Introduction to the Essay

Kotter’s 8-Step Model is one of the most popular models for

understanding, studying and applying change in organizations. A simple literature

search would show that it has been so far used as a model for understanding

organizational change in at least 200 studies over the last decade. The model

was first described by Kotter (1995), and the subsequently published as a best-

selling book in the form of Kotter (1996). The book was written based on Kotter’s

own business and personal experiences. Interestingly, the book did not

specifically refer to any scientific study or empirical evidence and was based

solely on Kotter’s experiences. Because of this, the authenticity of Kotter’s model

has often been called in to question. More recently, there have been claims that

Kotter’s model fails to function appropriately under situations of organizational

crises. These recent issues call in to question the authenticity of Kotter’s model

and necessitate a scientific inquiry and analysis into its validity. This essay

follows such an inquiry. For the purpose of this essay, the paper would look into

arguments supporting and opposing the claim that Kotter’s model is quite

appropriate and successful for organizational change; even in situations of

organization crises.

Methodology of Analysis

The method in which the paper would be analyzed is primarily through

literature review and assessing the applicability of recent developments in

literature to Kotter’s model. Each step in Kotter’s model would be briefly

assessed for applicability. First of all, it would be seen whether steps exist in the

model which were debunked by literature as irrelevant or not necessary. If any

such step exists, it would only point to the irrelevancy of Kotter’s model to OC. If

information in literature is found which promotes the efficacy of Kotter’s model, it

would only point to the relevancy of model to OC. Based on the support or

rejection of steps in Kotter’s model, it would be assessed how much of Kotter’s

1 | P a g e

model is supported in literature and through analyses. Subsequently, the essay

would consider the case of how Kotter’s model relates in situations of

organizational crisis. This would be done, firstly, by defining organizational crisis

and seeing how general characteristics about Kotter’s model relate to the

features of organizational crisis implied from this definition. This would allow us to

realize whether Kotter’s model is relevant in organizational crisis. Based on both

the discussion and analysis, it would be decided how appropriate and relevant

Kotter’s model is to organizational change in general and in specific situation of

organizational crisis.

Assessment of Individual Steps

A review and analysis of OCD literature illuminates that most steps in

Kotter’s model have mostly supportive arguments in literature. The second step

of the Kotter’s model was more coherently supported without arguments against.

The second step is “creating a guiding coalition”. With respect to this step, Kotter

(1996:53) states that the guiding coalition should possess four characteristics;

position power, expertise, credibility and leadership. All of these factors have

been recognized as essential for the success of organizational change. However,

even more support is garnished for the second step as studies have found that if

any of these characteristics does not exist in a change agent group than the

probability of OC being a success is reduced. Lines (2007) – studying

organizational change in a telecommunications context – found that if a change

agent group did not have position power, it was most likely to fail. However, it

was also found that position without expertise also did not guarantee success,

and only when both expertise and positions were prevalent was OC success

imminent. In another study (Paper et al., 2001) – on OC in Honeywell Inc. – it

was found that if only position power was maintained without credibility – an

attitude the study termed as “complete command and control” – it was found that

it can result in failure of organizational transformation to be realized.

Subsequently, further support for the guiding coalition has been reiterated in

2 | P a g e

case studies by Cunningham and Kempling (2009), Self et al (2007), Sidorko

(2008) and Penrod and Harbor (1998). The only issue that has been raised with

this step is that it fails to take into account recent findings that OC or

transformation efforts should involve as many individuals in the company and not

only a guiding coalition. However, it should be noticed that this isn’t exactly a

criticism or shortcoming as without complete support the success of the project

will not be affected but rather some barriers would pop-up. Similarly, the third and

fourth steps in Kotter’s model, i.e. developing a “clear and sensible vision and

strategy” and “communicating the vision”, are also widely supported in recent

OCD literature. The importance of a clear vision is highlighted in numerous

studies (Wright and Thompsen, 1997; Washington and Hacker, 2005; Flamholtz

and Kurland, 2006; Szabla, 2007). It should be realized that this might be related

to the earlier realization that change is much more effective when individuals in a

company are involved in it. A vision is something that can do so. This has been

specifically argued in Paper et al (2001) which highlights the importance of a

systematic methodology, i.e. a strategy. Paper et al (2001) observes that people

are aware of the methodology through which change is bound to occur, they are

more likely to know what to expect and what to do in their respective positions

with respect to change. It should be realized when employees are aware of how

change is going to occur, they are likely to know if their jobs are secure or not.

This is obviously beneficial as if the change does not result in job loss, this would

be clearly communicated, and hence barriers to OC would be reduced. It should

also be noted that an appropriate vision also nurtures grass-root support for the

change in community (Faber, 2002). This has been specifically seen when

organizations have opted to go green or institute better employee-friendly work

ethics (Faber, 2002). This can also result in barriers to change further being

reduced as if change is likely to be accepted at the community level those acting

as barriers against it are likely to be pressured into accepting change rather than

refute it. It should be noted that the analysis that is provided requires that the

Step 4 is also conducted so the vision and strategy of change is communicated

through as many stakeholders as possible. For this reason, it should be noted

3 | P a g e

that even Step 4 is deemed essential for change to be successful. Similarly, Step

5 and Step 6 of Kotter’s model also are widely supported by literature. Step 5

involves empowering employees so that they may feel more associated to OC.

Kotter (1996:102) states that this empowerment should be achieved by changing

structures and systems, training employees’ new skills and changing supervisor

attitudes. The relevance of Kotter’s methodology for empowering employees

gains specific support by Klidas et al (2007). In studying employee practices at

luxury hotels, Klidas et al. (2007) realized that it supervisors, skills and structures

indeed affect employee empowerment processes. It should be realized that some

earlier studies of organizational change have also found that indeed supervisor

attitudes tend to be the largest barrier to OC. This has also been studied in the

module. The rationale behind this is quite simple. When OC takes place, the

purpose is most often to eliminate unnecessary processes. With advancing

computer technology, these often relate to the supervisors job description and

hence supervisors tend to be the ones most fearful of OC and transformation.

Moreover, it is also found that old supervisors tend to often restrict employee

empowerment as they fear new processes would make their jobs redundant

(Tidd & Bessant, 2011). For this reason, it should be noted that Step 5 is

essential for successful OC. Hence, it should be noted that many of the steps

provided in Kotter’s model are essential factors when considering making

organizational change and transformation efforts successful.

The support for some steps in Kotter’s model in management and OCD

literature is ambiguous. While there are various studies through which the

veracity of individual steps maybe argued, there are also studies which make

certain individual steps seem redundant. The first step, for instance, has

garnished a lot of support because of studies related to barriers in OC (Paton &

McCalman, 2008). The first step dictates that a sense of urgency needs to be

created. The manner in which this sense of urgency should be created is that an

environmental scan and internal analysis should be conducted, and leadership

should decide on “bold actions” based on this and these actions should be

communicated “broadly and dramatically” (Kotter, 1995:43). According to Kotter

4 | P a g e

(1996), this is important because without wide support OC won’t succeed and

wide support can only be garnished through establishing a sense of urgency. In

recent literature, there has been tremendous support for this step. Studies have

identified many failed OC or restructuring attempts with a lack of support at all

levels of the organization (Paton & McCalman, 2008; Tidd & Bessant, 2011;

Sidorko, 2008). This lack of support has been subsequently identified with groups

often undermining the necessity of organizational change (Tidd & Bessant,

2011). The first step, in essence, addresses these issues. Moreover, studies

have also found that timing has been of essence in the success of OC, and many

delayed or rushed changes have resulted eventually in organizational decay

(Kamau, 2010). However, an implication of these studies is also rushed changes;

an occurrence that Kotter’s first step might lead to and Kotter (1996)’s emphasis

on communicating the urgency “dramatically” might relate to. A systematic

analysis of Kotter’s implementation in an NGO in Nigeria showed that

dramatizing the urgency resulted in a hastened effort which eventually caused

chaos and crises in the organization (Kamau, 2010). Similar ambiguous

implications are derived from studying and analyzing Steps 7 and Steps 8. Step 7

proposes that success should not be accepted after initial results and change

should be continuously carried out as new objectives are realized. The rationale

is that leaders of the change need to make the individuals accept that the

changed organization is working and hence remove any remnant barrier to

change (Kotter, 1997). Essentially, the support for this step largely exists with

respect to the theory of momentum (Jansen, 2004). It is said that momentum in

change processes is a recognizable occurrence that is composed of participants

and observers commitment to the process (White, 1998). The supporting point

that largely exists is that when success is announced too soon, it kills the

momentum. Moreover, studies in momentum have found that it is what

essentially pulls through commitment and change processes, and when

momentum dies down it results in a loss of support and the resistance to enact

greater barriers to change which effectively results in the failure of OC (Jansen,

2004). However, it should be noted that there is no case example of “momentum”

5 | P a g e

being killed by “early announcements of victory”. On the other hand, Kotter

(1997) himself states that mentioning early successes only draws people over

from the resistance to become supporters of the change and allows for final

change steps to be taken. The difference that is stated is between announcing

success and announcing victory; but the difference between “success” and

“victory” is not described in any study of momentum. Also, it should be noted that

carrying out change for longer-terms is a recognized strategy for ensuring

success in OC (Tidd & Bessant, 2011); however, Step 7 is based on too vague of

a rationale to be deemed appropriate. Contrastingly, Step 8 has more support

that arguments against it. The debate on step 8 revolves more around the notion

whether change processes should be concluded or forever maintained in

continuity to enact in cases of future OC. In essence, it should be noted that Step

8 states that the changes that have been conducted should be instituted in

corporate culture of an organization. It is much akin to Lewin’s third step of

freezing so that change is made permanent and further unwanted change is not

inspired. The rationale however is different. Kotter (1995) believes that if change

is not instituted into culture, it would over time degrade. To institute change into

culture Kotter (1996:67) states two important factors should take place;

employees should be informed of how changes have improved performance and

the next generation of management should personify the changed organization.

Support for Kotter’s approach is provided largely in Reisner (2002). A study of

the US Postal Service revealed that despite a successful OC in 1990s, the

organization had slumped back to losses. It was realized the reason behind this

was that commitment to change was not kept by appointing financial commitment

to innovation, management became eventually unsupportive of changed

processes (citing them as distractive) and trade unions started opposing the

change as employees’ voice was marginalized. In this occurrence it is realized

that indeed instituting change through a continuing commitment is necessary.

Besides the continuity issue, another issue with step 8 is realizing when it should

exactly occur. Kotter (1997) observes that it should take place when significant

improvements have been seen and opposition to change seems negligent.

6 | P a g e

However, if we refer to Reisner (2002) it is noted that change had successfully

occurred in the 1990s. Let’s consider that at this point Kotter’s last step was

instituted and change was made permanent. If this had been conducted, how

would it have avoided the management that did not allow innovation? Kotter

speaks of new management; however, if the notion of new management exists, it

means that the old management would have to be replaced, and then how

exactly would the old management – whose support is required for change to be

successful – would support change? As such, it should be noted that there are

essential issues with Step 8 that have not been recognized in literature.

Kotter and Organizational Crises

With regards to organizational crisis, literature and analyses reflected that

Kotter’s model was largely inappropriate with regards to organizational crisis. It

should be realized that there are a number of reasons for this. Pearson and Clair

(1998) define organizational crisis as “a low-probability, high-impact event that

threatens the viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity of

cause, effect, and means of resolution, as well as by a belief that decisions must

be made swiftly”. If this definition of organizational crisis is realized, several

issues with applying Kotter’s model would be outright realized. Kotter’s 8-steps

are specifically designed to at least take place over six to seven months at least.

Anything shorter would result in a rushed change and eventually has the change

to cause organizational decay, or in the context of organizational crisis only

worsen the crisis. Subsequently, it should be noted that by design the 8-step

model was not made for such situations. Kotter (1995) states that the model has

been designed to implement “fundamental changes in how the business is

conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market

environment”. The issue that arises then is that organizational crisis normally

does not occur in relevance to “more challenging market environment”. They

occur because of financial crises or natural disasters, but not because of a

challenging market environment. As such, it should be noted that Kotter’s model

7 | P a g e

was not designed for organizational crises. Subsequently, it should also be noted

that Kotter’s model is a rigid approach. Each step has to be taken in order, and

the prior’s completion is the perquisite for the next step to be proceeded with. In

organization crisis situations where “decisions must be made swiftly” this is not

an apt response. Moreover, many steps of Kotter’s model are not applicable

under organizational crisis situations. In organizational crisis, empowering

employees can have severe consequences which can lead to further worsening

of the crisis. Normally, organizational crisis situations require more planned

actions to be taken and employee empowerment undermines planned actions.

Similarly, organizing change events under organizational crises is too risky.

While change might succeed due to momentum initially, it might eventually lead

to resistance after organizational crisis is over, and this might be costly to

businesses as OC normally tens to possess a substantiate financial cost. For

these reasons, it should be noted that Kotter’s model is not appropriate under

situations of organizational crisis.

Conclusion

From the aforementioned analyses and literature reviews, three

conclusions can be largely derived. First of all, it was noted that most steps in

Kotter’s model were either key factors to organizational change that were

endorsed in recent literature review of OCD, or was supported by logical analysis

derived from findings by recent studies in OCD. Subsequently, it was found that

other steps were also supported in literature but there also existed literature that

largely refuted these steps. Also, analyzing these steps with respect to recent

findings resulted in mixed implications that did not illustrate these steps as

necessary. Nevertheless, as literature did slightly support all steps in Kotter’s

model, it should be noted that Kotter’s model was deemed quite appropriate and

successful relevant to organizational change. However, later analysis with

respect to organizational crisis, showed that this did not apply to crisis situations.

8 | P a g e

References

1. Cunningham, J.B., and Kempling, J.S. (2009), “Implementing change in public

sector organizations”, Management Decision, 47(2), 330-44.

2. Faber, B. D. (2002) Community Action and Organizational Change: Image,

Narrative, Identity. Chicago, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

3. Flamholtz, E. and Kurland, S. (2006), “Making strategic planning work: a case

study of countrywide financial”. Handbook of Business Strategy, 7(1), 187-93.

4. Jansen, K.J. (2004) “From persistence to pursuit: a longitudinal examination

of momentum during the early stages of strategic change”. Organization

Science, 15(3), 276-94.

5. Kamau, J.N. (2010) The relevance of Kotter's eight-step model in

understanding organizational change at Nokia Siemens Networks. Master

Dissertation, University of Nairobi. Available at http://goo.gl/IbPwd

6. Klidas, A., van den Berg, P.T. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2007) “Managing

employee empowerment in luxury hotels in Europe”. International Journal of

Service Industry Management, 18(1), 70-88.

7. Kotter, J.P. (1995) “Leading change: why transformation efforts fail”. Harvard

Business Review, March-April, 59-67.

8. Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change. Boston, MA: HBS Press.

9. Kotter, J.P. (1997) Chaos, Wandel, Fu¨hrung – Leading Change, Translated

Edition. Dusseldorf: ECON.

10.Lines, R. (2007) “Using power to install strategy: the relationships between

expert power, position power, influence tactics and implementation success”.

Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 143-70.

11.Paper, D.J., Rodger, J.A. and Pendharkar, P.C. (2001) “A BPR case study at

Honeywell”. Business Process Management Journal, 7(2), 85-99.

12.Paton, R. A., & McCalman, J. (2008) Change Management: A Guide to

Effective Implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Limited.

13.Pearson, C.M., and Clair, J.A. (1998) "Reframing Crisis Management".

Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 59-76.

9 | P a g e

14.Penrod, J.I. and Harbor, A.F. (1998) “Building a client-focused IT

organization”. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 15(3), 91-102.

15.Reisner, R.A.F. (2002) “When a Turnaround Stalls”. Harvard Business

Review, 80(2), 45-52.

16.Self, D.R., Armenakis, A.A. and Schraeder, M. (2007) “Organizational

Change Content, Process, And Context”. Journal of Change Management,

7(2), 211-29.

17.Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (1999)

The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning

Organizations. London: Nicholas Brealey.

18.Sidorko, P.E. (2008), “Transforming Library and Higher Education Support

Services”. Library Management, 29(4/5), 307-18.

19.Szabla, D. (2007) “A Multidimensional View of Resistance to Organizational

Change”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 525-58.

20.Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2011) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological,

Market and Organizational Change. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

21.Washington, M. and Hacker, M. (2005) “Why Change Fails”. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 26(5), 400-11.

22.White, G.L. (1998) “Daimler-Chrysler: Inside the Megamerger”. Wall Street

Journal, 13 November.

23.Wright, K.L. and Thompsen, J.A. (1997) “Building the people’s capacity for

change”. The TQM Magazine, 9(1), 36-41.

10 | P a g e