Justification of Models for Change Management: Lewin's, McKinsey 7S, and Kotter's Models

This article discusses the justification for the selection of Lewin's Change Management Model, McKinsey 7S Model, and Kotter's 8 Steps Management Model for implementing change management in different countries. It also explains how these models are integrated into the system and their relevance to the company's performance.

Running head: Justification of models 1
Justification of models
Student’s Name
University Affiliation

Justification of models 2
New Zealand- Lewin’s Change Management Model
The justification for model selection
According to Cummings (2016), Lewin’s Change Management Model is applicable in
management environment that involves people who are reluctant to change and have a tendency
to remain adamant and maintain their status quo. In New Zealand, the trend of the organizational
behavior exhibited by the staff shows a people who need step by step implementation of change.
This model will work best in their favor because it allows time for people to acclimatize to the
change being incorporated. Therefore there exists a need to evaluate their timeframes,
environmental factors, adaptability and all factors that play a role in ensuring there is a
progressive customization into the new system being adopted (Grant, 2016).
The Lewin’s change management model begins with the Unfreezing stage which
provides an environment to acquire the capability of adapting to the new changes and
motivating the employee to prepare for the change (Salman & Broten, 2017). Here, the
senior employees in “Te Awamutu” office will be the central reference in the process of
unfreezing people for the change. The need for a transition process as defined in the
Lewin’s change management model is also fundamental to this type of staff. It helps all
potential employees with regard to leadership capabilities by motivating them due to the
possession of these qualities that are essential for the company. The New Zealand
management environment has the old school employees and these would benefit from the
final stage; the refreezing process of the Lewin’s model (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014).

Justification of models 3
Lewin’s Change Management Model gives the overall direction to the process of adapting to
the change that is being incorporated into the company. It also shows changes that need to
be effected at each stage of the change adoption process. This helps those involve to get the
direction of what concerns all important components in this transaction. The
“KiwiSheepSkin” company branch in New Zealand has strong leadership and management
strategies. This is why this model is a fundamental consideration to the state of management
in the company (Simon, 2015). It is better placed in countering the employees’ human
perspectives of being resistant to change and acquiring of the skills needed by the company.
Integrating process
Using the Lewin’s Change Management Model, the leaders will be tasked with the job of
involving the existing old-school employees of the company. This will help them feel
accompanied in the ideal process of implementation of the ‘performance pay’ system. The
senior employees are tasked with the role of remaining a positive glance at the
implementation process and keeping in upgraded with the change model being effective in
the company ((Shin, Shapiro & Taylor, 2015). The integration process will involve
installing the required procedures and laying down the plans and decisions. All these
standards of integration involved in the transition process must be followed in the process of
implementation and address of the change. The standards are clearly defined, and this helps
in achieving the goals of the changes.
Japan-McKinsey 7S Model
Justification of selection

Justification of models 4
Japan is considered a country whose systems are very organized and strategic. The
McKinsey 7S Model rightly fits for Japan because it is a disciplined society which suits
implementation process and value sharing, Better leadership styles, the involvement of the
staff and the incorporation of skills that the ‘KiwiSheepSkin’ company will require for
better performance (Shibutani, 2017). This model gives a transparent chance for the
management and the leadership to define the extent of the changes as regards to the
‘Performance Pay system’ which is being implemented to improve the performance score of
the company. In a society that is disciplined and centered on the systematic organization,
this model finds a ground for being easily adopted into the company without any enormous
efforts (Singh, 2013).
The McKinsey 7S Model is an appropriate gateway to apply system implementation
and Skills building. The key performance indicators in the system and the metric give a
standard for the performance. This model involves keeping the employees progressively
and motivating them for the change (Bamberger, Meshoulam & Biron, 2014). This change
management model is best fitted for the system adoption of ‘pay performance system’
because it allows all the entities in the organization. This model is very fundamental in this
regard because it also eases the adoption of the new system to replace the old one (Stamatis,
2016). It provides a series of continuous changes that slowly intertwined with the
company’s setting and characteristics of the people involved. This helps in the final
implementation process as well as during the last processes involved. The model fits Japan
because it has the capacity to survive all the stages of analysis, selections and the actual
implementation.
Integration of the system

Justification of models 5
McKinsey 7S Model fits the pay-performance system implementation being installed in
this company as it gives room for employee education and measurement of their
performance to prove corporation (Singh, 2013). Having system implementation and skill
building incorporated into the model is indicates compatibility of this model to the Japanese
organizational and leadership structures (Burke & Noumair, 2015) The model is a sure fit
for Japan because it allows updating of the knowledge abilities within “KiwiSheepSkin”. It
also gives a stable platform to validate employee performance and avoid the addition of
more skilled people maintain the balance of them by incorporating regular training
programs. This model will allow the new system to be actually implemented after all the
leaders have an understanding of the new technology because special payments are done to
achieve the best for all entities of the system (Shiri, Anvari, & Soltani, 2015).
France – Kotter's 8 Steps Management Model
Justification of selection
The change management status for France will be best fitted by the Kotters 8 steps
management model because the all the involved stakeholders are liberal and flexible than
those of all the other countries (Kotter, 2012). The enthusiasm and activity the French
people gives an added advantage to the success of the application of this model. This is
because its fit is reconnecting to the main issues that were used in the ideology of weight
model implementation (Appelbaum, Habashy, Malo,& Shafiq, 2012) This adds value to
the actual amount of energy placed upon handling the culture of the company with regard to
its goals and the structural settings of the required system. The model applied in this
endeavor is the best fit as it contains the steps and stages that help keep pace with the local
teams through short-term goals which marry the work culture of the French people.

Justification of models 6
The Kotters 8 Step model contains the structures that favor profit revenue making in the
company through the application of various changes involving in the model (Hamel, 2008).
The model depicts instances of resolution to converging with the reality of urgency that
exists in the management system of the company (Cummings, Bridgman & Brown, 2016).
This capacity for this model to open room for ensuring a good rhythmic flow motion for the
changes being adopted. The model has a way of insulation from the threats that exist
between the disparities of conducting business within rural areas and those already in place.
The model is advantaged to help create a management situation that can be used to protect
the future as well as analyzing the findings certain implications that lie in the need to be
analyzed (Hornstein, 2015). The exploitation of these opportunities is important as it drives
the mandate of the company ahead while in the process of implementing what is being
adopted. This model used in France favors having business strategies that are founded on
the urgency to provide a solution to the problem (Birkland, 2015). The most important
feature of the significance of this model is its capacity to mitigate the crisis in the company.
The model creates a favorable environment for a new leader as well as creating situations of
emergency that open doors for effective implementation of future business strategies (Bales,
2017).
Integration of the system
The ‘pay performance system requires the mobilization of all stakeholders and
providing a situation of urgency upon which an emergent leader will act. The
implementation of this system takes into consideration the company acknowledgment of all
the capabilities placed upon the influential positions as a whole (Kotter & Cohen,
2002). The change model is considered in this implementation so that all the aspects are

Justification of models 7
observed in order to protect the resource sharing of the company. The achievement of the
final state of this new system will depend on the consolidation of all available resources in
order to achieve the best environment for implementation ((Warner, & Sullivan,
2017).Considering what all these factors demand in regard to finding a central place for
action, the Kotters 8 Steps management model defines practical skills that necessitate the
availability in the system. (Miner, 2015).
The successive application of the models to different countries can be attributed to the
basic approaches that exist in each model. This is the reason why these countries would
have successful change processes in the use of one change management model over another.
The concepts of matching the right skillsets and finding the real meaning of work being
done in any project involving system changes are based on the theories of change
management and disciplines of coherence. The capacity to get the right entities into the right
place during tremendous changes in a company requires extensive studies, analysis,
evaluation and the decisions that are placed on standards of genuine practices.

Justification of models 8
References
Abrell-Vogel, C., & Rowold, J. (2014). Leaders’ commitment to change and their effectiveness
in change–a multilevel investigation. Journal of organizational change
management, 27(6), 900-921.
Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: revisiting
Kotter's 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782.
Bales, R. (2017). Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement. Routledge.
Bamberger, P. A., Meshoulam, I., & Biron, M. (2014). Human resource strategy: Formulation,
implementation, and impact. Routledge.
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of
public policy making. Routledge..
Burke, W. W., & Noumair, D. A. (2015). Organization Development (Paperback): A Process of
Learning and Changing. FT Press.
Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps:
Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human relations, 69(1), 33-60.
Grant, R. M. (2016). Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases edition. John Wiley &
Sons.
Hamel, G. (2008). The future of management. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 16(6).

Justification of models 9
Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change
management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2),
291-298.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard business press.
Miner, J. B. (2015). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership.
Routledge.
Salman, Y., & Broten, N. (2017). Leading Change. Macat Library. Lewin, J. E., & Johnston, W.
J. (1997). Relationship marketing theory in practice: a case study. Journal of Business
Research, 39(1), 23-31.
Shibutani, T. (2017). Society and Personality: Interactionist Approach to Social Psychology.
Routledge.
Shin, J., Seo, M. G., Shapiro, D. L., & Taylor, M. S. (2015). Maintaining employees’
commitment to organizational change: The role of leaders’ informational justice and
transformational leadership. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(4), 501-528.
Shiri, S., Anvari, A., & Soltani, H. (2015). Identifying and prioritizing of readiness factors for
implementing ERP based on agility (extension of the McKinsey 7S model). European
Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences: Proceedings, 4(1 (s)), pp-56.
Simon, C. A. (2015). Public policy: Preferences and outcomes. Routledge.
Singh, A. (2013). A study of the role of McKinsey's 7S framework in achieving organizational
excellence. Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 39.

Justification of models
10
Stamatis, D. H. (2016). Six Sigma and Beyond: The Implementation Process, Volume VII. CRC
Press.
Warner, M., & Sullivan, R. (Eds.). (2017). Putting partnerships to work: Strategic alliances for
development between government, the private sector and civil society. Routledge.