Change Management Concept Card Template (Lewin, Kotter, ADKAR)

Change Management Concept Card: [Change initiative or course case]

A concept card for leading organisational change as it is taught in the leadership and organisational behaviour core of a leading MBA programme: Lewin's force-field analysis and the "unfreeze, move, refreeze" idea (Lewin 1947, with the attribution debate in Cummings, Bridgman and Brown 2016), Kotter's eight-stage process (Kotter 1995 and 1996), the ADKAR model of individual change (Hiatt 2006), resistance and readiness, stakeholder mapping and a complete change plan for a fictional technology rollout. It is for MBA students preparing a case or exam and for managers who must turn a decided change into adopted behaviour. Source basis: the original works cited below, written up in original words. ADKAR is a registered trademark of Prosci; this card describes the model for study and is not a Prosci product. Tallow Creek Medical Center, Northfield Outdoor Co. and every number are fictional and were computed in Python. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Approvals

Contents

• When to use it
• The idea in plain language
• Formulas and notation
• The models in more depth
• Assumptions and limits
• How managers use it
• Worked example A (fully solved)
• Worked example B (half solved)
• Exercise C (unsolved)
• Connections to other cards
• Common mistakes and misconceptions
• Self-test questions
• My notes and next steps
• Sources and further reading
• Answer key

When to use it

One-sentence rule: use this card when a decision has been made that requires many people to stop doing something familiar and start doing something new, and success depends on them adopting it, not just on the system or policy going live.

The idea in plain language

Organisational change is the movement of an organisation from a current state, through a transition, to a desired future state. The technical part (the system, the new structure) is usually the easier part. The hard part is that people must change behaviour, often while doing their normal job, and the benefits arrive later than the costs.

Lewin: forces and stability. Kurt Lewin (1947) treated a group's behaviour as a quasi-stationary equilibrium held in place by forces pushing for change and forces holding it back. To change behaviour you can add driving forces or reduce restraining forces; reducing restraint usually creates less tension. This is force-field analysis. Lewin's paper also mentioned, briefly, that a change may involve unfreezing the present level, moving to a new level and freezing group life at that level. Textbooks later turned this into the "three-step model". Cummings, Bridgman and Brown (2016) show that Lewin never presented it as a linear model and that the simplified version was largely built by later writers. Use the idea, but attribute it carefully and do not treat it as Lewin's main contribution.

Kotter: the organisational sequence. Kotter (1995) described eight errors he saw in transformation efforts and (1996) turned them into an eight-stage process: create a sense of urgency; build a guiding coalition with enough power; form a strategic vision; communicate it widely and repeatedly; remove obstacles and empower broad action; produce visible short-term wins; consolidate gains and keep going; and anchor the new approaches in the culture. The model is a leader's checklist for large changes. Its evidence base is mostly practitioner experience; it works best as a reminder of what is usually skipped (urgency, a coalition, short-term wins, anchoring).

ADKAR: the individual sequence. Hiatt (2006) described change at the level of each person as five elements in order: Awareness of the need for change, Desire to take part, Knowledge of how to change, Ability to do it in practice, and Reinforcement to sustain it. The first element that is weak is the barrier point; Prosci's guidance places it at the first element scored 3 or lower on a 1 to 5 scale. Work on later elements is wasted until the barrier is fixed: training (Knowledge) does not help people who do not see why the change is needed (Awareness).

Resistance is information. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) listed common reasons people resist: self-interest, misunderstanding and low trust, a different assessment of the change, and low tolerance for change. They matched approaches to situations: education and communication, participation, facilitation and support, negotiation, manipulation and co-optation, and coercion, each with costs. Ford, Ford and D'Amelio (2008) argue that change agents contribute to resistance through broken agreements, poor communication and failure to legitimise the change, and that resistance can improve a change by surfacing real problems. Oreg (2003) measured dispositional resistance to change as an individual difference. Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) framed readiness: the beliefs that change is needed and that the organisation can carry it out.

Stakeholders. A stakeholder is anyone who can affect or is affected by the change. A power-interest grid (described in Eden and Ackermann 1998) sorts them into manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed and monitor. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) added urgency and legitimacy to power as attributes of stakeholder salience.

Formulas and notation

Force-field balance, with each force scored 1 (weak) to 5 (strong):

Stakeholder support gap and priority, with power $P$ and interest $I$ scored 1 to 5 and support $S$ from -2 (active opposition) to +2 (active support):

ADKAR barrier point for a person or group with element scores $a_1, \dots, a_5$ on a 1 to 5 scale:

Planned adoption as a logistic curve with ceiling $L$, steepness $k$ and midpoint week $t_0$:

The models in more depth

How the models fit together

Transitions and emotions

Bridges (1991) separated the external change (the event) from the internal transition people go through: an ending (letting go of the old way and identity), a neutral zone (confusion, lower productivity, also creativity) and a new beginning. Leaders who manage only the event often under-estimate the neutral zone. In clinical settings, Edmondson, Bohmer and Pisano (2001) found that hospital teams adopting a new cardiac surgery technology learned faster when leaders framed the change as a team learning challenge, chose the team deliberately, and created psychological safety to speak up; the technology was the same, the adoption speed was not.

Two archetypes of change

Beer and Nohria (2000) contrasted change driven by economic value (Theory E: top-down, structural, incentives, consultants) with change that builds organisational capability (Theory O: participative, culture, learning). They argued that combining the two, with care about sequence, works better than either alone.

Resistance: reading it correctly

Assumptions and limits

How managers use it

• Case for change on one page. The problem in data, the cost of standing still, the future state, what changes for whom and what does not change.
• Stakeholder map and engagement plan. Score power, interest and support; plan one action per high-priority stakeholder; see project/stakeholder-register.
• Force-field workshop. List forces with the people affected, score them together and choose two restraining forces to reduce before go-live.
• ADKAR pulse. A five-question anonymous pulse by group before go-live and every few weeks after; target the barrier point for each group.
• Pilot and short-term wins. Choose a pilot unit likely to succeed, publish its results and let its staff tell the story.
• Adoption tracking. Measure behaviour (scan rate, log-ins, use of the new process), not attendance at training.
• Anchoring. Update policies, job descriptions, onboarding and performance reviews; switch off the old way.

Worked example A (fully solved): bedside barcode medication scanning

Situation (fictional). Tallow Creek Medical Center decided to introduce bedside barcode scanning of patient wristbands and medication packages on six inpatient units (about 420 nurses). The aim is fewer medication administration errors. The system was installed and tested; the risk is adoption: nurses must scan every dose, at the bedside, even during the busiest medication rounds. The Chief Nursing Officer is the sponsor.

Part 1. Force-field analysis (scored in a workshop with nurses, pharmacists and IT).

Net force = 14 - 16 = -2 (=SUM(B2:B5)-SUM(D2:D6)): as things stand, the restraining side is stronger. Adding more pressure (a stronger mandate) would raise tension. Instead the team targets two restraining forces: a written policy, agreed with the nurses' staff council, that scan data are used for system learning and not individual discipline except for reckless conduct (fear of blame from 4 to 2), and replacement wristband printers with a daily check (print failures from 3 to 1). Restraining total falls to 12 and the net force becomes +2.

Part 2. Stakeholder map.

Excel (row 2, power in B, interest in C, support now in D, needed in E): gap =E2-D2, priority =B2*F2, grid =IF(AND(B2>=4,C2>=4),"Manage closely",IF(B2>=4,"Keep satisfied",IF(C2>=4,"Keep informed","Monitor"))).

The grid alone would put bedside nurses in "keep informed", but the priority score ranks them highest, with the staff council. This is the classic trap of power-interest grids: each nurse has limited formal power, but as a group the nurses decide whether the change happens at all. Treat them as "manage closely" through the council and the unit super-users.

Part 3. ADKAR diagnosis by group (anonymous pulse, means on 1 to 5, four weeks before go-live).

Excel (scores in B2:F2, element names in B1:F1): =IFERROR(INDEX($B$1:$F$1,MATCH(TRUE,INDEX(B2:F2<=3,0),0)),"None"). Note the night shift: the plan's communication ran in daytime meetings, so night nurses never heard the case for change. Training them now (Knowledge) would be wasted effort.

Part 4. Adoption tracking. The plan follows a logistic curve with ceiling 98%, steepness 0.75 and midpoint week 4, =98/(1+EXP(-0.75*(A2-4))). Actual is the share of doses scanned at the bedside.

Reading the result. Early adoption ran ahead of plan because the pilot units went first and super-users were on every shift. From week 5 the gap turned negative and reached its worst in weeks 6 to 8 (more than 10 points below plan), when the remaining units, including night shifts, went live. This is the barrier the ADKAR pulse predicted. The blame-free policy was in place before go-live, but night nurses had heard of it only second hand. Night-shift briefings by the CNO, which reached most night staff by week 6, and super-users moved to the lagging units coincide with recovery; the rate reached 95% in week 12, close to the plan.

Part 5. Change plan and budget.

Recommendation sentence. "Adoption is on track to 95% by week 12. The two decisions that mattered were reducing restraining forces (the blame-free data policy and reliable printers) rather than adding pressure, and treating the night shift's barrier as Awareness, not Knowledge. Keep super-users in place until every unit holds 95% for four weeks, then anchor scanning in onboarding and competency checks."

Worked example B (half solved): extending the rollout

The rollout extends to support groups. The ADKAR pulse gives these group means.

Three more stakeholders are added to the map.

1. Fill the gaps in both tables. [ ]
2. Unit clerks score 3.9 on Ability but 2.7 on Awareness. Why is the high Ability score not reassuring? [ ]
3. Which new stakeholder has the highest priority, and what is one engagement action? [ ]

Exercise C (unsolved): a store scheduling app

Northfield Outdoor Co. will replace paper rotas in 24 stores with a scheduling app that lets associates swap shifts and set availability. Store managers lose some control over who works when; associates gain flexibility but must use their own phones.

Driving forces: associates want shift swaps (4), fewer scheduling errors and overtime (3), head office wants labour cost data by hour (3), managers save time on rotas (2). Restraining forces: managers fear losing control of staffing quality (4), associates without data plans or with older phones (3), privacy concerns about location features (3), long-serving associates comfortable with paper (2), two earlier apps that were dropped (2).

1. Compute the force-field totals and the net force. Which two restraining forces would you reduce first, and how?
2. Build a stakeholder map with at least six stakeholders, scoring power, interest and support, and compute priorities.
3. An ADKAR pulse gives store managers A 4.0, D 2.7, K 3.2, A 3.0, R 2.6. Find the barrier point and propose an action.
4. Write a Kotter-stage plan with one action per stage and a 12-week adoption curve with a stated ceiling and midpoint.
5. Name one ethical issue in this change and how the plan should handle it (see mba/mba-ethics-guide).

Connections to other cards

Common mistakes and misconceptions

1. Quoting "70% of changes fail" as fact. Hughes (2011) found no valid empirical basis for the figure.
2. Calling unfreeze, move, refreeze "Lewin's model" without qualification. The linear model was built by later writers (Cummings, Bridgman and Brown 2016).
3. Measuring training attendance instead of behaviour. Adoption is what people do on a normal day.
4. Training before Awareness and Desire. Find the barrier point first.
5. Adding pressure instead of removing restraining forces. Pressure raises tension and workarounds.
6. Using a power-interest grid for individuals only. Groups with low individual power can block a change together.
7. Declaring victory too early. Kotter's warning: anchor the change before removing support.
8. Treating all resistance as irrational. Some objections reveal design flaws; test them in the pilot.
9. Reading group means as individual readiness. Look at the spread and at key individuals.
10. One-way communication. People need to ask questions and see their input change the plan.

Self-test questions

1. Describe force-field analysis and explain why reducing restraining forces is often better than adding driving forces.
2. What do Cummings, Bridgman and Brown (2016) argue about Lewin's "three-step model"?
3. List Kotter's eight stages in order.
4. What does each letter of ADKAR stand for, and what is the barrier point?
5. A group scores A 4.1, D 3.3, K 2.9, A 3.5, R 2.2. Find the barrier point and the first action.
6. Name four reasons for resistance and four approaches from Kotter and Schlesinger (1979).
7. What did Ford, Ford and D'Amelio (2008) add to the understanding of resistance?
8. A stakeholder has power 4, support now -1 and support needed +1. Compute the priority score and give the Excel formula.
9. Using the plan curve in Worked example A, compute the planned adoption at week 6 with the Excel formula.
10. Distinguish Theory E and Theory O change (Beer and Nohria 2000).
11. What did Edmondson, Bohmer and Pisano (2001) find about technology adoption in hospital teams?
12. Why is "number of people trained" a weak success measure, and what would you track instead?

My notes and next steps

Sources and further reading

• Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
• Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., and Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: rethinking Kurt Lewin's legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33-60.
• Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Hiatt, J. M. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community. Prosci Learning Center Publications.
• Prosci. ADKAR model pages and individual barrier point guidance, https://www.prosci.com/methodology/adkar (checked October 2026).
• Kotter, J. P., and Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, March-April 1979.
• Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., and Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.
• Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693.
• Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., and D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: the rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
• Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage.
• Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Addison-Wesley.
• Beer, M., and Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, May-June 2000.
• Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., and Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685-716.
• Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 451-464.
• Textbooks, by name only: Cameron, E., and Green, M., Making Sense of Change Management (Kogan Page); Robbins, S. P., and Judge, T. A., Organizational Behavior (Pearson).
• Open resource: OpenStax, Organizational Behavior (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), https://openstax.org/details/books/organizational-behavior, chapter on organizational change.

Answer key

Worked example B.

1. ADKAR: transport staff, first action: hands-on training with job aids for scanning during patient transfers (Knowledge); unit clerks, barrier Awareness (2.7), first action: explain why wristband accuracy at admission drives every later scan; respiratory therapists, no barrier (all above 3), first action: recruit them as peer champions. Stakeholders: Chief Medical Officer priority 10 (=5*2), grid "Keep satisfied" (power 5, interest 3); patient and family advisory council gap 0 (=1-1), priority 0 (=2*0); biomedical engineering grid "Monitor" (power 3, interest 3).
2. ADKAR is sequential: clerks are able to do the task but do not see why it matters, so they may skip or rush it under pressure. Ability without Awareness and Desire does not produce sustained adoption.
3. The Chief Medical Officer (priority 10). Action: a one-to-one briefing by the CNO with the pilot error data, and a request to present the scanning results at the physician quality meeting.

Exercise C. (1) Driving 4 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 12; restraining 4 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 14; net -2 (=12-14). Reduce the managers' fear of losing control (keep manager approval of swaps and minimum skill rules in the app) and the privacy concern (switch off location features and publish a data-use statement); a device stipend or store tablets address the phone issue. (2) Answers vary; check that store associates as a group get a high priority despite low individual power, and that the scores have stated reasons. (3) Barrier Desire (2.7): involve managers in configuring approval rules, show the time saved in a pilot store, and make clear what they keep control of. (4) Answers vary; the curve should have a realistic ceiling below 100% and a midpoint after the pilot. (5) Example: using app data to monitor associates beyond scheduling, or requiring personal phones without compensation; the plan should limit data use to scheduling, state it in writing and provide an alternative device.

Self-test.

1. Behaviour is held in balance by forces for and against change; list and score them, then change the balance. Reducing restraining forces moves the balance with less tension and less resistance than adding pressure.
2. That Lewin mentioned unfreezing, moving and freezing only briefly, did not present a linear three-step model, and that the simplified model was constructed by later writers, so it misrepresents his broader work.
3. Urgency; guiding coalition; vision and strategy; communicate the vision; empower action and remove obstacles; short-term wins; consolidate gains and produce more change; anchor new approaches in the culture.
4. Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement. The barrier point is the first element in that order that scores 3 or lower.
5. Knowledge (2.9) is the first score of 3 or lower. First action: targeted training and job aids. Reinforcement (2.2) also needs work later.
6. Reasons: self-interest, misunderstanding and lack of trust, different assessments, low tolerance for change. Approaches: education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and co-optation, explicit and implicit coercion (any four).
7. That change agents contribute to resistance (broken agreements, poor communication, failing to legitimise the change), and that resistance can be a resource that improves the change.
8. Gap = 1 - (-1) = 2; priority = 4 x 2 = 8 (=4*(1-(-1))).
9. 80.1% (=98/(1+EXP(-0.75*(6-4)))).
10. Theory E aims at economic value through top-down structural moves and incentives; Theory O builds organisational capability through participation and culture. Beer and Nohria argue for combining them with care.
11. Teams that learned faster had leaders who framed adoption as a team learning challenge, selected and prepared the team, and made it psychologically safe to speak up; the same technology was adopted at very different speeds.
12. Training measures input, not behaviour. Track the target behaviour itself (share of doses scanned, use of the new process), quality outcomes and workarounds.

Revision history

Standard and licence note

Based on the change-management literature cited above (Lewin 1947; Kotter 1995 and 1996; Hiatt 2006; Kotter and Schlesinger 1979; Cummings, Bridgman and Brown 2016) and the Prosci description of the ADKAR barrier point checked in October 2026. ADKAR is a registered trademark of Prosci, named here for study only. The text, worked examples, exercises and questions are original; no published case, survey instrument or textbook text is reproduced, and Tallow Creek Medical Center and Northfield Outdoor Co. are fictional. This card is independent and not affiliated with or endorsed by any business school, publisher, consultancy or professional body. Check your course's readings and the current Prosci material before you rely on it. Template licence: MIT.