Lewin's Change Management Model

Unfreeze

This first stage of change involves preparing the organization to accept that change is
necessary, which involves break down the existing status quo before you can build up
a new way of operating.

Key to this is developing a compelling message showing why the existing way of
doing things cannot continue. This is easiest to frame when you can point to declining
sales figures, poor financial results, worrying customer satisfaction surveys, or
suchlike. These show that things have to change in a way that everyone can
understand.

To prepare the organization successfully, you need to start at its core – you need to
challenge the beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors that currently define it. Using
the analogy of a building, you must examine and be prepared to change the existing
foundations as they might not support add-on storeys. Unless this is done, the whole
building may risk collapse.

This first part of the change process is usually the most difficult and stressful. When
you start cutting down the "way things are done," you put everyone and everything off
balance. You may evoke strong reactions in people, and that's exactly what needs to
done.

By forcing the organization to re-examine its core, you effectively create a

(controlled) crisis, which in turn can build a strong motivation to seek out a new
equilibrium. Without this motivation, you won't get the buy-in and participation
necessary to effect any meaningful change.

Change

After the uncertainty created in the unfreeze stage, the change stage is where people
begin to resolve their uncertainty and look for new ways to do things. People start to
believe and act in ways that support the new direction.

The transition from unfreeze to change does not happen overnight: People take time
to embrace the new direction and participate proactively in the change. A related
change model, the Change Curve , focuses on the specific issue of personal
transitions in a changing environment and is useful for understanding this aspect in
more detail.
In order to accept the change and contribute to making it successful, people need to
understand how it will benefit them. Not everyone will fall in line just because the
change is necessary and will benefit the company. This is a common assumption and a
pitfall that should be avoided.

Time and communication are the two keys to the changes occurring successfully.
People need time to understand the changes, and they also need to feel highly
connected to the organization throughout the transition period. When you
are managing change , this can require a great deal of time and effort, and hands-on
management is usually the best approach.

Refreeze

When the changes are taking shape and people have embraced the new ways of
working, the organization is ready to refreeze. The outward signs of the refreeze are a
stable organization chart, consistent job descriptions, and so on. The refreeze stage
also needs to help people and the organization internalize or institutionalize the
changes. This means making sure that the changes are used all the time, and that they
are incorporated into everyday business. With a new sense of stability, employees feel
confident and comfortable with the new ways of working.

The rationale for creating a new sense of stability in our ever-changing world is often
questioned. Even though change is a constant in many organizations, this refreezing
stage is still important. Without it, employees get caught in a transition trap where
they aren't sure how things should be done, so nothing ever gets done to full capacity.
In the absence of a new frozen state, it is very difficult to tackle the next change
initiative effectively. How do you go about convincing people that something needs
changing if you haven't allowed the most recent changes to sink in? Change will be
perceived as change for change's sake, and the motivation required to implement new
changes simply won't be there.

As part of the refreezing process, make sure that you celebrate the success of the
change – this helps people to find closure, thanks them for enduring a painful time,
and helps them believe that future change will be successful.
Practical Steps for Using the Framework

Unfreeze

1. Determine what needs to change.

 Survey the organization to understand the current state.

 Understand why change has to take place.

2. Ensure there is strong support from senior management.

 Use Stakeholder Analysis and Stakeholder Management to identify and

win the support of key people within the organization.
 Frame the issue as one of organization-wide importance.

3. Create the need for change.

 Create a compelling message about why change has to occur.

 Use your vision and strategy as supporting evidence.

 Communicate the vision in terms of the change required.

 Emphasize the "why."

4. Manage and understand the doubts and concerns.

 Remain open to employee concerns and address them in terms of the need to
change.

Change

1. Communicate often.

 Do so throughout the planning and implementation of the changes.

 Describe the benefits.

 Explain exactly how the changes will effect everyone.

 Prepare everyone for what is coming.

2. Dispel rumors.
 Answer questions openly and honestly.

 Deal with problems immediately.

 Relate the need for change back to operational necessities.

3. Empower action.

 Provide lots of opportunity for employee involvement.

 Have line managers provide day-to-day direction.

4. Involve people in the process.

 Generate short-term wins to reinforce the change.

 Negotiate with external stakeholders as necessary (such as employee

organizations).

Refreeze

1. Anchor the changes into the culture.

 Identity what supports the change.

 Identify barriers to sustaining change.

2. Develop ways to sustain the change.

 Ensure leadership support.

 Create a reward system.

 Establish feedback systems.

 Adapt the organizational structure as necessary.

3. Provide support and training.

 Keep everyone informed and supported.

4. Celebrate success!

Key Points

Lewin's Change Management Model is a simple and easy-to-understand framework

for managing change.
By recognizing these three distinct stages of change, you can plan to implement the
change required. You start by creating the motivation to change (unfreeze). You move
through the change process by promoting effective communications and empowering
people to embrace new ways of working (change). And the process ends when you
return the organization to a sense of stability (refreeze), which is so necessary for
creating the confidence from which to embark on the next, inevitable change.

The Burke-Litwin Change Model

Understanding the Model
The Burke-Litwin model is used as a guide for identifying and linking factors that are
critical to a successful change initiative. According to the model there are 12 of these
critical factors.

Input: External Environment

The loop starts with the external environment, shown in dark blue in Figure 1. This is
what creates the need for change. Examples in include a weakening in the economy,
shifts in social trends, and the arrival of new technology.

Throughput: Transformational Factors

Transformational factors are the elements that are core to an organization's
performance. They make up the fundamental structure of an organization and are
shown in sky blue in Figure 1. If you're going to make significant changes to your
area, or transform an organization, you need to address these factors.
 Mission and Strategy – What the organization's people believe to be the
core purpose for the organization's existence;
 Leadership – The actions, philosophies, and values of senior managers; and
 Organizational Culture – The norms of behavior and values that are
accepted and expected within the organization.
To effect significant change, or even perform at acceptable levels, these three
elements must be aligned.
In the model, these factors are at the top of the loop and are of over-riding importance
when dealing with a change that is intended to shake-up "the way things are done
around here." The arrows showing the interaction between these transformational
factors and the transactional factors described below are shaded downwards to
indicate that, although the upper and lower elements both impact each other, the
impact is stronger in the downwards direction.

Throughput: Transactional Factors

These are the elements of an organization that are more easily changed, but rarely
have the same kind of impact on organization-wide performance as the
transformational ones. They are shown in light green in Figure 1. They are important,
but unless the three transformational factors support the change, modifications in
these areas are likely to be temporary.
 Structure – The way the organization is set up in terms of roles and
functions, communication, lines of authority, and decision-making.
 Systems – The processes and procedures that are in place to support
operations.
 Management Practices – How managers and people with authority and
responsibility execute the strategy on a day-to-day basis.
 Work Climate – The prevailing attitude and morale of the people working
for the organization.
 Task and Individual Skills – The degree of "fit" between the skills required
for the job and the skills of the people doing the job.
 Individual Needs and Values – The degree to which the processes and
systems within the organization fulfill the needs of the employees and allow
them to feel satisfied.
 Motivation – The intrinsic and extrinsic factors that motivate people to
perform well on a consistent basis.
In fact, all twelve elements affect each other, but the arrows on the diagrams show the
relationships between elements that the authors considered the strongest. Even so, it
quickly becomes clear how a change in one element can have an organization-wide
impact. And while change or improvement in any one of these transactional factors
can affect performance, the effect will only be long lasting if the underlying
transformational elements are aligned.
For example, if you restructure departments and create cross functional work teams
without addressing the deeply held belief that functional groups operate best as
distinct business units, then your restructuring may even be detrimental to
performance. Likewise, if you put in place a top-notch reward and recognition system
to motivate employees, but it doesn't reward people for behaviors that support the
mission, then the effect may be counterproductive.

Output: Individual and Organizational Performance

The outcome of the change is the effect it has on performance (shown in gray in
Figure 1). This is the measure of the effectiveness of the change. It also has an impact
on the external environment, which is what creates the loop. Therefore, as the output
changes, so does the input and so the factors of change themselves also change, once
again proving that the only constant is change!

Applying the Burke-Litwin Change Model

So the theory sounds good, but how do you use it? The model's greatest value is as a
framework for understanding the current situation and the collateral impact of
proposed changes.

Step 1: Where is the Need for Change Coming From?

Change initiatives are driven by one of two things: either something isn't working
now, or something won't be working as well as you want it to in the future if you don't
make changes now.
Either way, the change initiatives will be focused in one of the four groups of
elements in Figure 1:
1. The External Environment
2. Transformational Factors
3. Transactional Factors
4. Performance
Start by deciding which group your change imperative belongs to. Then identify
which of the elements in each group is key for your situation.
In general, the lower down the model your key element is, the more easily you will be
able to effect the change required.
Example:
A small software development company had grown successfully over several years,
and now employed around 60 people. However, in the last 9 months, staff had started
leaving. Karen, one of the founders, set about finding out why this was happening.
She contacted some of the recent leavers and found that they had been unhappy with a
new emphasis she and her business partner had put on developers selling work to
clients. In the past, she and her partner had cut the deals. But as the company had
matured, the founders had wanted to put more of their time into a new venture, and
had figured that selling software required strong technical knowledge, so the
developers themselves would be well placed do to this. While this was essentially
true, the problem was that the developers didn't like doing this task, and they also felt
they lacked sales skills.
Using the Burke-Litwin Model, Karen concluded that "Task and Skills" was the key
problem area.

Step 2: Assess the Current Situation

The next step is to understand the key element in your change imperative in detail.
Use the questions from the following list as a guide, and also explore the other 11
elements, spending more time on those that Figure 1 links most closely with your key
element.
 External Environment – What is driving the change? How will these
drivers impact the organization?
 Mission and Strategy – Is there a clear mission? What is it? Is there a
perceived mission and strategy that is different from the formal one? Do
employees believe in the mission and strategy?
 Leadership – Who are the real leaders? What style do they use? Is this style
successful?
 Organizational Culture – What are the unwritten rules of behavior? Do
any of these rules conflict with what the organization is seeking to accomplish?
 Structure – How are people and functions arranged? How flexible is the
structure? Where are decisions made? How is authority and responsibility
divided up? How is information communicated?
 Systems – What are the key policies and procedures that define how work is
done? What systems are in place to motivate, reward, recognize, appraise, and
compensate employees?
 Management Practices – What style of management is practiced? How do
managers interact with their employees? Are teams used?
 Work Climate – What is the morale of the staff like? How do people get
along with each other? What systems are used to resolve conflict? Are there
definite dividing lines between units, departments, or locations?
 Task and Individual Skills – How are job requirements defined? Who
defines them? How well are people matched to their jobs?
 Individual Needs and Values – Are people generally satisfied at work?
What efforts are made to ensure job satisfaction? What opportunities are given
for professional development and career succession?
 Motivation – Are staff motivated through formal systems? Is motivation
expected to be intrinsic? What impacts motivation the most?
 Individual and Organizational Performance – How is productivity
measured? What are the performance levels on these factors? What should be
measured that isn't?
Example:
Karen looked at the following elements of the Burke Litwin Model which are the
most closely linked to the key problem area of Task & Skills.
 Task and Individual Skills: The new requirement to sell work had not been
properly discussed with the developers before it was brought in. The approach
came entirely from the founders, who loved selling; they hadn't appreciated that
developers who thrived on satisfying customer needs might not enjoy brokering
the deal too.
 Structure: As the company had grown, its structure had not grown with it.
All developers essentially had the same job description. Karen and her business
partner made all the decisions.
 Mission and Strategy: The company's growth targets had not been adjusted
to reflect the change in approach to sales.
 Leadership: Karen and her business partner were spending less time on the
business, yet had not appointed anyone else to take over the parts of the
leadership role they had vacated. They were charismatic leaders, so once they
were not as involved, employees felt that the business lacked direction.
 Motivation: Employees were demotivated by having to work they didn't
enjoy and felt they were no good at. A reward system had been introduced to
give bonuses based on the revenue generated by each developer, but employees
felt that they could not access these bonuses as they were not good enough at
selling work.
 Individual Needs and Values: The developers who had left wanted to be
able to focus on development work and on surpassing the expectations of clients
who had already decide to "buy" from them. They did not want to have to work
on winning round clients, and did not particularly value high sales bonuses.
 Individual and Organizational Performance: Individual performance was
dropping as developers had spent less time on development, and were not
successful in their selling work. Organizational performance dropped as less
work was being won.

Step 3: Incorporate All Affected Elements Into Your Change Plan

Now that you understand "what" is happening, you need to figure out what you're
going to change in the key problem element, and what therefore also needs to change
in the main related elements.
This may need to be done as an iterative process: change in one element affects a
second element, which affects a third, yet the change in the third element may require
another alteration back in the first element again.
Example:
Karen consulted with her team of developers and, together, they agreed a new
approach:
 Task and Individual Skills:Selling work would no longer be required of
developers.
 Structure: A new sales team would be formed, headed up by a professional
sales executive. The team would include several hybrid developer-seller roles,
 offering an opportunity for those developers who had enjoyed doing selling
work. Developers who applied for these roles would be given sales training.
 Mission and Strategy: Karen and her business partner recognized that their
interests were focused on their new venture, and so revised their growth
expectations for the software company.
 Leadership: A new Chief Executive was appointed to run the software
company, with the founders moving to Chairman/Advisor roles.
 Motivation: Intrinsic motivation increased greatly as employees no longer
had to do types of work for which they felt they were not suited. The reward
system was enhanced to recognize developers who maintained long-term
relationships with clients, as well as developer-sellers who brought in new work.
 Individual Needs and Values: The developers now felt that a range of
opportunities was available to satisfy their individual needs and values.
 Individual and Organizational Performance: Individual and
organizational performance improved.
Key Points The Burke-Litwin Change Model examines organizational change and
provides insight into how changes in 12 key elements of the organization's design can
impact one another and overall performance. While it doesn't show us how to make
the changes needed to these critical factors, it does provide an useful framework from
which to analyze what needs to be done, and why. This framework can be used to
keep a close eye on the impact that changes in one area have on all the other areas as
development and implementation of a change plan continues. The more aware you are
of the dynamics of change, the better you will be at managing and dealing with it as it
happens.

Kotter's 8-Step Change Model

Step 1: Create Urgency

For change to happen, it helps if the whole company really wants it. Develop a sense
of urgency around the need for change. This may help you spark the initial motivation
to get things moving.

This isn't simply a matter of showing people poor sales statistics or talking about
increased competition. Open an honest and convincing dialogue about what's
happening in the marketplace and with your competition. If many people start talking
about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.

What you can do:

 Identify potential threats , and develop scenarios showing what could
happen in the future.
 Examine opportunities that should be, or could be, exploited.
 Start honest discussions, and give dynamic and convincing reasons to get
people talking and thinking.

 Request support from customers, outside stakeholders and industry people to

strengthen your argument.

Step 2: Form a Powerful Coalition

Convince people that change is necessary. This often takes strong leadership and
visible support from key people within your organization. Managing change isn't
enough – you have to lead it.

You can find effective change leaders throughout your organization – they don't
necessarily follow the traditional company hierarchy. To lead change, you need to
bring together a coalition, or team, of influential people whose power comes from a
variety of sources, including job title, status, expertise, and political importance.

Once formed, your "change coalition" needs to work as a team, continuing to build
urgency and momentum around the need for change.

What you can do:

 Identify the true leaders in your organization, as well as your

key stakeholders .
 Ask for an emotional commitment from these key people.

 Work on team building within your change coalition.

 Check your team for weak areas, and ensure that you have a good mix of
people from different departments and different levels within your company.

Step 3: Create a Vision for Change

When you first start thinking about change, there will probably be many great ideas
and solutions floating around. Link these concepts to an overall vision that people can
grasp easily and remember.
A clear vision can help everyone understand why you're asking them to do something.
When people see for themselves what you're trying to achieve, then the directives
they're given tend to make more sense.

What you can do:

 Determine the values that are central to the change.

 Develop a short summary (one or two sentences) that captures what you "see"
as the future of your organization.

 Create a strategy to execute that vision.

 Ensure that your change coalition can describe the vision in five minutes or
less.

 Practice your "vision speech" often.

Step 4: Communicate the Vision

What you do with your vision after you create it will determine your success. Your
message will probably have strong competition from other day-to-day
communications within the company, so you need to communicate it frequently and
powerfully, and embed it within everything that you do.
Don't just call special meetings to communicate your vision. Instead, talk about it
every chance you get. Use the vision daily to make decisions and solve problems.
When you keep it fresh on everyone's minds, they'll remember it and respond to it.

It's also important to "walk the talk." What you do is far more important – and
believable – than what you say. Demonstrate the kind of behavior that you want from
others.

What you can do:

 Talk often about your change vision.

 Address peoples' concerns and anxieties, openly and honestly.

 Apply your vision to all aspects of operations – from training to performance

reviews. Tie everything back to the vision.

 Lead by example .
Step 5: Remove Obstacles

If you follow these steps and reach this point in the change process, you've been
talking about your vision and building buy-in from all levels of the organization.
Hopefully, your staff wants to get busy and achieve the benefits that you've been
promoting.

But is anyone resisting the change? And are there processes or structures that are
getting in its way?

Put in place the structure for change, and continually check for barriers to it.
Removing obstacles can empower the people you need to execute your vision, and it
can help the change move forward.

What you can do:

 Identify, or hire, change leaders whose main roles are to deliver the change.

 Look at your organizational structure, job descriptions, and performance and

compensation systems to ensure they're in line with your vision.

 Recognize and reward people for making change happen.

 Identify people who are resisting the change, and help them see what's needed.

 Take action to quickly remove barriers (human or otherwise).

Step 6: Create Short-Term Wins

Nothing motivates more than success. Give your company a taste of victory early in
the change process. Within a short time frame (this could be a month or a year,
depending on the type of change), you'll want to have some "quick wins " that your
staff can see. Without this, critics and negative thinkers might hurt your progress.
Create short-term targets – not just one long-term goal. You want each smaller target
to be achievable, with little room for failure. Your change team may have to work
very hard to come up with these targets, but each "win" that you produce can further
motivate the entire staff.

What you can do:

 Look for sure-fire projects that you can implement without help from any
strong critics of the change.
 Don't choose early targets that are expensive. You want to be able to justify the
investment in each project.

 Thoroughly analyze the potential pros and cons of your targets. If you don't
succeed with an early goal, it can hurt your entire change initiative.

 Reward the people who help you meet the targets.

Step 7: Build on the Change

Kotter argues that many change projects fail because victory is declared too early.
Real change runs deep. Quick wins are only the beginning of what needs to be done to
achieve long-term change.

Launching one new product using a new system is great. But if you can launch 10
products, that means the new system is working. To reach that 10th success, you need
to keep looking for improvements.

Each success provides an opportunity to build on what went right and identify what
you can improve.

What you can do:

 After every win, analyze what went right, and what needs improving.

 Set goals to continue building on the momentum you've achieved.

 Learn about kaizen , the idea of continuous improvement.
 Keep ideas fresh by bringing in new change agents and leaders for your
change coalition.

Step 8: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture

Finally, to make any change stick, it should become part of the core of your
organization. Your corporate culture often determines what gets done, so the values
behind your vision must show in day-to-day work.

Make continuous efforts to ensure that the change is seen in every aspect of your
organization. This will help give that change a solid place in your organization's
culture.

It's also important that your company's leaders continue to support the change. This
includes existing staff and new leaders who are brought in. If you lose the support of
these people, you might end up back where you started.
What you can do:

 Talk about progress every chance you get. Tell success stories about the
change process, and repeat other stories that you hear.

 Include the change ideals and values when hiring and training new staff.

 Publicly recognize key members of your original change coalition, and make
sure the rest of the staff – new and old – remembers their contributions.

 Create plans to replace key leaders of change as they move on. This will help
ensure that their legacy is not lost or forgotten.

Key Points

You have to work hard to change an organization successfully. When you plan
carefully and build the proper foundation, implementing change can be much easier,
and you'll improve the chances of success. If you're too impatient, and if you expect
too many results too soon, your plans for change are more likely to fail.

Create a sense of urgency, recruit powerful change leaders, build a vision and
effectively communicate it, remove obstacles, create quick wins, and build on your
momentum. If you do these things, you can help make the change part of your
organizational culture. That's when you can declare a true victory. then sit back and
enjoy the change that you envisioned so long ago.

The McKinsey 7-S Framework

The 7-S model can be used in a wide variety of situations where an alignment
perspective is useful, for example, to help you:
 Improve the performance of a company.

 Examine the likely effects of future changes within a company.

 Align departments and processes during a merger or acquisition.

 Determine how best to implement a proposed strategy.

The McKinsey 7-S model can be applied to elements of a team or a project as well.

The Seven Elements

The McKinsey 7-S model involves seven interdependent factors which are
categorized as either "hard" or "soft" elements:

Hard Elements Soft Elements

Shared Values

Strategy Skills

Structure Style

Systems Staff

"Hard" elements are easier to define or identify and management can directly
influence them: These are strategy statements; organization charts and reporting lines;
and formal processes and IT systems.

"Soft" elements, on the other hand, can be more difficult to describe, and are less
tangible and more influenced by culture. However, these soft elements are as
important as the hard elements if the organization is going to be successful.

The way the model is presented in Figure 1 below depicts the interdependency of the
elements and indicates how a change in one affects all the others.
Let's look at each of the elements specifically:

 Strategy: the plan devised to maintain and build competitive advantage over
the competition.
 Structure: the way the organization is structured and who reports to whom.
 Systems: the daily activities and procedures that staff members engage in to
get the job done.
 Shared Values: called "superordinate goals" when the model was first
developed, these are the core values of the company that are evidenced in the
corporate culture and the general work ethic.
 Style: the style of leadership adopted.
 Staff: the employees and their general capabilities.
 Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the employees working for the
company.
Placing Shared Values in the middle of the model emphasizes that these values are
central to the development of all the other critical elements. The company's structure,
strategy, systems, style, staff and skills all stem from why the organization was
originally created, and what it stands for. The original vision of the company was
formed from the values of the creators. As the values change, so do all the other
elements.

Also, the first version of this model, published in 1982, classified “systems” as “soft”.
Since 1982, very many processes in very many organizations have been meticulously
documented or automated, making them relatively easy to analyze and change. They
are therefore shown above as “hard”.
How to Use the Model

Now you know what the model covers, how can you use it?

The model is based on the theory that, for an organization to perform well, these
seven elements need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing. So, the model can be
used to help identify what needs to be realigned to improve performance, or to
maintain alignment (and performance) during other types of change.

Whatever the type of change – restructuring, new processes, organizational merger,

new systems, change of leadership, and so on – the model can be used to understand
how the organizational elements are interrelated, and so ensure that the wider impact
of changes made in one area is taken into consideration.

You can use the 7-S model to help analyze the current situation (Point A), a proposed
future situation (Point B) and to identify gaps and inconsistencies between them. It's
then a question of adjusting and tuning the elements of the 7-S model to ensure that
your organization works effectively and well once you reach the desired endpoint.

Sounds simple? Well, of course not: Changing your organization probably will not be
simple at all! Whole books and methodologies are dedicated to analyzing
organizational strategy, improving performance and managing change. The 7-S model
is a good framework to help you ask the right questions – but it won't give you all the
answers. For that you'll need to bring together the right knowledge, skills and
experience.

When it comes to asking the right questions, we've developed a Mind Tools checklist
and a matrix to keep track of how the seven elements align with each other.
Supplement these with your own questions, based on your organization's specific
circumstances and accumulated wisdom.

7-S Checklist Questions

Here are some of the questions that you'll need to explore to help you understand your
situation in terms of the 7-S framework. Use them to analyze your current (Point A)
situation first, and then repeat the exercise for your proposed situation (Point B).

Strategy:
 What is our strategy?

 How do we intend to achieve our objectives?

 How do we deal with competitive pressure?

 How are changes in customer demands dealt with?

 How is strategy adjusted for environmental issues?

Structure:
 How is the company/team divided?

 What is the hierarchy?

 How do the various departments coordinate activities?

 How do the team members organize and align themselves?

 Is decision making and controlling centralized or decentralized? Is this as it

should be, given what we're doing?

 Where are the lines of communication? Explicit and implicit?

Systems:
 What are the main systems that run the organization? Consider financial and
HR systems as well as communications and document storage.

 Where are the controls and how are they monitored and evaluated?

 What internal rules and processes does the team use to keep on track?

Shared Values:
 What are the core values?

 What is the corporate/team culture?

 How strong are the values?

 What are the fundamental values that the company/team was built on?

Style:
 How participative is the management/leadership style?

 How effective is that leadership?

 Do employees/team members tend to be competitive or cooperative?

 Are there real teams functioning within the organization or are they just
nominal groups?

Staff:
 What positions or specializations are represented within the team?
 What positions need to be filled?

 Are there gaps in required competencies?

Skills:
 What are the strongest skills represented within the company/team?

 Are there any skills gaps?

 What is the company/team known for doing well?

 Do the current employees/team members have the ability to do the job?

 How are skills monitored and assessed?

7-S Matrix Questions

Using the information you have gathered, now examine where there are gaps and
inconsistencies between elements. Remember you can use this to look at either your
current or your desired organization.

Click here to download our McKinsey 7-S Worksheet, which contains a matrix that
you can use to check off alignment between each of the elements as you go through
the following steps:
 Start with your Shared Values: Are they consistent with your structure,
strategy, and systems? If not, what needs to change?

 Then look at the hard elements. How well does each one support the others?
Identify where changes need to be made.

 Next look at the other soft elements. Do they support the desired hard
elements? Do they support one another? If not, what needs to change?

 As you adjust and align the elements, you'll need to use an iterative (and often
time consuming) process of making adjustments, and then re-analyzing how that
impacts other elements and their alignment. The end result of better performance
will be worth it.

Key Points

The McKinsey 7-S model is one that can be applied to almost any organizational or
team effectiveness issue. If something within your organization or team isn't working,
chances are there is inconsistency between some of the elements identified by this
classic model. Once these inconsistencies are revealed, you can work to align the
internal elements to make sure they are all contributing to the shared goals and values.

The process of analyzing where you are right now in terms of these elements is
worthwhile in and of itself. But by taking this analysis to the next level and
determining the ultimate state for each of the factors, you can really move your
organization or team forward.

Lewin’s change management model

Lewin’s model is one of the most popular approaches, and it’s easy to see why. By
splitting the change process into three stages you can break a large, unwieldy shift
into bitesize chunks which account for both the processes and people in your
company.

Lewin describes three stages of change management:

 Unfreeze

 Make changes

 Refreeze
Each stage is a little hefty and requires delving into detail, so I’ll split each into its
own section below.

The method

Unfreeze your process and perceptions

Upon realizing that your company needs to change, the first step is to “unfreeze”
your current process and take a look at how things are done. This means analyzing
every step and human interaction for potential improvements, no matter how in-
depth you have to go and how much you need to unearth.

By doing this you’re helping to eliminate any existing bias and commonly
accepted mistakes . This gives you the perspective you need to change the cause of
your problems, rather than just the symptoms.

Unfreezing also applies to your company’s perception of the upcoming change and
their natural resistance to it. Forcing sudden change only breeds resentment, so
you need to prepare your team for the new elements in order to let them take hold
when deployed.

Everyone needs to know what’s wrong with the current process, why it needs to
change, what changes are being suggested, and what benefits those changes will
bring. This should help to convince them of the need to change and encourage
them to stick to the new process.

Make your changes

Once you’ve prepared everyone it’s time to deploy your changes and guide the
team as they adapt. Communication, support, and education are vital, as you want
to limit any difficulties in the transition and address problems as soon as they
arise.

As such, you first need to provide any extra education or training that your team
will require. If you’re switching a piece of technology then they need to know how
to use it, and if you’re adapting a new marketing policy they need to be told what
to read to learn about it.

Next, you need to make sure that everyone has a place or person they can go to for
support on the topic. This can be a regular meeting with their manager, a
knowledge base they can refer to, or a mentor that’s guiding them through the
process.

Finally, you should be communicating regularly with all members of your team (or
at least getting their manager to do so). This is primarily to listen to feedback, as
this will quickly highlight any problems you need to tackle.

Refreeze the new status quo

Once your changes have been deployed, measured, and tweaked according to
feedback, you need to “refreeze” your new status quo. This is vital to any change
management model – everything you’ve done is pointless if old habits resurface.

Regular reviews need to be carried out to check that the new methods are being
followed. Rewards should also be given to those who consistently keep to the new
method, and those who make a large effort to support and uphold the changes.

If you’ve listened to (and applied) feedback then this stage will be a little easier,
since your employees will be more invested in the changes. They helped to shape
them after all, so it’s natural that they would want them to succeed.

Beyond that, any documented processes need to be checked and updated, and all of
these checks upheld until the changes become habit. There’s no set amount of time
until this happens, but as long as you keep measuring and reinforcing the new state
of things, eventually the habit will be set in stone.

The good

Lewin’s change management model is fantastic for when your business needs to
drastically change in order to succeed. It also excels at uncovering hidden
mistakes which were taken for granted, since you have to analyze every aspect of
whatever you’re changing.

If you’re carrying out any business process reengineering (see the template for this
below) or know that you need to shake up some ingrained mistruths, use Lewin’s
model.

The bad

Due to the scale of the unfreezing process, Lewin’s model can be difficult and
time-consuming to enact. This isn’t necessarily a problem (since the changes
highlighted are often massive and require a large time investment anyway), but it
does mean that using the model for anything less than an in-depth analysis and
overhaul isn’t worthwhile.

Lewin’s model also requires a great deal of care to be taken beyond the base
instructions to support your team and consider their emotions through the turmoil.

Massive changes (which this model is suited to) run the risk of alienating
employees, since their workflow will be drastically different than before. As such,
you need to be especially careful when bringing them on board and keeping up
their enthusiasm in the refreezing stage.

The overall

If you know that your business requires in-depth analysis and improvements,
Lewin’s model is a great way to start.

By digging up the roots of your methods and completely revamping processes and
practices where needed, you can pivot your company at a critical time in its
lifespan. Unfreezing and analyzing your model with this method can show you
what you need to improve and highlight how to let your team adapt.

Just don’t try to “unfreeze” and change for every minor problem you find – it takes
a lot of time and effort to do so, and if you’re not careful the disruption can
alienate your employees.
The McKinsey 7-S model
Instead of supporting deep analysis and large shifts, the McKinsey 7-S model is
great for analyzing how coherent your company is. If you know that you need to
change your act, but you’re not sure what to do, this is the change management
model for you.

By analyzing the following seven aspects of your company and how they affect
each other, you will highlight the changes you need to make to create a united
approach to business:

 Strategy

 Structure

 Systems

 Shared values

 Style

 Staff

 Skills

The method

Assess your strategy

Your company strategy needs to be formal enough to allow you to move forward
with purpose and gain (or maintain) an advantage over your competitors, and
flexible enough to adapt to changes without destroying your progress. As such,
when assessing your strategy you need to answer questions such as:

 What are your objectives?

 What is your strategy to achieve them?

 How are you staying competitive?

 How can your strategy adapt to the current (and future) situation?
Record the answers to each question (and any others you can think of), then move
on.

Look at your structure

Your structure should be fairly simple to note down since it’s more tangible than
your strategy, but it’s nonetheless important to double check with your team(s).
Unless your information is accurate for how your company is actually structured,
you’re only neutering the effectiveness of your changes.

Analyze your systems

Any of our returning readers will know the importance of having processes and
managing them effectively, and now is when the McKinsey model applies that
same belief. Here you need to assess your business systems , including official
processes, unofficial shortcuts, rules, and how everything is tracked.

Record shared values

We’re back into abstract territory now, as the next step is to analyze your shared
values. This will typically include both your official company values and your
company’s (possibly also your individual teams’) culture.

While culture might seem irrelevant to managing change, if used correctly it can
be a powerful tool indeed. Linking your values and culture to the changes you
make will make them more agreeable to your work force, who will, in turn, adapt
them more readily.

Take note of your style

This stage is all about assessing the management and leadership style used in your
business. While it might be tempting to present an idealized view of your own
leadership, resist that urge and be frank with how both you and the rest of the
company are managed/manage others.

List your staff

This section is exactly what you’d expect. Take a look at your staff list and assess
whether you have the required positions filled, what gaps you have, and so on.

Assess their skills

Finally, it’s time to look at the skills your staff currently have. This shouldn’t end
at a basic description – you’ll need to gather some feedback around how your
company is perceived, as this will give you an idea of what your
customers think your skills are (which is arguably just as important).

Cross-examine the 7-S’ and find what changes you need to implement
Once you’ve analyzed all of the 7-S’ you should take the time to think about how
each affects the others. As with many of these change management models, it’s
worth meeting with at least the upper levels of your management to do this, as
you’ll get a more accurate idea of these things in practice.

You need to be looking at whether your 7-S’ support each other, and planning
incremental changes to make that happen if it isn’t already. For example, look at
whether your structure supports your strategy, how they are both helped by your
systems, and how all three reflect your shared values.

Once you have an idea of what needs to be brought in line, plan out incremental
changes you can make which won’t disrupt your regular operations too much or
alienate your employees. After they’ve been deployed (or even after every change
you make), go through the 7-S model again to reassess and find out what you need
to do next.

The good

The 7-S model shows the weaknesses in your company and highlights the areas
that most require attention when deploying changes. Beyond that, it helps to make
sure that every aspect of your company supports the others, giving you a
formidable business plan which is both incredibly strong and yet flexible to further
change.

The bad

Unless you run a small operation with very few employees, the McKinsey model
is impossible to effectively carry out alone or in a short amount of time. You won’t
have the required knowledge to assess every element of your company, and so
extra time and resources must be dedicated to build the overview and assess viable
changes.

The verdict

The McKinsey 7-S model is best suited for those who want to know how they can
change for the better. By creating an overview of how coherent and effective the
various elements of your company are, you can then go on to analyze your current
situation and draft changes to tackle the problem.

In other words, this model is great if you don’t know where to start, but if you are
just looking to assess the viability of a specific change, it might be best to use a
model which has a smaller scope.
Kotter’s theory
Kotter’s theory is the first in this list to focus less on the change itself and more on
the people behind it (albeit from a top-down point of view). By inspiring a sense
of urgency for change and maintaining that momentum, Kotter’s theory can be
used to great effect in adapting your business to the current climate.

Kotter’s theory works by:

 Creating a sense of urgency

 Building a core coalition

 Forming a strategic vision

 Getting everyone on board

 Removing barriers and reducing friction

 Generating short-term wins

 Sustaining acceleration

 Setting the changes in stone

The method

Create a sense of urgency

First you need to create a sense of urgency for your change – this will provide the
initial traction you’ll need to get your team on board and motivated to adapt.

The best part is that you don’t need to do all of the work for this urgency to spread
– once you have a core group who are open to discussing the changes, it’s likely
that they will, in turn, talk to others and convince them to feel the same.

Take stock of potential threats, what your competitors are doing, and opportunities
you can capitalize on, and then use them to start discussions with your team
around the effects on your company and what should be done about them.

Build a core coalition

Once you’ve got the ball rolling you need to get the key players on board. Gather
your organization leaders and stakeholders and convince them of the need to
change.
This step is pretty straightforward, but you should make sure that you have a good
span of people from various experience levels, skill sets, and so on. Be sure to
specifically ask them for a commitment to these changes too, since you will need a
strong core of promoters who can reach every employee in your business.

Form a strategic vision

Your aim in this step is to be able to define your changes and the vision you’re
aiming for. The key here is to not overwhelm whoever’s listening to you with
detail or complicated ideas or language.

Write down what values your changes work towards achieving, what the changes
are, and what the predicted outcome will be. Keep the summary to one or two
sentences, and in simple enough language that everyone in your core group step
understands exactly what you mean.

If your coalition can’t describe your change in a couple of sentences, you’ll have
no hope of convincing your front line employees why they’re important.

Get everyone on board

Now it’s time to spread your idea for change to the rest of your organization,
including the front-line employees.

Although part of this will be having regular meetings to discuss the vision and
changes with your teams, you also need to be promoting these elements outside of
meetings too. Not only that, but you can’t just shove information at your
employees and expect them to mindlessly convert – you need to be open to
feedback and host discussions about the topic.

Essentially, the goal here is to convince your entire organization that the changes
are necessary and why they should happen – you’re setting the stage for them to
later deploy the changes.

Remove barriers and reduce friction

If all has gone well then your employees should be eager to get started with your
changes. Before that, it’s vital to take a moment to assess what might block the
changes’ progress.

For example, an employee might not have the skill to use a new piece of
technology or a team might not have the manpower to spare for implementing a
new task. Whatever the issue, make sure that you’ve limited it as much as
possible.
You can do this by analyzing your structure and processes to see if they are
holding your changes back, and by tackling problems (both human and technical)
as soon as possible after they show up.

Generate short-term wins

We’ve finally gotten around to deploying your changes, but now you must be extra
vigilant – the initial motivation to change won’t last forever. Instead, you need to
make sure that there are short-term wins associated with your changes that you can
present and praise employees for.

This both gives your team a sense of accomplishment and shows them the process
working in action, making them more likely to keep up with the changes.

Although it’s best to plan out these milestones in advance, you can always
measure the effects of the change as it happens, then present that data to your team
to show them exactly how their performance is being affected.

If you’re struggling to think of any milestones, you could always just reward those
who are sticking to your changes and helping you to meet your targets.

Sustain acceleration
This stage is all about sustaining the momentum that you generated for your
changes. If you’re successful, the acceleration can carry you far enough that the
changes become the new habit before the team loses steam.

Take stock of any successes (or failures) your team has, looking at what happened
and what could be improved next time. Beyond that, be sure to set new goals
whenever one of your current ones is reached to let your team have something to
work towards.

Set your changes in stone

Finally, you need to make sure that your changes have been set in stone, both in
your documentation and company culture. Aside from updating any formal
processes you have to reflect the new change, you also need to promote the
success of your changes and help them to endure going forwards.

For example, one great way to cement a change is to announce and recognize the
original coalition and their contributions to the final product. This highlights their
interaction in the change, your willingness to hear feedback, and the change as a
whole as a good thing.

All that’s left to do now is to repeat the change process for the next round of
alterations.
The good

The first few stages of Kotter’s theory are fantastic – they force you to set the
foundation for success by creating a sense of urgency and convincing everyone
why change is necessary. This gives your team the drive they need to enact the
change, with enough people working on deploying it that it should quickly become
standard practice.

The bad

While it focuses largely on widespread adoption of your changes, Kotter’s model

is a top-down approach at heart. Without a little extra effort on your part it doesn’t
take any feedback on board, and therefore runs the risk of alienating employees by
just telling them what to do.

This is likely because the majority of Kotter’s experience came from working with
large top-down companies, but still, it can be an issue for companies rely on a
more collaborative setup. For anything other than a large corporation, having some
kind of back-and-forth is vital for giving context on changes from varying points
of view and skill sets, and for having employees adapt to the change at all.

Put it this way – if you’re small enough to know the name of almost everyone
working for you, you need to go one step beyond Kotter and listen to your team.
That way they will be more likely to adopt your changes, as they will at least have
some say and direct connection to the changes.

The verdict

Kotter’s theory is great as a checklist , but lacks the necessary back-and-forth (and,
to a degree, actionable instructions) to be taken as a step-by-step process. Smaller
companies depend much more on cementing every employee as a champion of
each change, meaning that you need to pay more attention to their feedback.

So, as with Lewin’s and the McKinsey change management models, Kotter should
be supplemented with other approaches (or at least elements of them to make up
for its shortcomings.

Analysis

Analyzing the three models described above McKinsey 7-S Model, Lewin's Change
Management model and John P. Kotter's Eight Steps pf Change Management can be
observed that each model have their own particularities and focus in the Change
Management Subject.
In the case of the first model, McKinsey 7-S Model M, is more focused in the areas
that should be considered during an organisational change and created in the
beginning of the 80's. This model has been classified by INMPACT group in two parts
as Organisational Core Aspects as Strategy, Structure and systems which can be
classified as the spine; and in the Human Resources aspects where are considered
values, management style, leadership, interaction, skills and competences.
Lewin's Change Management model is a general model created in the 50's and talks
about three different stages during a change management. The three stages mentioned
are unfreezing, change and freezing. From our point of view this model gives a global
view in the topic, but is missing certain important aspects that are crucial during the
planning, implementation of a change inside any kind of organisation. Nowadays
companies live in an environment where if the company stays at the freeze stage
exists a higher possibility of failure due to the environment and other players are in
continuous change that is the reason why companies have a high degree of flexibility
in their human resources, strategy, systems and structure.
Kotter's eight steps Change Model focus on the urgency sense and on a high degree of
responsiveness, leadership (powerful guiding coalition) and human resources, vision
and structure, communication, empowerment, short term win through challenging but
also reachable goals, continuous improvement in systems, processes and practices,
people planning and development. The eight steps models from our point of view are
focused on the continuous environmental changes, consumer's behaviour, supply
chains, financial markets, etc.
From our point of view the Mckinsey model and the Eight Step model can be
integrated in one model in order to have a better view on the Change Management, it
both models can complement each other in both main aspects mentioned by
McKinsey model organisational core areas and Human resources and at the same time
the eight steps can be classified in both areas.

Pros and cons of Kotter model

The greatest strength of Kotter’s model is its first two steps – creating a sense of
urgency and creating the guiding coalition. Far too many leaders lurch into a
programme of organisational upheaval without having properly convinced people first
that there is a genuine need for change. Far too many leaders think they can drive
change by the force of their own personality, rather than genuinely engaging a broader
group of people who also understand the need for change. Individuals seldom have all
the skills and insights needed to bring about successful organisational change. That’s
why a change leadership group – a guiding coalition as Kotter puts it – is so useful.
Kotter’s approach provides a very robust checklist of most of the things you need to
think about during the change process. One very skilled change leader I once worked
with forgot to make sure that her organisation’s IT systems were aligned with the new
change, and this came close to destroying the whole project. Kotter’s fifth step would
have reminded her to make sure the right systems were in place. The need to create
short terms wins just as people are beginning to lose faith in the whole change process
is also a very useful insight for change leaders.

On the downside, there are three principal drawbacks to Kotter’s model. First, it is
essentially a top down model. Kotter has a lot of experience of working with
organisations on big change projects, and most of that experience is with very large
corporations. If you are in a setting where people expect a more participative or
bottom up approach to change, something like appreciative enquiry is likely to be
more useful.

Secondly, it is a bit mechanistic. Organisations are not just machines, they are also
communities of people. As a checklist, the model is great – as a step by step
prescription for change, it is less useful than Peter Senge’s work on systems theory.

Finally, although Kotter’s model is very strong on initiating change, I can’t help
feeling it’s bit weak at sustaining it. Step seven in particular – ‘consolidate gains and
produce more change’ – doesn’t give much in the way of specific guidance for
sustaining change.

Comparison between Lewins and Kotters

Lewin´s 3 step model of change

Kurt Lewin developed a change model involving three steps: unfreezing, changing
and refreezing. For Lewin, the process of change entails creating the perception that a
change is needed, then moving toward the new, desired level of behavior and, finally,
solidifying that new behavior as the norm.

The goal during the unfreezing stage is to create an awareness of how the status quo,
or current level of acceptability, is hindering the organization in some way. The idea is
that the more we know about a change and the more we feel that it is necessary and
urgent, the more motivated we are to accept the change.

Once people are unfrozen they can begin to move into the implementation phase, also
called the changing stage. During the changing stage, people begin to learn the new
behaviors, processes and ways of thinking. The more prepared they are for this step,
the easier it is to complete.

Lewin called the final stage of his change model freezing, but many refer to it
as refreezing to symbolize the act of reinforcing, stabilizing and solidifying the new
state after the change. The changes made to organizational processes, goals,
structures, offerings or people are accepted and refrozen as the new norm or status
quo.

Advantages

One of the key advantages of a force field analysis is that it provides a visual
summary of all the various factors supporting and opposing a particular idea, with all
the data that has been collected regarding a potential decision consolidated into a
single graph. In addition, force field analysis also expands the evaluation beyond the
data itself to look at qualitative factors that may have an impact on the success or
failure of the decision being analyzed.

Disadvantages

Lewin´s model is very rational, goal and plan oriented. The change looks good on
paper, as it makes rational sense, but when implemented the lack of considering
human feelings and experiences can have negative consequences. There may be
occations when employees get so excited about the new change, that they bypass the
feelings, attitudes, past input or experience of other employees. Consequently, they
find themselves facing either resistance or little enthusiasm.

Force field analysis requires the full participation of everyone involved to provide the
accurate information required for an effective analysis. This can be a disadvantage
when full participation isn't possible, resulting in an analysis that doesn't provide a
realistic picture of the supporting and opposing forces. Another disadvantage is the
possibility that the analysis won't result in a consensus among the group. In fact, a
force field analysis may actually cause a division in the group between those who
support the decision and those who oppose it.

Effectiveness

One of the key things to keep in mind when using force field analysis is that the
analysis developed is entirely dependent upon the skill level and knowledge of the
group working on the analysis. In most cases, force field analysis is based on
assumptions, not facts; even if the assumptions are based on accumulated data, the
interpretation of the data shouldn't be construed as being objective within the overall
process of evaluating the driving and restraining forces.
Kotter´s 8 step model of change

Kotter´s model causes change to become a campaign. Employees buy into the change
after leaders convince them of the urgent need for change to occur. There are 8 steps
are involved in this model:

Establishing a sense of urgency, which serves as a motivator during times of change,

is essential to inspire the necessary teamwork, ideas, and eagerness to make sacrifices
related to the change.

Once individuals feel that the change is necessary, their energy needs to be directed
and guided so that the change process can begin. To do this, a manager will create the
guiding coalition by selecting and recruiting a team of individuals who will be
capable of carrying out the change.

Next, a manager will need to create a change vision to provide employees with a
clear understanding of what the change is all about.

Once created, a manager must communicate the vision so that all employees are able
to see how the vision for change will affect and benefit them as an individual.

A manager will then empower broad-based action by removing obstacles that block
the change vision or disempower individuals with unrealistic and unattainable goals.

Throughout the change process, planning for and generating short-term wins is
needed to maintain enthusiasm and momentum to keep the change initiative going.
Because change takes time, Kotter believed that it was important to consolidate gains
to produce more change by focusing on the role of early success as an enabler of
future success.

Finally, in order to achieve true transformational change, the manager and

organization must anchor changes within the organizational culture by monitoring
the acceptance of change and how well the organizational culture is adapting to the
change.

Advantages

 The process is an easy step-by-step model.

 Clear steps which can give a guidance for the process

 The focus is on preparing and accepting change, not the actual change.

 Transition is easier with this model.

 Focus on buy-in of employees as focus for success

 Fits well into the culture of classical hierarchies

Disadvantages

 Steps can’t be skipped.

 The process takes a great deal of time.

 The model is clearly top-down, it gives no room for co-creation or other forms
of true participation.

 Can lead to frustrations among employees if the stages of grief and individual
needs are not taken into consideration.

HOW TO MANAGE THE RESISTANCE

TO CHANGE

1. DO CHANGE MANAGEMENT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

Much resistance to change can be avoided if effective change management is applied

on the project from the very beginning. While resistance is the normal human reaction
in times of change, good change management can mitigate much of this resistance.
Change management is not just a tool for managing resistance when it occurs; it is
most effective as a tool for activating and engaging employees in a change. Capturing
and leveraging the passion and positive emotion surrounding a change can many
times prevent resistance from occurring—this is the power of utilizing structured
change management from the initiation of a project.
 Participants in Prosci’s 2013 benchmarking study commented on the fraction of
resistance they experienced from employees and managers that they felt could have
been avoided with effective change management (see below). Participants cited that
much of the resistance they encountered could have been avoided if they applied solid
change management practices and principles. The moral here is: if you do change
management right the first time, you can prevent much of the resistance from ever
occurring.

Consider the following change management activities:

 Utilize a structured change management approach from the initiation of the

project

 Engage senior leaders as active and visible sponsors of the change

 Recruit the support of management, including middle managers and frontline

supervisors, as advocates of the change

 Communicate the need for change, the impact on employees and the benefits
to the employee (answering "What's in it for me?" or WIIFM)
Each of these tactics, all of which are part of a structured change management
approach, directly address some of the main sources of resistance and can actually
prevent resistance from happening if they happen early in the project lifecycle.
Frontline employees will understand the "why" behind the change and see the
commitment from leaders throughout the organization. In many cases, this will
 prevent resistance from occurring later in the project when it can adversely impact
benefit realization, project schedules and budget.

2. EXPECT RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Do not be surprised by resistance! Even if the solution a project presents is a

wonderful improvement to a problem that has been plaguing employees, there will
still be resistance to change. Comfort with the status quo is extraordinarily powerful.
Fear of moving into an unknown future state creates anxiety and stress, even if the
current state is painful. Project teams and change management teams should work to
address resistance and mitigate it, but they should never be surprised by it.

Research on the function of the brain shows that resistance is not only a psychological
reaction to change but actually a physiological reaction (see the "The Neuroscience of
Leadership" by David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz for more information). To act in a
new way requires more power from the brain. The physiological reaction when
presented with a new way of doing something is to revert back to what the brain
already knows. Human beings can adapt their behavior, but it is a difficult and painful
process—even for the brain itself.

When preparing for resistance, spend time before the project launches to look at likely
sources of resistance. All too often, a project team will reflect back on resistance and
say, "We knew that group was going to resist the change," but nothing was done to
address this upfront in the project. When the project is getting started, be proactive
and specific about where resistance is likely to come from and the likely objections
that drive this resistance. Then, act on this knowledge ahead of time before the
resistance impacts the project. These are some likely sources of resistance for most
any project:

 Employees who are highly invested in the current way of doing work

 People who created the current way of doing work that will be changed

 Employees who expect more work as a result of the change

 Those who advocated a particular alternative, say Option B, when Option A

was ultimately selected

 People who have been very successful and rewarded in the current way of
doing work
These groups are likely sources of resistance and should be addressed proactively in
the project lifecycle with targeted tactics for mitigating these objections.
3. FORMALLY MANAGE RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Managing resistance to change should not be solely a reactive tactic for change
management practitioners. There are many proactive steps that can be used to address
and mitigate resistance that should be part of the change management approach on a
project.

Resistance is addressed in all three phases of Prosci's 3 Phase Change Management

Process:

Phase 1: Preparing for change

During the creation of the change management strategy, generate anticipated points of
resistance and special tactics to manage them based on readiness assessments.

Phase 2: Managing change

The resistance management plan is one of the five change management plans you
create in this phase, along with the communication plan, sponsorship roadmap,
coaching plan and training plan. These change management plans all focus on moving
individuals through their own change process and addressing the likely barriers for
making the change successful. The resistance management plan provides specific
action steps for understanding and addressing resistance.

Phase 3: Reinforcing change

In the final phase of the process, you collect feedback to understand employee
adoption and compliance with the new workflows and processes prescribed by the
change. Evaluating this feedback allows you to identify gaps and manage the
resistance that may still be occurring. This phase also includes the top ten steps for
dealing with resistance to change, which can be a powerful tool for managers and
supervisors in the organization.

Formally addressing resistance ensures that it is understood and dealt with throughout
the lifecycle of the project. It moves managing resistance to change from simply a
reactive mechanism to a proactive and ultimately more effective tool for mobilizing
support and addressing objections.
 4. IDENTIFY THE ROOT CAUSES OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Managing resistance is ineffective when it simply focuses on the symptoms. The

symptoms of resistance are observable and often overt, such as complaining, not
attending key meetings, not providing requested information or resources, or simply
not adopting a change to process or behavior. While they are more evident, focusing
on these symptoms will not yield results. To be effective at managing resistance, you
must look deeper into what is ultimately causing the resistance. Effective resistance
management requires identification of the root causes of resistance—understanding
why someone is resistant, not simply how that resistance is manifesting itself.

Change management best practices research provides a nice starting point for
understanding the root causes of resistance. Results from the 2013 benchmarking
study showed some important themes in the top reasons for resistance (reaffirming the
results from previous studies). When asked to identify the primary reasons employees
resisted change, study participants identified the following root causes:

 Lack of awareness of why the change was being made

 Impact on current job role

 Organization’s past performance with change

 Lack of visible support and commitment from managers

 Fear of job loss

With the knowledge of these primary root causes, change management teams can
adequately prepare a compelling case for the need for change that is communicated by
senior leaders in the organization. This simple activity targets the top cause for
resistance (lack of awareness) and can ultimately prevent much of the resistance a
project experiences. You can use additional benchmarking findings and your own
experience with change in your organization to craft a list of likely root causes with
activities to address and mitigate each one.

The Prosci ADKAR® Model and an ADKAR assessment also enables you to home in
on the root cause of resistance by identifying an employee’s barrier point and
addressing that root cause. ADKAR is a powerful diagnostic tool that can be quickly
and easily applied by change management teams, managers and frontline supervisors
in formal assessments or in casual conversations.

A final note on resistance to change: resistance is ultimately an individual

phenomenon. While research and analysis can identify broadly the root causes for
resistance, it is important to ultimately address resistance by individuals at the
individual level. The best way to identify the root cause of resistance is through a
personal conversation between a resistant employee and their supervisor, which leads
us to the final tip for managing resistance.

5. ENGAGE THE "RIGHT" RESISTANCE MANAGERS

The "right" resistance managers in an organization are the senior leaders, middle
managers and frontline supervisors. The change management team is not an effective
resistance manager. Project team members, Human Resources or Organization
Development specialists are not effective resistance managers either. Ultimately, it
takes action by leadership in an organization to manage resistance.

Senior leaders

At a high level, senior leaders can help mitigate resistance by making a compelling
case for the need for change and by demonstrating their commitment to a change.
Employees look to and listen to senior leaders when they are deciding if a change is
important, and they will judge what they hear and what they see from this group. If
senior leaders are not committed to a change or waver in their support, employees will
judge the change as unimportant and resist the change.

Managers and Supervisors

Managers and supervisors are the other key group in terms of managing resistance.
They are the closest to the frontline employees who ultimately adopt a change. If they
are neutral to or resistant to a change, chances are that their employees will follow
suit. However, if they are openly supportive of and advocating for a particular change,
these behaviors will also show up in how employees react to the change.
Benchmarking data shows five key roles of managers and supervisors in times of
change, and two of these roles are directly connected to managing resistance to
change: demonstrating support for the change and identifying and managing
resistance (read more about the five roles of managers and supervisors). Remember,
though, you must address resistance from managers first before asking them to
manage resistance.

The change management team or resource can do much of the leg work in
understanding and addressing resistance, but the face of resistance management to the
organization is ultimately senior leaders, managers and supervisors. The change
management resource can help to enable the "right" resistance managers by providing
data about where resistance is coming from, likely root causes of resistance, potential
tactics for addressing resistance and tools to identify and manage resistance, but the
"right" resistance managers must take action to address objections and move
employees forward in the change process.

10 Strategies You Can Use to Overcome

Resistance to Change
1. Address Personal Concerns First Most organizations justify the need for change by
telling their employees—the ultimate users of the change—all of the wonderful things
the change will mean for the organization. This is a poor approach to getting audience
buy‐in. When faced with a change, people react first with their own concerns: “What’s
in it for me?” “Does this mean I’ll have a different schedule?” “Will this break up our
department?” So, first things first. As a change agent, you should deal with the users’
personal concerns first and focus later (if at all) on the organizational benefits.

2. Link the Change to Other Issues People Care About The perceived need for a
change can be increased by linking it to other issues that people already care about
(CRED, 2009). By showing how a change is connected to issues of health, job
security, and other things that are already in the front of people’s minds, you can make
a change “more sticky” and less likely to be replaced as new demands for their
attention show up.

3. Tap into People’s Desire to Avoid Loss People are more sensitive to loss than to
gain. This “negativity bias” is a longstanding survival trait that has kept humans alive
throughout their development as a species. Historically, it was always more important
to avoid stepping on a snake than to find a soft place to sleep. Humans may have
advanced in many ways, but something scary still gets and holds attention more
quickly and longer than something pleasant. Therefore, rather than just telling people
what they stand to gain from a change, you may have a greater impact by telling them
what they stand to lose if they don’t accept the change.

4. Tailor Information to People’s Expectations People generally hold firm views of

how the world works. These often unconscious and invisible “mental models” govern
much of people’s thinking including how they perceive a potential change (Carey, S.,
1986; Morgan, M., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., et al., 2002). For example, they may
tend to see a change as something good about to happen (a promotion model) and
willingly accept it, or they may see a change as something bad about to happen (a
prevention model) and deal with it as an “ought to do” while focusing their energy on
avoiding loss (Cesario, Grant, and Higgins, 2004; Higgins, 1997, 2000). You can
provide all the logical arguments in the world in support of your change, but if your
arguments don’t match the basic assumptions and rules to the way the person sees the
world, you are unlikely to get very far. To make matters worse, people hold fast to
their current beliefs, desires, or feelings; this “confirmation bias” means that if the
change you are promoting doesn’t appeal to their current beliefs, desires, or feelings,
you may have a hard time making any headway.

5. Group Your Audience Homogeneously Getting the message over to a group of

people who share basic opinions with regard to the change is easier than getting it
over to a group of people with diverse opinions. Whenever possible, divide your
audience into homogeneous groups insofar as their view of the change goes. For
instance, if you want to convince people to do certain things differently because of
climate change, you might want to know who watches Fox News and who watches
MSNBC. Not because one is better than the other, but because the argument you
present will be tailored differently for the two groups. This isn’t manipulation (unless
you are operating in the shadows without their knowledge and consent); it’s merely
being smart about how you present your argument and evidence for change.

6. Take Advantage of People’s Bias—Buy Now, Pay Later! People tend to see things
that are happening now as more urgent than those that will happen in the future
(Weber, 2006). This tendency is often referred to as “discounting the future.” For
instance, when presented with the option of getting $250 now or $366 in a year (a
46% rate of interest), the average person will choose the $250 now (Hardesty and
Weber, 2009). This suggests that when trying to persuade others that a change is
necessary, even though the future threat and loss may be great, it is desirable to
emphasize that inaction now poses its own threat and loss. Also, it is often easier to
get people to agree now on a solution, if they can postpone implementation until some
time in the future. People tend to believe that they will be in a better position to
change in the future; they expect to have more time, more money, and fewer demands
then than they do now. While experience does not support this belief, it is one that
provides people with the motivation to act in the present toward a future goal.
Consequently, it is often easier to get people to agree now on a change that won’t take
place until some point in the future. You will no doubt recognize this as a strategy
commonly used by merchandisers—Buy now, pay later!

7. Make the Change Local and Concrete Often organizational changes are responses
to some sort of threat. If that threat is seen as more relevant to distant outsiders than to
the people in the organization, or if the threat is presented in the abstract, then the
targeted people will have little motivation to change (Leiserowitz, 2007). However, if
you can demonstrate in concrete terms that the threat is local and will have a real
impact on the people you are trying to get to accept the change, you may find it easier
to persuade them to buy‐in. For instance, when people think about the threat of
climate change, many think of it as a threat to other people and other places. In a
situation like this, getting people to adopt inconvenient changes is difficult. On the
other hand, if you can show them with concrete examples exactly how the change will
impact them in their local community or organization, then they are more likely to
adopt the necessary changes.

8. Appeal to the Whole Brain Often, when making a case for a change, change agents
use lots of numbers, charts, tables, etc. Such facts and figures appeal especially to one
side of the brain. But the human brain has two sides, and although they work together,
each has a different way of processing information. The left side is analytical and
controls the processing of quantitative information. The right side is experiential and
controls the processing of emotional information. Even for audiences where one side
may dominate (e.g., engineers who favor facts and figures), the most effective
communication targets both sides of the brain (Chaiken and Trope, 1999; Epstein,
1994; Marx, et. al. 2007; Sloman, 1996). One compelling example of this is the
design of Apple’s iPhone and other products. People do not stand in line to buy these
products simply because of their valuable functionality (which appeals to the left
analytical brain), but also because the objects themselves are designed to appeal to the
emotions as well (the right brain). To appeal to both sides of the brain, you might
Combine analytic information with vivid imagery in the form of film footage,
metaphors,

 personal accounts, real‐world analogies, and concrete comparisons Employ

messages designed to emphasize relevant personal experience and elicit an emotional
response

9. Beware of Overloading People While connecting with people’s emotional side, it

is important not to overload with too much. People can attend to only a limited
number of things. Scholars sometimes refer to this as the “Finite Pool of Worry”
(Linville and Fischer, 1991). Change expert Daryl Connor (1993) likens this to
pouring water onto a sponge. At first, the sponge can absorb the water. However, at
some point, the sponge becomes full and any additional water simply runs off. The
finite pool of worry is full. This has implications for change agents. Often people’s
lives are already filled with change. When you ask (or demand) that they worry about
many more things, you may inadvertently introduce “emotional numbing,” a state in
which people fail to respond to anything except threats that are immediate. So, beware
of overusing emotional appeals, particularly those relying on fear!

10. Know the Pros and Cons of Your Change Not all changes are equal. Some are
more beneficial, and some cause more inconvenience and pain. It pays dividends for
change agents to know how their change stacks up against six change characteristics
(adapted from Rogers, 2003 and Dormant, 2011). Simple—Is your change complex
or is it relatively simple to understand and do?

 Compatible—Is your change compatible with what your users are used to?

 Better—Does your change offer clear advantages over other alternatives, including
the

 status quo? Adaptable—Can people adapt your change to their own circumstances
or must they do it

 exactly the way you prescribe?

Painful—Does your change alter social relationships in any way by changing where
people

 work, who they deal with, or how they spend their time? Divisible—Can you break
the change you offer into smaller parts or phases, or must

 audiences implement it all at one time? It is worth noting a couple of important

points when judging your change against these characteristics. The first is that any
change can have both positive and negative aspects in the same characteristic. For
instance, a change might be relatively advantageous in one way and be relatively
disadvantageous in another. Secondly, as you evaluate these characteristics, do so—
not from your perspective—but from your target audience’s perspective. You need to
understand the change from the point of view of those who will feel it most acutely.
Summary Change is hard. That’s a cliché, but it’s also true. And because we all have
to do it and also get others to do it so often, it’s also boring. But just because change
has become so common as to sometimes numb us to the bone, that doesn’t mean that
we can’t apply a few simple (and admittedly, a few not‐so‐ simple) strategies to
become more effective and give us a head start against resistance.
Comparison of kotter and lewin Models
compare them to see what similarities and differences exist. These comparisons will
take into account when each change model would be most effective to make an
organizational change.

Kotter's Eight Steps for Leading Organizational Change can be found within the
framework of Lewin's model. See the similarities below.

Unfreezing= First 4 steps

Changing = Steps 5-7

Refreezing =Step 8

Kotter goes into a lot of detail in the Unfreezing stage. Both Lewin and Kotter
recognize the importance of reducing resistance and preparing people to fully support
the change before actually embarking on changing anything. Although Kotter's model
fit within Lewin's model, all two contain components or emphases of organizational
change that aren't found in each other's model. For example, Lewin focuses more on
involving employees and giving them the needed knowledge to change rather than
creating a desire to change. Lewin also focuses more on overcoming resistance and
doesn't expand much on the other aspects of change. Kotter focuses on senior
management making changes rather than any employee or individual making changes,
unlike the Lewin .Additionally, Kotter gives a much more in-depth explanation
overall of how change should be made. Kotter explicitly states the need to establish
and communicate a vision and strategy. Many interviewees mentioned either one of
the change models discussed above or another change model. After having analyzed
each of the change models above, it is clear to see that all change models have
overlaps. They all indicate the need to make people aware that a change must be made
and why the change is important. They all include some suggestion or need for
reinforcing a change. Many other commonalities may be found. Having determined
this, these models also focus their emphasis on different aspects of change, whether
these be the audience (senior management verses employees), the group size (one
individual verses an organization) or one ofthe steps of change (reducing resistance
verses leading, not managing, a change).

Knowing this, perhaps what matters when determining what change model to use is
who is initiating the change, the experience with which this person or group of people
is equipped, and how much guidance she or he prefers during the change process.
Lewin's model is quite simple and doesn't include lots of details that a beginner may
want or need. However, the advantage with his model is that Lewin gives many
suggestions of how to overcome resistance, which may be very useful the first few
times an individual leads a change initiative. Lewin's model may also be useful if a lot
of opposition is received when implementing a change and you need some ideas of
how to annul this resistance. If top management is responsible to make a change,
perhaps Kotter's model would be the best fit, since his model is geared specifically
toward upper-level management and what these individuals need to do to lead (not
manage) a change. Someone who already has experience with leading organizational
change may simply want to refer to all change models as a reference in times of need.
Therefore, maybe the best answer to the question, "Does it matter what change model
is used?" would be, "It depends." If you are an expert already in organizational
change, you most likely already have a personal way of implementing change and
don't refer to a model; whereas if you are a beginner, you most likely will want some
guidance concerning where to start and what to do next. In the latter case, referencing
several change models may be the best route to take. Glean what you can from each
and use the aspects that you feel will best benefit your organization and you. One
interviewee, who has years of experience in change management in many industries,
said that using a specific methodology doesn't work-the change leader must base the
method on the company and what fits bests .