the initiative unfolds.

Part 13Real-World Examples of Change Management Models in Action

Understanding change management models in theory is one thing. Seeing how they play out in practice helps you make smarter decisions about which framework to use and when.

ADKAR in a technology rollout. A mid-size healthcare organization implementing a new electronic health records (EHR) system used ADKAR to assess each clinical department’s readiness. Early surveys revealed that most staff scored high on Awareness and Desire but low on Knowledge and Ability. This data allowed the change team to redirect budget from broad communication campaigns (which were no longer needed) into hands-on training labs and super-user support networks. Adoption rates improved significantly once training was tailored to the specific gaps ADKAR identified.

Kotter’s 8 Steps during a merger integration. When two financial services firms merged, the integration team used Kotter’s model to guide the cultural unification. They began by creating urgency around the competitive threat that had motivated the merger. They assembled a guiding coalition of respected leaders from both legacy organizations. The coalition co-authored a shared vision statement and communicated it through town halls, manager toolkits, and informal leader conversations. Short-term wins, such as successfully co-locating teams and launching a joint product, built momentum. Two years later, the team focused Kotter’s eighth step on embedding the merged culture through shared rituals, recognition programs, and leadership development.

Lewin’s model for a departmental process change. A manufacturing company needed to shift its quality control process from end-of-line inspection to in-process checks. The change leader used Lewin’s model: during Unfreeze, they shared defect rate data and customer complaint trends to build dissatisfaction with the current approach. During Change, they piloted the new process on one production line with a volunteer team, gathered feedback, and iterated. During Refreeze, they updated standard operating procedures, retrained all shifts, and built the new checks into the daily production dashboard so the behavior would persist.

Kübler-Ross Change Curve during layoffs. A technology company going through a significant downsizing used the Kübler-Ross curve to guide its communication strategy. Knowing that shock and denial would dominate the first week, they scheduled additional all-hands meetings and opened manager office hours. During the frustration phase, they created anonymous feedback channels and acknowledged the difficulty openly. As the curve moved toward acceptance, they shifted messaging to future opportunities and career development resources. Leaders reported that the emotional awareness framework helped them avoid tone-deaf communications during a painful transition.

These examples illustrate a consistent theme: the model you choose shapes the questions you ask, the data you collect, and the actions you prioritize. The right model, applied with genuine commitment, turns abstract theory into measurable progress.

Part 14Core Principles That All Change Management Models Share

Despite their differences in structure and focus, the major change management models converge on a set of foundational principles. Understanding these shared truths helps you apply any model more effectively and adapt when your specific situation does not fit neatly into a single framework.

  • Change requires leadership commitment from start to finish. Every model, from Lewin’s to Kotter’s to ADKAR, assumes that visible, active leadership sponsorship is present. Without it, even the best-designed change plan loses credibility.
  • People must understand the “why” before they will embrace the “what.” Whether it is called “Unfreeze” (Lewin), “Create urgency” (Kotter), or “Awareness” (ADKAR), every model begins with helping people understand why the current state is no longer sufficient.
  • Resistance is a normal, predictable response. The Kübler-Ross curve makes this explicit, but it is embedded in every model’s assumptions. Resistance is not a sign that you chose the wrong model or that the change is flawed. It is a signal that people need more support, more information, or more time.
  • Sustainability matters as much as implementation. Lewin’s Refreeze, Kotter’s anchoring step, and ADKAR’s Reinforcement element all emphasize the same idea: if you do not actively sustain the change, the organization will drift back to old patterns.
  • Communication must be continuous and two-directional. No model treats communication as a single announcement. Effective change requires ongoing dialogue where leaders share updates and employees share feedback, concerns, and ideas.
  • One size does not fit all situations. Every model works better in some contexts than others. The McKinsey 7-S framework addresses this most directly by insisting that seven organizational elements must be assessed simultaneously. The underlying principle is that context shapes everything.

When you internalize these shared principles, you can navigate situations where your chosen model does not give you a clear answer. The principles become your fallback: communicate transparently, sustain your sponsorship, respect people’s emotional journey, and reinforce new behaviors until they become habits.

Part 15How the AIM Methodology Compares to ADKAR and Kotter’s Models

The Accelerating Implementation Methodology (AIM) is a change management framework developed by Implementation Management Associates (IMA). While it is less widely known than ADKAR or Kotter’s 8 Steps, it has a dedicated following, and many practitioners search for direct comparisons between AIM and the more established models.

What AIM focuses on: AIM emphasizes building organizational readiness through ten key change agent actions. It is implementation-focused, meaning it zeroes in on the actions leaders and change agents must take to accelerate adoption and minimize resistance. AIM includes its own set of tools for stakeholder analysis, communication planning, and reinforcement.

AIM vs ADKAR:

  • ADKAR is individual-centered; AIM is implementation-centered. ADKAR asks, “Where is this person stuck?” AIM asks, “What actions will accelerate adoption across the organization?”
  • ADKAR provides a diagnostic model (the five elements) that is easy to assess and measure. AIM provides a prescriptive action model that tells change agents what to do.
  • Both frameworks are proprietary and require certification or licensing for full access to tools and templates.

AIM vs Kotter:

  • Kotter’s model is leadership-driven and sequential. AIM is action-driven and can be applied in a more flexible order depending on the implementation context.
  • Kotter emphasizes building urgency and coalition as early priorities. AIM emphasizes defining the change, generating sponsorship, and developing target readiness simultaneously.
  • Both models require strong sponsorship, but AIM provides more granular guidance on what sponsors should specifically do and say at each stage.

For organizations evaluating which methodology to adopt, the decision often comes down to organizational culture and the type of changes you manage most frequently. AIM tends to appeal to organizations that want a highly structured, action-oriented toolkit. ADKAR appeals to organizations that value individual-level diagnostics. Kotter appeals to organizations that need a clear leadership narrative for large-scale transformation. In some cases, elements of AIM are combined with ADKAR’s individual assessment tools to create a hybrid approach.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between ADKAR and Kotter’s change management model?

ADKAR focuses on individual change by tracking five personal milestones: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement. Kotter’s 8-Step model focuses on organizational change by prescribing leadership actions such as building urgency, forming coalitions, and anchoring new behaviors in culture. Many practitioners use both together, applying Kotter’s steps for the big-picture plan and ADKAR for individual coaching and diagnostics.

How does Lewin’s change model differ from Kotter’s 8-Step model?

Lewin’s model uses three broad phases: Unfreeze, Change, and Refreeze. It provides a high-level conceptual framework that is simple to understand and flexible to apply. Kotter’s model expands on similar ideas but breaks them into eight specific steps with detailed leadership actions at each stage. Lewin’s model often works well for smaller, straightforward changes, while Kotter’s is typically better suited for large-scale, enterprise-wide transformations that require sustained coalition support.

What is Prosci change management?

Prosci is a change management research and training organization that developed the ADKAR model and an accompanying methodology for managing the people side of change. The Prosci methodology includes individual change management (using ADKAR), organizational change management (planning and execution tools), and enterprise change management (building organizational capability). Prosci also offers certification programs for change practitioners.

Who helps implement change management models like ADKAR or Kotter’s?

Change management models are typically implemented by a combination of executive sponsors, dedicated change management practitioners, people managers, project managers, and HR or organizational development professionals. Executive sponsors authorize and champion the change. Practitioners design the strategy and coach managers. Frontline supervisors translate the change plan into daily team actions. In smaller organizations, one leader may fill several of these roles.

Can you use more than one change management model at the same time?

Yes, and many experienced practitioners do. A common approach is to use an organizational-level model like Kotter’s for the overall change plan and an individual-level model like ADKAR for employee coaching and assessment. The key is to designate one model as the primary framework for governance and communication, then use additional models to fill specific gaps such as emotional awareness (Kübler-Ross) or organizational diagnostics (McKinsey 7-S).

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the ADKAR model?

ADKAR’s strengths include diagnostic precision (you can pinpoint exactly where an individual is stuck), scalable assessment tools, accessible language that managers can learn quickly, and versatility across different types of change. Its weaknesses include limited organizational-level guidance, an assumption of linear progression that does not always reflect reality, proprietary certification costs, and a tendency to underemphasize the emotional dynamics of change. Pairing ADKAR with a complementary model often addresses these gaps.

How is the Kübler-Ross Change Curve used in change management?

The Kübler-Ross Change Curve maps the emotional stages people experience during significant change: shock, denial, frustration, depression, experimentation, and acceptance. In change management, leaders use it to anticipate emotional reactions at each phase of a transition and time their communications, support resources, and manager coaching accordingly. It is often paired with a process-oriented model like Kotter’s or Lewin’s to combine emotional awareness with structural execution steps.

What is the McKinsey 7-S model and how does it apply to change management?

The McKinsey 7-S model examines seven interconnected organizational elements: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff. In change management, it is used as a diagnostic tool to identify misalignment between these elements. For example, a new strategy may fail if the organizational structure or reward systems have not been updated to support it. The 7-S model is especially useful for post-merger integrations, strategic pivots, and troubleshooting change initiatives that have stalled for unclear reasons.

How does BPR compare to Lewin’s change model?

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is a methodology for radically redesigning core business processes to achieve dramatic performance improvements. Lewin’s change model is a framework for managing the human side of any transition. BPR tells you what to change in your processes; Lewin’s model helps you manage how people experience that change. Organizations undertaking BPR often use Lewin’s Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze structure to guide the people-side communication and adoption strategy that accompanies the process redesign.

What is the difference between individual and organizational change management models?

Individual change models, like ADKAR and the Kübler-Ross Change Curve, focus on how a single person moves through a transition. They help you diagnose personal barriers and provide targeted support. Organizational change models, like Kotter’s 8 Steps and McKinsey 7-S, focus on structures, systems, leadership actions, and collective dynamics. The most effective change strategies use both levels: an organizational model to design the macro plan and an individual model to ensure every affected person has what they need to succeed.

  How To Breakdown Data Silos: Problems and Solutions
Posted in: change management