Change can be very challenging yet inevitable in any growing business. There are various change management models that have been developed to act as compasses to help when navigating through difficult situations. These models can be defined as theories, methodologies and concepts that help in the provision of an in-depth approach when organizational change is involved (Galli, 2019). Their major aim is to provide guidance when making changes, how to properly navigate through the transformation process, and how to ensure that change is accepted and practised by everyone. This clearly shows that these theories are meant to make the implementation of change easier, hence, solidifying it. The aim of this essay is to compare and contrast similarities and differences as well as strengths and weaknesses between Lewin’s change management model and Kotter’s theory models with a conclusion of the preferred model between the two as an agent of change.
Lewin’s change theory involves three stages, namely: Unfreeze, change and refreeze. The model perceives employees who have gotten used to a certain behaviour as frozen. According to this model, the first step in the process will be to unfreeze these individuals from their usual behaviour, bring the change on board and then refreeze it by solidifying it to be the new normal (Cummings et al., 2015). On the other hand, Kotter’s theory has been divided into three stages: Create a sense of urgency, build the change team, form a strategic vision, communicate the vision, remove the barriers to change, focus on short-term wins, maintain momentum and institute change (Kotter, 2020).
There are major similarities that can be identified between Lewin’s model and Kotter’s model. For instance, both models aim at building an understanding of why change is needed at that particular time. This enables people, or rather employees, to see why change is needed. In Lewin’s model, in the unfreeze stage, employees are made to notice the presence of new conditions. The management as well strives to capture the employees’ attention, which enables them to see the necessity of change (Levasseur, 2015). This as well takes place in Kotter’s model during the first three stages, which involve the change urgency, the building of an effective coalition, and the development of a change vision, hence creating awareness of the change and why it is needed (Kotter, 2020). Despite the similarities that have been identified between these two models, there is a clear difference that can also be identified. Kotter’s model provides an in-depth, step-by-step plan on how change can effectively be implemented. Lewin’s model provides a shallow process that does not break down the stages and processes in-depth, hence may not work when there is a need for a fast transition.
Both Kotter’s and Lewin’s models have great strengths that should be identified. Beginning with Lewin’s model, one major strength that can be identified is that it is relatively easy to implement (Kotter, 2014). Depending on the nature of the business, the method used by an organization to successfully implement change greatly varies. Lewin’s model has been termed as simple because it only involves three steps that are easy to implement as well. This allows the use of process diagram treatment, which allows the building of a chart (Levasseur, 2015). This chart can help in the visualization of the change process needed in an organization. It can also help identify and state any problems that can act as roadblocks hence hindering the change from taking place. Another strength that has been associated with Lewin’s model is the fact that this model encourages lasting change. This is because it first identifies the need for change. It also gives room for transition in the unfreeze stage before a change is fully implemented. One last strength that is identified in this model is that Lewin’s model provides a gradual approach that allows the creation of momentum (Cummings et al., 2015).
Kotter’s model also has strengths of its own. A major one that can easily be identified is that it has the advantage of developing a detailed plan on how best change can be implemented. This gives its users an easy breakdown of how to implement change successfully. The model also tends to put more emphasis on short-term wins that can help employees to positively receive the change hence making it successful (Cummings et al., 2015). Despite the great strengths the models have, there are also weaknesses involved. Lewin’s change model requires a lot of time before the change is fully enacted. This especially happens in the refreezing stage, which requires a lot of time to do away with the norm and settle for the new change. A major weakness of Kotter’s model is that, since it is a step-to-step model, skipping a single step may have consequences. This most likely means that skipping a step for this model will have a negative impact on the change process (Kotter, 2014).
As an agent of change, the most preferred model between the two would be Kotter’s model. This model excels when developmental changes are involved. The major reason why this model would be the most preferred is that it provides steps on how change can be implemented, and each of these steps builds upon the other. This means that skipping a step can hinder the success of the whole process. However, one has an assurance that keenly following the steps can provide an assurance of success in the whole process. The first step in this model is creating a sense of urgency (Kotter, 2014). This allows employees to be aware of a start of a change process and why it is needed. When building a coalition for guiding purposes, peers can be recruited to help in the management of change. This shows that the model allows or rather encourages employee participation. By forming a strategic vision, an ideal future is presented to the employees. This will encourage a volunteer army that can help in the enactment of change. Finding and removing obstacles from the way boosts the chances of the change implementation being successful. The sixth step in this is the generation of short-term wins, which encourages the celebration of every milestone gained (Galli, 2019). By sustaining acceleration, the stakeholders remain excited and look forward towards achieving the change, hence instituting the change successfully. The whole process, steps included, make the model to be exciting, and the assurance that when using it, success is guaranteed makes it to be the most preferred.
In conclusion, when a company has plans to introduce change into the organization, it is important that the management has knowledge of all of the models of change. This will allow them to analyze all the models as well as the situation at hand, and the change that is needed. It is clear that all the models recognize the importance of involving the human resources in the change process. This promotes the fact that, without involvement of the employees, the change process may fail. The leadership style embraced in an organization can also determine which model will be used. This means that when choosing the right model for implementing change, the leadership style should also be appropriate.
References
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. Sagepub. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715577707
Galli, B. J. (2019). Comparison of change management models: similarities, differences, and which is most effective?. R&D Management in the Knowledge Era: Challenges of Emerging Technologies, 605-624.
Kotter, J. P. (2014). CAPTURING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND AVOIDING THE THREATS OF RAPID CHANGE. Leader to Leader, 2014(74), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20150
Kotter, J. P. (2020). Leading change: A conversation with John P. Kotter. Strategy & Leadership, 25(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054576
Levasseur, R. E. (2015). People Skills: Change Management Tools–Lewin’s Change Model. Interfaces, 31(4), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.31.5.71.9674
write