Read the attached article, Back to the Future: Revisiting Kotter\'s 1996 Change

Question

Read the attached article, Back to the Future: Revisiting Kotter's 1996 Change Model by Applebaum, Habashy, Malo, and Shafiq. After you have read the article write a four page essay (body) that provides a short biographical sketch of John P. Kotter and describes and explains the change model that he developed. The model has eight steps to it, please discuss and analyze each step as it relates to the process of brining change to an organization that urgently needs it. The authors visit each step and expound on it so you can use material from the paper itself and any other material that you wish to use in your essay to expand on your discussion and analysis. The authors also discuss some limitations of the model, please include your own discussion of limitations. The four pages minimum are to include just the body of the paper, it does not include the cover page nor the reference page.

Question 1.Write a four page essay (body) that provides a short biographical sketch of John P. Kotter.Describes and explains the change model that he developed.

Question 2. please discuss and analyze each step as it relates to the process of brining change to an organization that urgently needs it.

Question 3. The authors visit each step and expound on it so you can use material from the paper itself and any other material that you wish to use in your essay to expand on your discussion and analysis. The authors also discuss some limitations of the model, please include your own discussion of limitationsplease discuss and analyze each step as it relates to the process of brining change to an organization that urgently needs it.

Please help.

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to gather current (2011) arguments and counterarguments in support of the classic change management model proposed by John P. Kotter in his 1996 book Leading Change. His work was based on his personal business and research experience, and did not reference any outside sources that has questioned its value. A current perspective on a limited tested model aims to be a focus of this paper.

Design/methodology/approach – The literature on change management was reviewed for each of the eight steps defined in Kotter’s model, to review how much support each of these steps had,

individually and collectively, in 15 years of literature.

Findings – The review found support for most of the steps, although no formal studies were found covering the entire spectrum and structure of the model. Kotter’s change management model appears to derive its popularity more from its direct and usable format than from any scientific consensus on the results. However the model has several limitations, that are identified, impacting upon its universal acceptance and popularity.

Research limitations/implications – Further studies should examine the validity of Kotter’s model as a whole. More importantly, change management research should form a greater link with stakeholders in order to translate current research into a format usable by practitioners.

Practical implications – No evidence was found against Kotter’s change management model

and it remains a recommendable reference. This paper attempts to “test” the “how-to-do-change

management” with empirical and practitioner literature that was not evident in the original text. The model would be most useful as an implementation planning tool, but complementary tools should also be used during the implementation process to adapt to contextual factors or obstacles.

Originality/value – Based upon a thorough review, this is the first formal review of Kotter’s change management model, 15 years after its introduction.

Keywords Change management, Organizational change, Corporate strategy, Empowerment,

Engagement, Vision, Management

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction

Businesses are constantly required to adapt to a changing environment in order tomaintain their position in the market and even more so if they are to truly grow(Biedenbacha and Soumlderholma, 2008). Changes are an inevitable part of the currentmarket. The current rate of technological advancement and growing globalcompetition lets us foresee a continuing need for change in the future (Armenakisand Harris, 2009). Many authors argue that change never starts because it never stops

(Weick and Quinn, 1999). Many organizations, in an attempt to adapt to the constant evolutions of their environment, are adopting cultures of a learning or agile organization. Whether or not an organization tries to constantly evolve, successfully implementing changes can be a major determinant of its short- and long-term success. Considering that “research suggests that failed organizational change initiatives range from one-third to as high as 80% of attempted change efforts” (Fisher, 1994; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Hirschhorn, 2002; Knodel, 2004; Sirkin et al., 2005; Kotter, 2008; Meaney and Pung, 2008; Whelan-Berry and Somerville, 2010), considerable research efforts have been deployed to fill that knowledge gap and support managers in the field of change management.The paper looks at one of the eminent change management models, specifically, John P. Kotter’s. His model was first published in a 1995 article in the Harvard Business

Review. The following year, it was published with greater detail in classic the book titled Leading Change. Both Kotter’s (1995) article and 1996 book were based on hispersonal business and research experience, and did not reference any outside sources.

This was not typical of an academic undertaking and led to the need to present thispaper to test it over 15 years. Although Kotter’s model of change management lacks rigorous fundaments, it became an instantaneous success at the time it was advocated and it remains a key reference in the field of change management. In 1997, Leading Change (Kotter, 1996)

became a business bestseller. It subsequently became the best-selling book ever of its kind. Hundreds of researchers refer to one or other of Kotter’s publications on change management. This book has been cited over 4,000 times in Google Scholar. The model

is also presented to this day in academic textbooks such as Langton et al. (2010). The general lack of empirical fundaments to most change management theory (Todnem, 2005) probably is not alien to this success. “Theories and approaches to change management currently available to academics and practitioners are often contradictory, mostly lacking empirical evidence and supported by unchallenged hypotheses concerning the nature of contemporary organizational change management” (Todnem, 2005). The success of the theory and at the same time thelack of research and rigorous investigation are quite counterintuitive in the world of empirical research that has been the underpinning of accepted OB and OD

references and classics.

However, the model has several limitations that are identified

impacting upon its universal acceptance and popularity that will be explored later

in this paper. One of the most interesting aspects of the 1996 classic book is that there are neither

footnotes nor references. A bibliography cannot be found yet this work has had tremendous academic as well as practical success. This paper traces the evolution of the literature and thinking originally selected by Kotter to the formulation of the eight step model. Finally it explores the current validation of the model by an updated 2011 literature search to compare/contrast the 1996 foundation. This paper attempts to “test” the “how-to-do-change management” with empirical and practitioner literature that was not evident in the original text 15 years ago. This paper will present a short review of articles related to each of the eight

components of Kotter’s model in the attempt to highlight the value of each. According

to Kotter – the eight steps to transforming your organization are as follows (Kotter,

1996; Smith, 2005):

(1) establish a sense of urgency about the need to achieve change – people will not

change if they cannot see the need to do so;

(2) create a guiding coalition – assemble a group with power energy and influence

in the organization to lead the change;

(3) develop a vision and strategy – create a vision of what the change is about, tell

people why the change is needed and how it will be achieved;

(4) communicate the change vision – tell people, in every possible way and at

every opportunity, about the why, what and how of the changes;

(5) empower broad-based action – involve people in the change effort, get people

to think about the changes and how to achieve them rather than thinking about

why they do not like the changes and how to stop them;

(6) generate short-term wins – seeing the changes happening and working and

recognizing the work being done by people towards achieving the change is

critical;

(7) consolidate gains and produce more change – create momentum for change by

building on successes in the change, invigorate people through the changes,

develop people as change agents; and

(8) anchor new approaches in the corporate culture – this is critical to long-term

success and institutionalizing the changes. Failure to do so may mean that

changes achieved through hard work and effort slip away with people’s

tendency to revert to the old and comfortable ways of doing things.

The following sections critically discuss each of the eight steps.

Step 1: establish a sense of urgency According to Kotter (1995), successful change efforts must begin with individuals and groups evaluating a company’s “competitive situation, market position, technological trends and financial performance”. Bold or risky actions normally

associated with good leadership are generally required for creating a strong sense

of urgency (Kotter, 1995, p. 43). Kotter (1995) further states that leaders must find

ways to communicate this information “broadly and dramatically”. He claims that the

first step is essential as the start of organizational changes require aggressive

cooperation of many individuals. This need for change must be understood;

otherwise, the change agents will not have enough “power and credibility to initiate

the required change program” (Kotter, 1997). Kotter (1996, p. 44) also recommends the

use of consultants as a tactic for creating a sense of urgency and challenge the status

quo. Armenakis et al. (1993) strengthen Kotter’s statement by suggesting the

recruitment of sources outside the organization, as they can reinforce the change

agent’s message.

A diagnostic report compiled by a consulting firm, for instance, can be utilized as a

tool to add credibility to the need for change message. A study by Gist et al. (1989)

supports the assertion that a message generated by more than one source, particularly

if external to the organization, is given a greater air of believability and confirmation.

The news media, for example, is also an external source that can be instrumental in

creating a sense of urgency and as a result, a readiness for change (Armenakis et al.,

1993). Radio and television broadcasts, magazines, and newspapers can all be sources

of information affecting employee knowledge and since such sources tend to have an

air of objectivity, they are often persuasive in the creation of readiness for change

(Armenakis et al., 1993). However, this information is not easily managed by the

change agent. Belasco (1990) speaks of the change agent as having the individual

inertia to accomplish goals.

Five key change sentiments were proposed by Armenakis et al. (1999). The authors

argued that the sentiments were essential to “encourage change readiness, adoption

and institutionalization”. Discrepancy, one of the five sentiments used to explain

the reactions of the change recipients, was deemed important in 38 per cent of studies

as identified by Armenakis et al. (1999). It is the term used when describing “a deviation from acceptable performance” and “captures the sentiment that a need for change does in fact exist” (Armenakis et al., 1999). The authors referred to discrepancy as the “burning platform” which Kotter (1995) claims establishes a sense of urgency for change, and in turn motivates strategic change (Armenakis et al., 1999). Numerous studies (Lewin, 1946; Coch and French, 1948; Bandura, 1986; Pettigrew, 1987; Nadler and Tushman, 1989) have demonstrated the need for change recipients to believe a discrepancy exists.

Different forms of persuasive communication, a source of information regarding

discrepancy, send “symbolic information” regarding a number of aspects of the change

effort: commitment to the change effort, its prioritization, and urgency for the change

effort (Armenakis et al., 1993). Armenakis et al. (1993) cite the example of a CEO who

travels to various corporate locations in order to discuss the need for change. This

type of oral persuasive communication not only allows the message itself to be

communicated, but also, the importance of the issues to be symbolically magnified by

the fact that time, effort, and resources are utilized to communicate the changes

directly. Additionally, frequency of interaction regarding change is expected to create

momentum. Ginsberg and Venkatraman (1995), and Kotter (1995) state that “the more

the change is a topic of conversation, the greater its implied urgency”. Jansen (2004)

deduces that apathy is conveyed if there is little interaction regarding the change,

thus deeming it unimportant. Discussions about the change, whether negative or

positive, indicate that the change is progressing and employees are feeling the need to

rationalize of events ( Jansen, 2004). As a result, energy for change is created by the

implication of change.

Buchanan et al. (2005) state that “the timing, sequencing and pacing of events can

also be fateful for sustainability”, thus supporting Kotter’s first step. They also claim

that delayed change may not deliver benefits, whereas change that is rushed “may not

allow time to adapt, and create initiative fatigue, encouraging decay”.

Finally, Kobi (1996) presented a few aspects in order to support the need for urgency

of change: showing the attractiveness of the change, confronting employees with

clear expectations, showing that it can be done and creating a positive attitude to the

change. In order for these aspects to be adequately supported, a “guiding coalition” will

be created to lead the changes. In essence, Step 1 still appears to be significant in 2011

as it was in 1996.

Step 2: create a guiding coalition

According to Kotter (1996, p. 52), no one person is capable of single-handedly leading and

managing the change process in an organization and putting together the right “guiding

coalition” of people to lead a change initiative is critical to its success. This guiding coalition

should be made up of people with the following characteristics (Kotter, 1996, p. 53):

. position power: enough key players on board so that those left out cannot block

progress;

. expertise: all relevant points of view should be represented so that informed

intelligent decisions can be made;

. credibility: the group should be seen and respected by those in the firm so that

the group’s pronouncements will be taken seriously by other employees; and

. leadership: the group should have enough proven leaders to be able to drive the

change process. Each of these characteristics has some support in organizational change literature.

Lines (2007) explored the relationship between two of these characteristics (amounts

of expert power and position power) at a large telecommunications firm and their

influence in implementing organizational change. Lines (2007) concluded that change

agents with a high amount of position power are more successful at implementing

change than change agents with low amounts of position power but high expertise;

however, both have positive relationships to implementation success of organizational

change. Kotter’s change leading coalition requires people with position power so that

the change initiatives cannot be blocked; however, Kotter does not advocate a

monarchical attitude in the change leader (Kotter, 1996, p. 53). In fact, as the case study

on organizational change at Honeywell Inc concludes, if the managerial attitude

remains that of “command and control” and this behaviour does not change,

transformation will most likely fail (Paper et al., 2001). Success of the change initiative

depends on facilitative management and visible and continuous support from the top.

A guiding coalition with good managers and poor leaders will not succeed

(Kotter, 1996, p. 58). Good managers keep the change management process under

control while good leaders create the vision to drive the change (Kotter, 1996, pp. 57-9).

This is further supported by Caldwell (2003) in his analysis of change leaders and

change managers. Caldwell (2003) and a panel of industry leaders analysed the key

attributes for each of these roles and concluded that “change leaders are those

executives or senior managers at the very top of the organization who envision, initiate

or sponsor strategic change of a far-reaching or transformational nature. In contrast,

change managers are those middle level managers and functional specialists who carry

forward and build support for change within business units and key functions”.

In a review of organizational change in three specific case studies (Cool aid case,

Municipality of Saanich, First nations Mountain Pine Beetle initiative), Cunningham

and Kempling (2009) concluded that the cases illustrate the importance of a guiding

coalition in assisting the change process. Although the other principles might also be

useful in the change effort, progress would not have been made without the guiding

coalition. Change initiatives supported by the leader have a greater likelihood of

gaining support from work-group members, and thus make them easier to implement

(Self et al., 2007).

There is some literature that casts doubt on the importance of Kotter’s guiding

coalition. In his analysis of the organizational change process at the University of

Newcastle, Sidorko (2008) credits Kotter’s model for the successful outcome of the

change process. He argues, however, that Kotter makes no concessions to the fact that

his model is sequentially ordered and that all steps must be followed (Kotter, 1996,

p. 23). Sidorko’s (2008) analysis revealed the need for building multiple guiding

coalitions on multiple occasions to deal with different aspects of the change process,

something that Kotter does not acknowledge. Another paper that set out to analyse

Kotter’s model in a university setting focused on a multi-year effort to change the

organizational culture at an information services unit at the University of Memphis

(Penrod and Harbor, 1998). In this paper the authors suggest that while a guiding

coalition has its advantages, change will not come unless frontline staff engages in

adaptive behaviour. Note that Kotter (1996) does ask for the right makeup of the

guiding coalition so it could be argued that the reason that the guiding coalition does

not achieve its desired purpose at these universities is that the correct people were not

chosen for the coalition.

Step 2 still appears to be as significant in 2011 as it was in 1996 but some critics have

illuminated unique issues today. The initial task of the guiding coalition is to formulate a

vision for the change effort and to ensure that it is communicated throughout the

organization (Kotter, 1996). This is Step 3 of Kotter’s model which we explore next.

Step 3: develop a vision and strategy he first task of the guiding coalition from Kotter’s Step 2 is to formulate a “clear and sensible vision” for the transformation effort (Kotter, 1996, p. 70). Without such a vision, the change objectives can easily dissolve into a list of confusing and

incompatible projects that can take the organization in the wrong direction or nowhere

at all (Kotter, 1996, p. 70).

The importance of a well-defined vision for the change process is well documented

in research literature. A key lesson from the case study on the human resource systems

at the US Environmental Protection Agency found that a shared vision of the project’s

outcome is essential (Wright and Thompsen, 1997). Whelan-Berry and Somerville

(2010) agree and define the change vision as a key part of change process. According

to Kotter (1996, pp. 68-9), an effective vision is essential in breaking the status quo

and looking beyond the immediate goals of the organization. A study at Countrywide

Financial Corporation (Flamholtz and Kurland, 2006) revealed that vision and strategic

planning was necessary to extend management’s thinking beyond incremental

performance improvement goals and to address longer-term issues and changing

competitive dynamics.

A clearly defined vision is easier for employees to understand and to act on, even if

the first steps required are painful (Kotter, 1996, pp. 67-84). Washington and Hacker

(2005) found that managers who understand the change effort are more likely to be

excited about the change and less likely to think that the change effort would fail.

Staniforth’s (1996) study of organizational change at AB Ltd further reinforced the

need for the vision to be “clear, consistent and well articulated” so that managers can

reflect on the issues at stake in a “calm, rational and thoughtful way”. A significant

relationship exists between the perception of planned organizational change and

the response to change along cognitive, emotional, and intentional dimensions (Szabla,

2007). The change vision should therefore be desirable, as Kotter (1996, pp. 67-84)

suggests, so that it appeals to the long-term interest of employees, customers,

shareholders, and others who have a stake in the enterprise.

Though the research literature broadly accepts the importance of a clear vision on

the change management effort in an organization, some argue that the vision itself

is much less important than the implementation of that vision. In their survey of

upper- and middle-level managers of a Fortune 500 US manufacturer, Cole et al. (2006)

found vision clarity to be less important than the actual execution of the change

coupled with the appropriateness of the change. Similarly a case study at Honeywell

found that while “people need a systematic methodology to map processes”, “execution

is the real difference between success and failure” (Paper et al., 2001). Step 3 still appears to be as significant in 2011 as it was in 1996 and even more so per some case studies presented.

Step 4: communicate the change vision

Communication is a critical element of the organizational change process as it can

reduce uncertainty (Bordia et al., 2004), decrease ambiguity and can even affect the

type of positive or negative responses to organizational change (Nelissen and van

Selm, 2008). Uncertainty is defined by Salem and Williams (1984), as an inability to

describe, predict, or explain. Complaints of inadequate information are common in

organizations (Daniels and Spiker, 1983). A study conducted by Nelissen and van Selm,

(2008) served to explore the correlation between responses of survivors of an organizational restructuring and downsizing and the role of management communication. Their studies found that the most significant correlations were between employee satisfaction and management communication. It was determined that employees who are satisfied with the management communication saw more personal opportunities and had a positive state of mind on the organizational change, lending support to Kotter’s fourth step (Nelissen and van Selm, 2008). Furthermore, these employees felt confident in the successful enrolment of the change (Nelissen and van Selm, 2008). Employees who felt the survival of the company depends on the

organizational change showed positive responses regarding the high quality of

management communication (Nelissen and van Selm, 2008).

Another study conducted by Frahm and Brown (2007) investigated whether

communication during organizational change was linked to employees’ receptivity to

change. The researchers found that weekly team meetings allowed employees to be

trusting and open (Frahm and Brown, 2007). They were able to discuss the changes

as well as their subsequent implications with the manager. The study results showed

that frustrated employees typically felt this way due to a lack of involvement in the

change process and due to a lack of information regarding the changes.

However, much like the Nelissen and van Selm, (2008) study, there were sub-groups of employees who had a positive outlook about the changes. Such employees viewed the necessary

changes as an “opportunity for personal gain” and perceived change as “a welcome

response to perceived organizational problems carried over from the past”. It was

determined that these were also participants who were more involved in the change

process compared to others. Therefore, like the participants in the Smith et al. (1995)

research, employees with a higher level of participation and greater dialogue

responded more positively to change. Klein (1996) suggests a number of effective communication strategies based on empirical principles found in the literature in order to apply them to various stages of organizational change. These strategies, as listed, strongly support Kotter’s overall communication requirement:

. People’s memory can be increased by diffusion and repetition of the message

through several media, leading to message retention (Bachrach and Aiken, 1977;

Daft and Lengel, 1984; Dansereau and Markham, 1987). This point supports

Kotter’s suggestion to ensure that the change message and vision is repeatable

as “ideas sink in deeply only after they have been heard many times” (Kotter,

1996, p. 90).

. Kotter maintains that “two-way communication is always more powerful than

one-way communication” (Kotter, 1996, p. 90). This is confirmed by D’Aprix

(1982) and Jablin (1979, 1982), who demonstrated that face-to-face

communication taken by itself is the medium with the greatest impact. The

interactive potential of face-to-face communications is in fact what works,

concluded Gioia and Sims (1986). The two-way process allows involvement,

irons out ambiguities, and increases the chances of the communicators

connecting adequately (Klein, 1996). According to O’Connor, 1990, face-to-face

communication is “the best way that feedback can be used to correct deficiencies

immediately in the communication process”. O’Connor’s finding supports

Kotter’s following statement: “unaddressed inconsistencies undermine the

credibility of all communication”. Additionally, face-to-face communication in a

group context can be key for carrying out successful change. Weick (1987)

states that it allows for opportunities to be seen from different perspectives

and interpretations, which can, in turn, be generated from explanations and

clarifications related to variations of understanding.

Employees expect to hear important, officially sanctioned information from their

immediate supervisor or boss, and therefore, this is the most effective source as

they are also presumed to be well informed (Klein, 1996). These supervisors can

subsequently keep supervisees aware of the changes (Higginson and Waxler,

1989; Smeltzer and Fann, 1989).

Roberto and Levesque (2005) studied six strategic initiatives undertaken over the

course of several years at Apparelizm Corps. One of the four critical processes outlined

in their study clearly support Kotter’s view pertaining to “vivid” communication:

“a verbal picture is worth a thousand words – use metaphor, analogy and example”. By

engaging in storytelling and symbolic action, the managers at Apparelizm created

a “compelling account of the need for the initiative”. They were also able to explain the

specific changes that would be made (Roberto and Levesque, 2005). The use of

metaphors served a few purposes; relaying of the details of the programme and

creating excitement and support for the programme. The core team used an auto

racing metaphor. It compared a NASCAR race crew to the store staff. Avideo was even

created in order to solidify the metaphor, thereby employing Kotter’s recommendation

to use many forums to relay the message (Kotter, 1996, p. 90). Roberto and Levesque

(2005) concluded that the metaphor was in fact effective. Employees understood the

link between the need to be “fast, responsive and highly knowledgeable”, much like

a NASCAR team. They also understood the importance of communication and

teamwork within a NASCAR team, and were then able to make the correlation with

their role in the initiative. Links were drawn carefully in order for the connection to be

easily made by the employees (Tsoukas, 1991). Step 4 still appears to be significant in

2011 as it was in 1996.

Step 5: empower broad-based action

Employees are emboldened to try new ideas and approaches, often just simply by the

successful communication of the vision across the organization (Kotter, 1995).

However, communication is never sufficient by itself and employees often need help in

getting rid of obstacles to the change vision (Kotter, 1995). Typically, empowering

employees involves addressing four major obstacles: structures, skills, systems, and

supervisors (Kotter, 1996, p. 102). An analysis of empowerment in frontline employees

at 16 luxury hotels in seven European countries revealed that structure, supervisor

attitudes, and training all play a role in employee empowerment (Klidas et al., 2007).

Obstacles created by supervisors and the hierarchical structure of organizations were

also acknowledged by the organizational consultants at Burswood Resort Hotel in

Western Australia who found that empowered actions and independent thinking were

often were frowned upon by supervisors who were more used to the existing

structured hierarchy (Cacioppe, 1998).

Kotter (1996, pp. 107-9) stresses the pivotal role of training in the empowerment

process and he has broad empirical support for this assertion. Denton (1994) has

described how Ford and its union, the United AutoWorkers, jointly created an effective

training programme that emphasized changing Ford’s corporate culture. He suggested

that training was successful because it helped build a sense of responsibility and

empowerment in the employees (Denton, 1994). Likewise, a study on the influences of

communication and training on third-party logistics providers found communication,

training, and coaching to be the mechanisms through which companies develop

empowered employees (Ellinger et al., 2010). Similar results have also been reported by

Kappelman and Richards (1996).

There is wide support for employee empowerment in change literature. A case

study on organizational change at Honeywell Inc found that creating team ownership

and a bottom-up or empowered employee base is important to help an organization

transform successfully (Paper et al., 2001). Similarly, results from research at a large

telecommunication company have provided support for a positive relationship

between participation and the successful implementation of strategic change (Lines,

2007). In his PhD dissertation on understanding the approach of bringing the Toyota

Production System’s lean concepts to a traditional operational model, Pinheiro (2010)

concluded that “organizational change cannot occur without a paradigm shift in the

culture of the organization and the empowerment of workers at the functional frontline

level”. Often, however, even giving employees a small empowering opportunity can

have a profound effect on employee attitudes as this can provide them with some sense

of control over the change process and help move the change effort along (Kappelman

et al., 1993). In essence, Step 5 still appears to be significant in 2011 as it was in 1996.

Step 6: generate short-term wins

Seeing the changes happening and working and recognizing the work being done by

people towards achieving the longer-term goals is critical in Kotter’s (1995) view.

The former President of Lever Brothers’ Foods Division in the USA, Willie

Pietersen, says that large-scale change can be a long, formidable undertaking, so it is

important to create short-term wins (Pietersen, 2002). A number of early victories, he

insists, even if they are small, create self-confidence and the belief that bigger successes

are possible and this builds up the momentum towards the longer-term goals

(Pietersen, 2002). Rewarding opportunities and celebrating small wins also provide

employees and management reassurance that their efforts are on the right track

(Reichers et al., 1997; Marks, 2007). Note, however, that while focusing solely on

short-term gains may increase the frequency of organizational change initiatives,

finding the right balance between the short-term gains and the long-term effects of

change on employee perception can become a complex issue for organizational leaders

(Boga and Ensari, 2009).

Short-term wins demonstrate that the change effort is paying off (Kotter, 1996,

pp. 122-4). Such wins help the guiding coalition test the vision against real conditions

and make adjustments (Kotter, 1996, pp. 122-4). Ford et al. (2008) found this “proof ”

to be critical for the change management effort and stated that managers seeking to

implement change should find evidence that the change has achieved the desired

results (Ford et al., 2008). Short-term wins also help remove obstacles to change by

reinforcing the change vision in the minds of employees (Drtina et al., 1996). Short-term

wins also provide opportunities to celebrate and reward those working for change

(Kotter, 1996, pp. 122-4). Throughout the transformation process, the leader should set

high-performance expectations and reward behaviours that are directed toward

fulfillment of the vision. It is also important that the leader models the behaviours that

are required to institutionalize the change and sets the standards for the rest of the

organization to emulate (Eisenbach et al., 1999). Step 6 appears to be significant in 2011

as it was in 1996.

Step 7: consolidate gains and produce more change Kotter states that it may be tempting for managers to declare victory after the first signs of performance improvement are visible. However, as new processes can regress, it’s crucial for leaders to use these short-term gains in order to tackle other issues, such as systems and structures that are not in line with the recently implemented changes (Kotter, 1995). Pfeifer et al. (2005) argue that verifying the credibility of vision and strategy through the use of measurable results is the main goal for gathering first

successes. Management will require these first successes to plan for the further change

process, and be able to partially justify the short-term costs incurred through change

(Pfeifer et al., 2005). This is further supported by Kotter, as he maintains that leaders

will need to prove the “new way is working” (Kotter, 1995). First successes can also

serve to “neutralize cynics and self-centered opponents” (Kotter, 1997). Company P3

GmbH, for example, decided to enter into the telecommunications advisory business

and a first success was achieved through the production of the study results which

were published in major German newspapers (Pfeifer et al., 2005). These results

showed P3 GmbH’s competence and as a result, several projects took shape and market

participants were interested. The change lead to the creation of the company P3

Solution GmbH, devoted to the telecommunications market (Pfeifer et al., 2005).

On a different topic, gambling, sporting events, and political campaigns all have a

particular energy pattern in common termed momentum ( Jansen, 2004). Jansen (2004)

qualifies momentum as being “recognizable” and “imputed by participants and

observers”. We can easily relate momentum to the process of organizational change as

the energy and enthusiasm required to carry out the change is crucial (Coleman and

White, 1998; Jick, 1995). As there are few studies dedicated to understanding

momentum in the context of organizational change, there were two goals driving the

Jansen study. One of the goals was to examine the events and activities creating initial

momentum and causing fluctuations over time through the use of quantitative

and qualitative analyses during the first few months of an organizational culture

change. The path of change and its success or failure can be predicted by understanding these events or activities that contribute to momentum fluctuations in order to improve the change management process as well as its impact on the company ( Jansen, 2004). Kotter (1995), Linstead and Chan (1994) both state that “change-based momentum incorporates the prescriptions of transformational change agents, where momentum is described as a dynamic force whose presence or absence determines the ultimate success of a transformation”. For example, Elmes and Wynkoop (1990) argue that there must be sufficient change-based momentum or initial energy in order to allow organizational transformation to occur. Furthermore, change-based momentum can be initially created by “attaining a critical mass of accumulating support”

( Jansen, 2004). Therefore, a positive relationship between employee commitment to

change and change-based momentum must exist. Jansen (2004) also states that

employees become part of the accumulating support the change is collecting as

individuals choose to commit to the change process, thereby increasing their

perception of the change-based momentum. Committed employees are subsequently

less resistant and less likely to want to maintain the status quo ( Jansen, 2004).

On the other hand, uncommitted employees or those who have lost their commitment

over time are more likely to resist the change-based path (Hambrick et al., 1993). As a

result, this can lead to a decrease in perception of change-based momentum. However,

when “victory is declared too soon” (Kotter, 1996, p. 66) or when management celebrate

“the first clear performance improvement”, this can kill momentum. According to

Kotter (1996, p. 66) momentum is also lost when, “the urgency level is not intense

enough, the guiding coalition is not powerful enough, and the vision is not clear

enough”.

Kerber and Buono (2005) suggests that “changes associated with continuous

improvement methods” (Choi, 1995) and “transformative, breakthrough changes”

(Kerber, 2001) can be made by “encouraging people to initiate and experiment with

changing”. Such actions can empower employees to lead and this is necessary for the

production of additional change (Kotter, 1996). In essence, Step 7 still appears to be

significant in 2011 as it was in 1996.

Step 8: anchor new approaches in the corporate culture

Kotter (1995) believes that new behaviours are subject to degradation if they are not

rooted in social norms and shared values once the pressure for change is alleviated.

He cites two factors that are critical to the institutionalization of change in corporate

culture:

(1) showing employees “how the new approaches, behaviours and attitudes have

helped improve performance” (Kotter, 1996, p. 67); and

(2) ensuring that “the next generation of management personifies the new

approach” (Kotter, 1996, p. 67).

Reisner (2002) examined the US Postal Service which, during the 1990s, “transformed

itself from the butt of sitcom jokes into a profitable and efficient enterprise” (Buchanan

et al., 2005). However, the change was not sustained going into 2001 and analyses

determined that morale and performance were low, and losses were predicted (Reisner,

2002). It was observed that there were three “momentum busters”: “the indifference of

senior managers, who regarded some aspects of strategy as a ‘distraction’; resistance

from trade unions, whose role and voice had been marginalized; inability to steer

funding through a budget process which favoured traditional initiatives over

innovations” (Reisner, 2002; Buchanan et al., 2005). Senge et al. (1999) argued that to

sustain any profound change, a “fundamental shift in thinking” was required.

However, an understanding of the forces and challenges that impede the growth and

change processes must be present in order to deal with such challenges (Senge et al.,

1999). Jacobs (2002) defines institutionalization as change that has relative endurance

and staying power over a length of time or that “has become part of the ongoing,

everyday activities of the organization”. From this, we can determine that the US

Postal Service must not have undergone a fundamental shift in thinking as the changes

were not sustained.

According to Massey and Williams (2006) a support structure for change agents is

required in order for change to be sustained. This structure should offer mentoring,

training, and shadowing opportunities. Different forms of communication and

recognition of change initiatives should be used: newsletters, seminars, informal

meetings, web sites, conferences/seminars, and visual display/storyboards of projects

and progress (Massey and Williams, 2006). Buchanan et al. (2005) mention that

institutionalization processes include training to establish competence and commitment,

meeting reward expectations, the further spread of new ideas and monitoring, and

control processes. These steps and aforementioned studies allow the solidification of the

change in the corporate culture of a company, lending support to Kotter’s final step.

Therefore, Step 8 still appears to be significant in 2011 as it was in 1996. The eight-step

model has significant contributions to organizational behaviour and development but

there are issues that impact upon its universal acceptance that will be covered next.

Limitations of Kotter’s eight-step model

Kotter’s eight-step model was fully elaborated to address “fundamental changes in how

the business is conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging

market environment” (Kotter, 1995). This statement implicitly states a framework in

which the model is applicable; therefore it is not expected to be applicable to all types of

changes. Following are a few examples where the model might not be applicable

without modifications.

A rigid approach Kotter argues that the eight steps should be followed in sequence and that extended overlapping of the steps will compromise success, implying that steps are requisite of

one another. Therefore, not implementing the first step will make it difficult or

impossible to implement the subsequent steps. Burnes (1996) argues that such a

prescriptive approach does not correlate well with studies that suggest that

organizations prefer to use approaches to change that stems from their culture and

thus cannot easily be amended or replaced (Cummings and Huse, 1989; Schein, 1985;

Burnes and James, 1995). “Indeed, this may well give a clue as to why so many change

projects are said to fail owing to the apparent inability of managers to follow the

prescriptions for successful change laid down in the literature (Schein, 1985; Juran,

1988; Kearney, 1989; Kotter, 1995; Zairi et al., 1994)” (Burnes, 1996). A plausible

explanation is that, where such prescriptions run counter to the organization’s culture,

they will be either ignored or be ineffective (Burnes, 1996).

Some steps are not relevant in some contexts Some transformations do not require nor are able to go through certain steps. A simple example is the replacement of major software used to process operation, or the change of equipment on a manufacturing line. In these cases the changes are often irreversible, and so Steps 7 and 8 might not be has relevant. Other examples could include changes with need for a great deal of secrecy, were Steps 1 and 4 will be significantly undermined.

Dealing with difficulties during change management Companies implementing changes face many difficulties. Planning changes according to Kotter’s framework should limit those obstacles, but the model is not detailed enough to provide help in all scenarios. For example, resistance to change and commitment to change are major aspects of change management and complementary components outside Kotter’s model, such Stephen Jaros’s (2010) predictors to determine commitment to change, might be needed to address these. Difficulties of studying change management projects Studying major change management projects is inherently difficult, due to their sheer complexity. This is probably why we found only a few case studies that tried to

formally document a change process using Kotter’s model. Major obstacles to those

studies included:

. The difficulties of implementing all of the eight steps (Sidorko, 2008; Penrod and

Harbor, 1998).

. The need for a long follow-up of the change project, to cover all the steps.

Changes usually require many years to take form, making the study time

consuming. Validation of Steps 7 and 8 are therefore more complicated to

evaluate (Penrod and Harbor, 1998; Betters-reed et al., 2008).

. Difficulties encountered in evaluating the level of implementation of the steps,

and the challenge of corroborating implementation level with implementation

success level (Sidorko, 2008; Penrod and Harbor, 1998; Dianis et al., 1997).

Conclusion

This exhaustive review of the relevant empirical and practitioner literature to find

congruence or lack thereof on individual aspects of Kotter’s change model, found that

not many studies set out to validate the full eight steps. In fact most of the evidence

found during the search points to data that has been compiled by Kotter himself in his

book titled The Heart of Change, which is a 2002 follow-up to the book Leading

Change. In essence Kotter validated Kotter.

Integration of all eight steps in an orderly fashion is an important part of Kotter’s

model, but the importance of maintaining this order remains under investigated in

empirical literature. Despite this major gap in the validation of this theory, the model

remains very popular. To explain this popularity, we considered the target audience for

these references. Neither the 1995 article nor the 1996 book were addressed primarily to

a scholarly audience. Rather, these were meant for end users such as stakeholders

involved in managing the change. The reliance of managers on “evidence-based

practice” remains limited (Rousseau, 2006). They are more likely to look into grey

literature written from a practical point of view, since this is a lot easier to understand

and implement than scholarly empirical literature. The eight-step model is presented in

action points arranged in a practical sequence. The model is intuitive and relatively

easy to accept since it is based on Kotter’s real-life experiences and is well presented

with examples. Finally, given the popularity of the book Leading Change as evidenced

by its “best seller” status, one has to assume that the audience (change managers

and stakeholders) feel directly addressed by it’s content. But academics have relied

upon the findings as if they were tested and supported. This is one of the enigmas of

this undertaking.

While Kotter’s eight steps remain an excellent starting point for managers

implementing change in their organizations, and applying the model is likely to

improve the chances of success, the model should not be considered as something that

guarantees success. In practice, it may be useful to account for contextual variables

and adapt the model accordingly (Graetz and Smith, 2010; Dopson et al., 2008). It may

also be constructive to combine Kotter’s planned framework with some of the other

leading change models such as emergent, contingency, or choice models and theories in

change management literature (Todnem, 2005) and find the best mix based on the

organization and the change being implemented.

In the prefix of his book The Heart of Change, Kotter and Cohen (2002)

acknowledges that “many interesting questions were left unanswered” in Leading

Change. In The Heart of Change, which is beyond the scope of this review, Kotter

determines that the core problems people face while implementing his eight steps are

never due to “strategy, structure, culture or systems” but rather are about “changing

the behaviour of people” (Kotter and Cohen, 2002). This continues to be in evidence

15 years after the initial model was presented.

Explanation / Answer

1.John Kotter (1996), a Harvard Business School Professor and a renowned change expert, in his book “Leading Change”, introduced 8 Step Model of Change which he developed on the basis of research of 100 organizations which were going through a process of change.

Kotter graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering in 1968 and a Master of Science in Management in 1970. Kotter then completed his Doctor of Business Administration in 1972 at Harvard Business School. Kotter is an alumnus of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity.

In 1972, the same year he completed his doctorate, Kotter joined the Harvard Business School faculty. He received tenure and a full professorship in 1981. He was later named the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership. Kotter retired as a full-time faculty member from Harvard in 2001.

In 2008, he co-founded Kotter International with two others, where he currently serves as Chairman.[5] The business consultancy firm applies Kotter's research on leadership, strategy execution, transformation, and any form of large-scale change.

Since early in his career, Kotter has received numerous awards for his thought leadership in his field from Harvard Business Review, Bloomberg BusinessWeek,[6] Thinkers50,[4]Global Gurus[7] and others.

The 8 steps in the process of change include: creating a sense of urgency, forming powerful guiding coalitions, developing a vision and a strategy, communicating the vision, removing obstacles and empowering employees for action, creating short-term wins, consolidating gains and strengthening change by anchoring change in the culture.

This model has advantages as well as disadvantages which are as follows

Advantages of kotter’s model :

a. It is an easy step by step model which provides a clear description and guidance on the entire process of change and is relatively easy for being implemented.

b. Emphasis is on the involvement and acceptability of the employees for the success in the overall process.

c. Major emphasis is on preparing and building acceptability for change instead of the actual change process.

Disadvantages of kotter’s model:

a. Since it is a step by step model, skipping even a single step might result in serious problems.

b. The process is quite time consuming (Rose 2002).

c. The model is essentially top-down and discourages any scope for participation or co-creation.

d. Can build frustration and dissatisfaction among the employees if the individual requirements are given due attention.

Although Kotter’s model of change management lacks rigorous fundaments, it became an instantaneous success at the time it was advocated and it remains a key reference in the field of change management. In 1997, Leading Change (Kotter, 1996)became a business bestseller. It subsequently became the best-selling book ever of its kind. Hundreds of researchers refer to one or other of Kotter’s publications on change management. This book has been cited over 4,000 times in Google Scholar. The model is also presented to this day in academic textbooks such as Langton et al. (2010). The general lack of empirical fundaments to most change management theory (Todnem, 2005) probably is not alien to this success. “Theories and approaches to change management currently available to academics and practitioners are often contradictory, mostly lacking empirical evidence and supported by unchallenged hypotheses concerning the nature of contemporary organizational change management” (Todnem, 2005). The success of the theory and at the same time the lack of research and rigorous investigation are quite counterintuitive in the world of empirical research that has been the underpinning of accepted OB and OD references and classics.

Dr. Kotter offers a practical approach to an organized means of leading, not managing, change. He presents an eight-stage process of change with useful examples that show how to go about implementing it. Based on experience with numerous companies, his sound advice gets directly at the reasons why organizations fail to change – reasons that concern primarily the leader.

Businesses hoping to survive over the long term will have to remake themselves into better competitors at least once along the way. These efforts have gone under many banners: total quality management, reengineering, rightsizing, restructuring, cultural change, and turnarounds, to name a few. In almost every case, the goal has been to cope with a new, more challenging market by changing the way business is conducted. A few of these endeavors have been very successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale.

John P. Kotter is renowned for his work on leading organizational change. In 1995, when this article was first published, he had just completed a ten-year study of more than 100 companies that attempted such a transformation. Here he shares the results of his observations, outlining the eight largest errors that can doom these efforts and explaining the general lessons that encourage success.

Unsuccessful transitions almost always founder during at least one of the following phases: generating a sense of urgency, establishing a powerful guiding coalition, developing a vision, communicating the vision clearly and often, removing obstacles, planning for and creating short-term wins, avoiding premature declarations of victory, and embedding changes in the corporate culture.

Realizing that change usually takes a long time, says Kotter, can improve the chances of success.

“Harvard Business School professor Kotter (A Force for Change) breaks from the mold of M.B.A. jargon-filled texts to produce a truly accessible, clear and visionary guide to the business world’s buzzword for the late ’90s–change. In this excellent business manual, Kotter emphasizes a comprehensive eight-step framework that can be followed by executives at all levels.”

“John Kotter’s book Leading Change offers practical suggestions for making real changes in business organizations and having them stick. His book is a must read for leaders and managers in captive organizations and alternative insurance service providers. Kotter offers a tantalizing thesis of why organizations fail: (1) too much complacency, (2) lack of a powerful guiding coalition, (3) underestimating the power of vision, (4) under-communicating the vision, (5) permitting obstacles to block the vision, (6) failing to create short-term wins, (7) declaring victory too soon, (8) neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the culture. This book should encourage you to make a commitment to leap into the future as well as help yourself and others develop leadership skills.”

“Change is a constant in the business world. Change is not something that will go away but it is increasing in the rate of occurrences. You can put it together with death and taxes. For anyone involved in business or with dealing with people in general, it is highly recommended that you find this book at your local book store and read it over a quiet Sunday afternoon. It is a book that I can foresee myself referring to in the future on a constant basis.”

“In 1996 John Kotter wrote Leading Change which looked at what people did to transform their organizations. Kotter introduced an 8-step change model for helping managers deal with transformational change. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone leading change who wants to motivate people and overcome obstacles to achieve great results.”

“Leading change requires vision. It is proactive instead of reactive. I knew a company vice president who was fond of saying, “You can lead change or be changed.” By leading change, you can empower yourself and your organization in ways that might not have seemed possible. You can often control your own destiny and that of your group. A source that I have found useful is a book (recommended by CIDM and highlighted at the Best Practices conference last fall) titled Leading Change by John P. Kotter. In this book, Kotter, a Harvard professor, provides an eight-stage process for leading change in your organization. The type of change Kotter envisions is large, sweeping change that transforms organizations from mediocrity to greatness and keeps them competitive in a rapidly changing world economy.”

2. Kotter’s defined 8 step process are as follows:

1. Establish a sense of urgency

– Examine market and competitive realities.

– Identify and discuss crises, potential crises or opportunities.

– Create the catalyst for change.

2. Form a powerful coalition

– Assemble a group with enough power to lead the change effort.

– Develop strategies for achieving that vision.

3. Create a Vision

– Create a vision to help direct the change effort.

– Develop strategies for achieving that vision.

4. Communicating the Vision

– Using every channel and vehicle of communication possible to communicate the new vision and strategies.

– The guiding coalition teaching new behaviours and leading by example.

5. Empowering others to act on the vision

– Removing obstacles to change.

– Changing systems or structures that seriously undermine the vision.

– Encouraging risk taking and non traditional ideas, activities and actions.

6. Planning for and creating short term wins

– Planning for visible performance improvement

Recognising and rewarding employees involved in these improvements.

7. Consolidating improvements and producing still more change

– Using increased credibility to change systems, structures and policies that don’t fit the vision.

– Hiring, promoting, and developing employees who can implement the vision.

– Reinvigorating the processes with new projects, themes and change agents.

8. Institutionalising new approaches

– Creating the connections between new behaviours and corporate successes. – Developing channels to ensure Leadership development and succession.

3. 1.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.

2.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.

3.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.

4.

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.

5.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.

6.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.

7.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.

8.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.

9. There and many limitations of this model: The model has several limitations that are identifiedimpacting upon its universal acceptance and popularity that will be explored laterin this paper. One of the most interesting aspects of the 1996 classic book is that there are neitherfootnotes nor references. A bibliography cannot be found yet this work has had tremendous academic as well as practical success. This paper traces the evolution of the literature and thinking originally selected by Kotter to the formulation of the eight step model. Finally it explores the current validation of the model by an updated 2011 literature search to compare/contrast the 1996 foundation.Here the steps cant be skipped and 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 and can lead to frustrations among employees if the stages of grief and individual needs are not taken into consideration.Since it is a step by step model, skipping even a single step might result in serious problems.The process is quite time consuming.

So, this is all about John P kotter's change model and its limitations.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.