Introduction
Life’s inevitability of change manifests itself in various ways, from personal transformation to organizational transitions. In this essay, I examine how I perceive and comprehend differences using my own perceptions and experiences and the ideas of Lewin, Bridges, Kubler-Ross, Adkar, Kotter, and Sopow. Instead of merely restating these ideas, my goal is to critically analyze how I have applied them while considering my personality and perspective on change.
I want to identify the distinctive ways in which I may contribute to enabling and leading change by examining these models through the lens of my individual characteristics and tendencies. I enjoy the transformational process and continually seek new ways to push the envelope and interpret my beliefs. I hope to learn more about how I handle change through this investigation and how I may improve my ability. In the end, I want this reflection to help me refine how I approach change so that it better suits my personality and tendencies.
Individual Change Models
When examining many transition models, such as the Change Curve, Lewin’s model, Bridges’ Transition model, and Kubler-Ross’ Change Curve, one can find recurring themes, such as uncertainty, resistance, adaptation, and acceptance, that speak to how people perceive change. These models give insights into how people can more effectively deal with and adapt to changing circumstances and an empathic lens on the human condition during times of change (Brunsson & Olsen, 2018). They act as road maps, guiding people through the complex emotional terrain of change and promoting resilience and development. More than just theories, they illustrate the universal process of adaptation, highlighting the essential ability of humans to advance and survive in the face of changing environments.
KĂĽbler-Ross’ Change Curve
Elisabeth KĂĽbler-Ross first devised the Change Curve, which depicts the emotional response people frequently have to significant change, ranging from shock and denial to acceptance and commitment (KĂĽbler-Ross, 1997). The paradigm enables a thorough comprehension of the emotional journey that changes entail, offering insights into handling those emotional upheavals more effectively. The Change Curve, which has its roots in comprehending the moving process in mourning, provides a framework for identifying and foreseeing emotional responses to significant life changes. It is, in essence, a tool that supports people such as myself in anticipating and navigating the emotional intricacies of change, enabling more knowledgeable, sympathetic, and adaptable reactions.
Lewin’s Change Model
Lewin’s Change Model, which comprises three stages—unfreezing, changing, and refreezing—emphasizes the need to upset preexisting beliefs before enacting change and establishing new behaviors (Cameron & Green, 2004). This paradigm emphasizes the significance of change readiness and the function of reinforcement in maintaining change. In essence, Lewin’s model embodies the transforming journey from the known to the unknown and then toward a new known, a process that may be observed in numerous human undertakings (James et al., 2016). It highlights the importance of disruption and the subsequent development of new norms, which aligns with my natural propensity to investigate alternative interpretations and push the envelope.
Bridges’ Shift Model
Conversely, Bridges’ Shift Model focuses on the psychological transition that comes with change, addressing the emotions of loss and uncertainty before welcoming new beginnings (Cameron & Green, 2004). Bridges’ model serves as a sobering reminder that change is a highly emotional process that must be acknowledged and dealt with (Bridges & Bridges, 2017). It supports my conviction that the process and the people involved should be valued, and it emphasizes how crucial empathy and comprehension are while navigating transitions. Understanding this human-centric viewpoint can help me better facilitate and manage change while encouraging a culture of growth amid uncertainty.
Personal Application
My innate tendencies and how they fit with these ideas come into great light when I apply these models to my experiences of change. My desire to be independent and question social conventions jives well with Lewin’s unfreezing stage (James et al., 2016). Given my propensity to disregard traditions to attain goals, I am naturally inclined to execute this stage’s required mindset breakdown. Lewin’s unfreezing stage, which denotes a readiness to unfreeze and alter ingrained cognitive processes, also connects with my desire to interpret my belief system in fresh and novel ways. Therefore, I am well-positioned to understand the nature of change and drive it, thanks to my propensity for challenging and dismantling established standards.
I discovered that my experiences match the Change Curve regarding the emotional journey that comes with change. I experience many emotions during significant change, from denial and resistance to exploration and acceptance. Given my propensity for unconventional thinking and desire for independence, these emotional phases act as crucial catalysts that push me toward fresh insights and viewpoints (Brunsson & Olsen, 2018). As a result, the Change Curve is more than just a theoretical model; it also informs how I respond to and engage with change.
I consider my emphasis on upholding harmony and prioritizing people and processes above results to be strongly aligned with Bridges’ paradigm of assisting others through transition. I think the key to helping individuals during transitions is recognizing and acknowledging the human component of change, particularly fear, uncertainty, and doubt. In fact, my attention to harmony and the human side of processes enables me to provide sympathetic support to people who are going through change, supporting Bridges’ theory about the emotional element of transition (Bridges & Bridges, 2019). In line with Bridges’ paradigm, I can assist people in navigating the challenging waters of change by pointing them toward acceptance and fresh starts.
Organizational Change Models
Organizational change models provide methodical and organized ways to implement change in a corporate setting. A few commonalities become apparent after studying the Adkar, Kotter, and Sopow models, stressing the complexity of organizational transformation and the demand for unique leadership approaches. These models actually encompass a variety of change management concepts, such as motivation, transition, and transformation, each having its own particular importance and effects (Rashid, 2019). I want to learn more about these models and how to use them to promote change in the organizational environment through a comparative analysis, considering my distinct perspective and style.
ADKAR Model
A sequential approach to managing change using Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (ADKAR) is presented by Prosci’s Adkar model (Cameron & Green, 2004). The advantage of this model is that the transformation process can be tracked and managed easily, thanks to its obvious, linear progression. It works best for firms that favor a more organized, gradual approach to transformation.
Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model
Compared to Adkar’s regulated, sequential process, Kotter’s 8-step model emphasizes leadership and vision to drive change, moving away from that approach in favor of a more flexible, strategic procedure (Jaaron, Hijazi & Musleh, 2021). According to Sopow’s concept, described in “Living Change,” an organization’s structure and culture must be understood and aligned for change to be successful (Sopow, 2021). It emphasizes how interrelated different organizational components are and how crucial they are to successful change management.
However, John Kotter’s 8-Step Process proposes a sequence of steps from instilling a feeling of urgency through institutionalizing the change (Cameron & Green, 2004). Its vital strength is its emphasis on developing momentum and a company-wide culture that welcomes change. This strategy suits firms that require a radical culture shift or are going through significant transitions.
Sopow’s Living Transformation Model
Sopow’s model, on the other hand, presents a comprehensive viewpoint on transformation, taking into account both structural and cultural factors within an organization (Sopow, 2021). It implies that a balanced understanding and transformation of both of these factors are necessary for effective change management. This model would work effectively in organizations where it is essential to take into account both the culture and structure to successfully execute change because of their close ties.
Sopow’s Living Transformation model suggests an organic, dynamic approach to change that emphasizes adaptability and flexibility (Sopow, 2021). The model is particularly effective in contexts characterized by uncertainty or rapid change because it understands change as an ongoing, nonlinear process. It highlights how crucial it is to comprehend and coordinate an organization’s culture and structure, considering their interconnectedness and mutual influence in the face of change. This viewpoint is in line with my own tendency to prioritize the process and the people involved over the final product. Sopow’s model is a complete framework for change management since it recognizes the complexity and diverse character of organizational transformation.
Model Comparison
Although all three models are meant to aid in organizational change, there are some significant differences between them. While Kotter’s model concentrates on broad, organization-wide strategies, Adkar’s concept stresses personal transitions as the cornerstones of organizational change (Kotter, 2012). In contrast, Sopow’s model sees change as a complex system of interconnected elements where change can occur on its own (Sopow, 2021). The choice of the model may, therefore, depend on the particular setting, nature of the change, and organizational culture, even if all three offer distinctive viewpoints and tactics for managing change.
The approaches deliver different messages in terms of leadership and change management. According to Adkar’s concept, an effective change agent must be able to persuade people of the necessity for change and lead them through the transition (Cameron & Green, 2004). According to Kotter’s paradigm, change agents must excite and motivate people while articulating a compelling future vision (Cameron & Green, 2004).
Sopow’s approach, in contrast, places more emphasis on the leadership role in fostering a relaxed atmosphere that enables change to arise and spread across the business (Sopow, 2021). These many viewpoints highlight the complexity of change management leadership and the requirement for leaders to modify their strategy in light of the particular change circumstance as well as the cultural and structural traits of their organization.
Personal Application
In light of my own proclivities, I reflect on these models and discover that there are aspects of each that speak to me. I appreciate how Adkar’s methodology mirrors my practical, problem-solving mindset and develops logically and well-organized. My desire to make a lasting impression and my propensity to look for leadership positions are in line with Kotter’s approach (Kotter, 2012).
I also identify with Sopow’s adaptable, dynamic approach to change, which reflects my capability for flexibility and inclination to treat every circumstance differently. My willingness to question conventions and my enthusiasm for developing memorable experiences do, in fact, fit well with the natural and forward-thinking strategy espoused by Sopow and Kotter. My observations thus imply that I can be more effective as a change agent in an organizational setting by applying these models in a balanced manner while taking into account my own characteristics and tendencies.
The Adkar model works well in contexts where there are clear goals. Kotter thrives in environments requiring cultural change and transformation. The Sopow model performs well in circumstances of uncertainty and rapid change (Cameron & Green, 2004; Sopow, 2021). According to Adkar’s concept, leadership entails effective communication and change management at the individual level. Kotter calls for inspirational leadership that inspires and propels change (Cameron & Green, 2004). The emphasis on leaders’ adaptability in Sopow’s paradigm facilitates the spread of change.
My awareness of these organizational change models has grown, and this has clarified the many approaches to managing and guiding change. Additionally, it has given me fresh opportunities to tap into my personal potential as a change leader inside an organizational setting. These models will be essential tools that I may use to guide and initiate organizational change as I chart my professional path. This introspective process has further enabled me to recognize the connections between my unique traits and other change models, providing new perspectives on how I might use this knowledge to lead future change initiatives successfully.
Conclusion
I now have a better knowledge of my innate ability to manage change as a result of my investigation of change models. Lewin’s, Kubler-Ross’, and Bridge’s models share aspects with my individualistic and creative approach to development. I recognize my approach in Adkar’s practical suggestions, Kotter’s group focus, and Sopow’s adaptability at the organizational level. Understanding how my personality traits relate to various change theories, both at an individual and corporate level, has been the most important lesson I have learned.
I have gained an invaluable understanding of how to apply my independent, unusual way of thinking to the flexible, dynamic aspects of Sopow’s model, which will help me manage change more effectively. This realization of how my propensity for independence and challenging conventions match with Lewin’s unfreezing stage has demonstrated how my dispositions might help in the early stages of transformation. Furthermore, my desire to make a difference emphasizes my capacity to enable long-lasting change, which is reflected in Kotter’s 8-step process.
At the same time, realizing the value of adaptation in leadership has helped me better grasp these approaches. Not every circumstance calls for the same strategy. Each model offers a unique perspective; thus, in order to support an effective change, I will need to use a variety of models depending on the situation, the people involved, and the nature of the change itself.
Finally, as I consider my goal to uphold peace and aid others, I am aware of the importance of the human element in change management. Bridges emphasizes that managing people during transformation will be more important than controlling the activities and processes themselves. I now have a more robust knowledge of how my characteristics fit with different change theories, which will help me navigate and lead change more effectively in the future. This knowledge is priceless because it enables me to use the best change management techniques, resulting in transformations that are both personal and organizationally relevant.
References
Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. (2019). Transitions: Making Sense of Life’s Changes. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. (2017). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change.
Brunsson, N., & Olsen, J. P. (2018). The Reforming Organization: Making Sense of Administrative Change. Routledge.
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2004). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change. Kogan Page Publishers.
Jaaron, A. A., Hijazi, I., & Musleh, K. (2021). A conceptual model for adoption of BIM in construction projects: ADKAR as an integrative model of change management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(6), 655–667. Web.
James, N. D., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. S., & Ali, M. (2016). Kurt Lewin’s change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 123–127. Web.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Press.
KĂĽbler-Ross, E. (1997). On Death and Dying. Simon and Schuster.
Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. S., Sabir, S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case Study Method: A Step-by-Step Guide for Business Researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. Web.
Sopow, E. (2021). LIVING CHANGE. University Canada West.