How to Implement Change with Kotter's 8-Step Change Model

Kotter’s Model for inflicting fast but steady changes with small and concrete steps

Introduction
Change management has become a crucial exercise in the economies of the 21st century where
business models are changing rapidly and companies are seeking diverse job profiles from their
existing set of employees. Most of the companies are refraining from adopting a “hire and fire”
approach because it can cause a serious shortage in the tacit knowledge pool of the organization.
In a condition like this “ Kotter’s model” can become a handy option, barring some conditions
that can bring a halt to the process of the change. The current assignment is an attempt to judge
its worthiness and practical implications in the present-day business environment (Jokonya,
2018).
Small and concrete steps for fast and speedy changes
While looking at the details of Kotter’s model from a practical viewpoint, certain pointers can be
refuted very easily. Kotter’s model advocate about the “creation of urgency in the process, it
further states that if an HR machinery fails to establish the first step as the foundation for the
success then it should be considered as a frozen process. Kotter’s model advocates that the sense
of urgency should be strong enough to resist the probable retaliation from the side of employees
and leaders. On a hypothetical level, we can challenge this notion out rightly, the sense of
urgency should not be faked, because we are retaining employees and leaders because of their
utility in the tacit knowledge pool. It is very important to define the sense of urgency at a much
more realistic level, on a hypothetical level, an HRM machinery can adopt the policy of
developing existing “leaders and employees” as the “agents of the change” rather than the
“objects that need to be changed.” Implementation of these lines will support Kotter’s theory that
says “creation of a sense of urgency is the precursor of strong groundwork to sustain the process

of the change (Kotter, 2007). The above-mentioned statement partially agrees to the philosophy
of Kotter’s and establishes it as the right framework for systematic planning for the exercise of
the change management.
The evaluation of the philosophy in a rapidly changing environment
The philosophy of jumping the ladder of change to mitigate the redundancy can be challenged in
many ways. Skipping the steps with an intention to bring in speed in the process may fail, as it
can only bring in a sense of speed sometimes, the fourth step in the Kotter’s ladder denotes the
step for the creation of communication for “buy-in.” Ideally, HR machinery should treat this step
as the first milestone of the project, the goals and objectives should be treated as stationary
variables or aftermath of the process of “buying-in.” The first three steps of “increasing urgency,
development of a vision and procurement of a guiding team can follow the model of loop-based
action research, where the things can be amended in the favor of optimum change (Malek, 2012).
It is very important to acquire a rotational structure of the feedback where the tacit knowledge of
the organization can be utilized to maintain a cutting edge with the help of the ingrained
intellectual capital of the organization. The following of a loop-based structure can slow down
the cycle of the change, however, at the same time, it can save the company from committing
mistakes during the phase of initiation” (Kotter, 2007, p 97). This is why it is important for an
organization to think about the first three steps of the change from a different perspective. Many
organizations are introducing the concept of agile project movement where they are taking care
of various fragments of the projects simultaneously. Factors like resistance to change are variable
in nature and consistently changing in nature. Ideally, it should not be about the first step of the
change alone, it should be applicable to the first three steps of the change.

Kotter’s model promotes a linear approach of change, it promotes a culture where things move in
a systematic and stepwise fashion. The uncertainties involved in the process of the change
sometimes create a frozen state of affairs when we follow the Kotter’s model. It is very
important to understand about the curve of the change caused by Kotter’s model. A wrong
curvature of the change can force a company to start the process from the beginning of the curve,
an action research-based or loop-based approach can save a company from this problem. Kotter's
model can be used as a framework for initial planning, however for the implementation of the
change we need stronger and more complex methods to handle the operations that are variable in
nature. The procurement of an operative model in accordance with the immediate needs
becomes the deciding factor for the implementation of programs and necessary actions.
Recommendations for a smooth and swift change
Inputs from other trajectory driven models can also be implemented while considering Kotter’s
model as the base cycle of the change, here we can mention the names of Taffinder's
Transformation Trajectory; Kirkpatrick Step-by-Step Change Model; Leppit's Integrated Model;
Kanter, Stein, and Jick's Ten Commandments. Implementation of too many models in a single
process can bring in chaos and add levity in the process of change, a coordinated and integrated
approach along with a contingency driven leadership style can secure all the ends quite
effectively for the exercise of the change management.
It is important to take a note of the basic framework given by Kurt Lewin, this framework can be
considered as the monitoring device or tool for the process. Many experts in the field of change
feel that Kurt’s model is a model fit for the implementation of the change, however, it is only a
baseline work that can bring in objectivity from the point of view of a planner (Palmer, Dunford
& Akin, 2009).

Question for Discussion
Q1. How contingency driven leadership model can support the exercise of the change
management, can we consider it as the best approach or other stable leadership models can be
considered as a better choice?
Q2. Can we think in the terms of a planning mix based on various types of models propagated
for change management models?
Q3. What is the role of the monitoring tools to keep an eye on the metrics of the change
management and the identification of the right curvature of the change?
References
Jokonya, O. (2018). A Conceptual Framework for Implementing IT Change Management in
Public Sectors. Procedia, (Online )(Available at)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050918317563. Accessed 18-12-19
Kotter, J. (2007) ‘Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail’, Harvard Business Review,
85 (1), pp.96-103. Accessed 18-12-19
Malek, R. (2012). Overview of Change Management and Its Implementation. Business,
Economics, Financial Science and Management, (Online )(Available at)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-27966-9_21. Accessed 18-12-19
Palmer, I., Dunford, R. & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple
perspectives approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Accessed 18-12-19