Introduction
Change management remains a critical aspect of organisational success in an increasingly dynamic business environment. Organisations must adapt to technological advancements, market shifts, and internal restructuring to remain competitive. Kurt Lewin’s change management model, introduced in the 1940s, is one of the foundational frameworks in this field, offering a straightforward three-stage process of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. While its simplicity aids understanding, critics argue that it oversimplifies the complexities of managing change in modern organisations. This essay critically evaluates whether this statement is justified by comparing Lewin’s model to two alternative frameworks—Kotter’s 8-Step Process and the ADKAR model. Through this analysis, and with reference to real-world examples of companies undergoing change, the essay assesses the strengths and limitations of Lewin’s model, providing a balanced perspective on its relevance in contemporary business contexts.
Lewin’s Change Management Model: Strengths and Limitations
Lewin’s model conceptualises change as a process of transitioning from a stable state to a new equilibrium through three stages: unfreezing (preparing for change by challenging existing norms), changing (implementing new processes or behaviours), and refreezing (solidifying the change to ensure permanence) (Lewin, 1947). Its simplicity makes it accessible, particularly for students and practitioners new to change management. Additionally, the model’s emphasis on preparation and stabilisation aligns with the need to manage employee resistance, a common barrier to organisational change (Burnes, 2004). For instance, when Nokia attempted to shift from a hardware-focused company to a software-driven one in the early 2000s, the unfreezing stage could have been applied to dismantle rigid internal structures. However, Nokia’s eventual decline suggests that such a linear approach may not fully address unforeseen challenges or ongoing market disruptions (Aspara et al., 2013).
Critics argue that Lewin’s model assumes a static environment and overlooks the iterative, non-linear nature of change in modern organisations. Indeed, the refreezing stage implies a return to stability, which is often unattainable in today’s fast-paced business landscape (Burnes, 2004). This suggests an oversimplification, particularly when managing complex, multi-faceted transformations. Therefore, while the model provides a foundational understanding, its practical applicability may be limited without adaptation to dynamic contexts.
Comparison with Kotter’s 8-Step Process
John Kotter’s 8-Step Process, introduced in 1996, offers a more detailed and dynamic approach to change management. The model includes steps such as creating urgency, building coalitions, developing a vision, and sustaining acceleration, which address both strategic and cultural dimensions of change (Kotter, 1996). Unlike Lewin’s linear progression, Kotter’s framework acknowledges the need for continuous momentum and stakeholder engagement throughout the process. For example, when Tesco implemented a digital transformation strategy in the early 2010s to compete with online retailers like Amazon, Kotter’s emphasis on creating urgency and empowering employees could be seen in their rapid adoption of online platforms and staff retraining programs (Tesco PLC, 2012). Tesco’s success in regaining market share highlights the value of a more comprehensive model that addresses multiple layers of change.
Kotter’s model critiques Lewin’s simplicity by incorporating iterative elements and a focus on leadership. Where Lewin’s refreezing assumes a final state, Kotter’s final step of anchoring changes into culture recognises that change is ongoing (Kotter, 1996). This suggests that Lewin’s model may oversimplify the process by failing to account for the sustained effort required to embed change, particularly in large organisations facing constant external pressures. However, Kotter’s model can be complex to implement, potentially overwhelming smaller firms or those with limited resources, whereas Lewin’s simplicity offers a clearer starting point.
Comparison with the ADKAR Model
The ADKAR model, developed by Jeff Hiatt, focuses on the individual aspects of change, emphasising five elements: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (Hiatt, 2006). Unlike Lewin’s broad organisational focus, ADKAR targets the personal transitions employees must undergo for change to succeed. This granular approach reveals a key limitation in Lewin’s framework, which largely overlooks the psychological and behavioural factors influencing change adoption. For instance, during British Airways’ transformation in the 1980s under Colin Marshall, the airline faced significant staff resistance to new customer service initiatives. Applying ADKAR could have addressed this by building awareness and desire among employees, ensuring they understood the need for change and were motivated to participate (Goodstein and Burke, 1991). British Airways’ eventual turnaround demonstrates the importance of addressing individual readiness, an aspect arguably neglected in Lewin’s model.
ADKAR’s strength lies in its ability to complement broader frameworks by filling gaps in employee engagement. However, it lacks the strategic overview provided by Lewin’s stages, suggesting that while Lewin’s model may oversimplify individual dynamics, it remains useful for high-level planning. This comparison indicates that Lewin’s simplicity, while a limitation, does not render the model obsolete but rather highlights the need for integration with more detailed approaches.
Critical Evaluation: Is the Oversimplification Justified?
The critique that Lewin’s model oversimplifies change management appears partially justified. Its linear structure and focus on stability (refreezing) do not fully capture the iterative, multi-dimensional nature of change in modern organisations, as evidenced by Nokia’s struggles to adapt swiftly to market shifts. Kotter’s 8-Step Process, with its emphasis on leadership and sustained effort, and ADKAR’s focus on individual readiness, reveal gaps in Lewin’s framework, particularly around cultural and personal dimensions of change. Real-world examples like Tesco and British Airways further illustrate how change often requires addressing urgency, stakeholder buy-in, and employee motivation—elements Lewin’s model does not explicitly tackle.
Nevertheless, the model’s simplicity should not be entirely dismissed. For smaller organisations or straightforward changes, Lewin’s three stages provide a clear, actionable framework. Furthermore, its historical significance as a foundational theory means it still serves as a useful starting point for understanding change processes (Burnes, 2004). Arguably, the model’s oversimplification is less a flaw and more a reflection of the era in which it was developed, when organisations faced fewer external disruptions compared to today’s globalised, technology-driven environment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Kurt Lewin’s change management model, while simple and accessible, does appear to oversimplify the change management process in certain respects, particularly when viewed through the lens of dynamic, modern organisational challenges. Comparisons with Kotter’s 8-Step Process and the ADKAR model highlight its limitations in addressing ongoing momentum, cultural embedding, and individual engagement—critical factors in successful change initiatives, as demonstrated by companies like Tesco and British Airways. However, the model’s clarity and foundational principles retain value, especially for basic or smaller-scale changes. The critique of oversimplification is thus justified to an extent, but Lewin’s framework remains relevant when adapted or used alongside more detailed models. This analysis underscores the importance of selecting change management approaches based on organisational context, suggesting that no single model can fully capture the complexity of change. Future research or practice might explore hybrid frameworks to address these gaps, ensuring both strategic and human elements are adequately considered.
References
- Aspara, J., Lamberg, J. A., Laukia, A., and Tikkanen, H. (2013) Corporate Business Model Transformation and Inter-Organizational Cognition: The Case of Nokia. Long Range Planning, 46(6), pp. 459-474.
- Burnes, B. (2004) Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), pp. 977-1002.
- Goodstein, L. D. and Burke, W. W. (1991) Creating Successful Organization Change. Organizational Dynamics, 19(4), pp. 5-17.
- Hiatt, J. M. (2006) ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community. Prosci Learning Center Publications.
- Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change. Human Relations, 1(1), pp. 5-41.
- Tesco PLC (2012) Annual Report and Financial Statements 2012. Tesco PLC.
