Change Management Models Compared: Lewin, Kotter, Bridges and Kubler-Ross
Organisational change is one of the most frequently examined topics in CIPD qualifications, and for good reason. Every organisation faces change — restructures, new technology, mergers, policy shifts, culture transformation — and how that change is managed determines whether it succeeds or fails. The challenge for CIPD students is that there are several well-established models, each offering a different lens on the same phenomenon. Understanding what each model does, where it's strong, and where it falls short is essential for both assignments and practice.
This article compares four models you'll encounter repeatedly across CIPD units: Lewin's Three-Stage Model, Kotter's Eight-Step Process, Bridges' Transition Model, and the Kubler-Ross Change Curve. Rather than treating them as competing theories, the most useful approach is to understand them as complementary — each illuminating a different aspect of what makes change work or fail.
Lewin's Three-Stage Model
Kurt Lewin's model, developed in the 1940s, remains the foundation of change management thinking. Its simplicity is both its strength and its limitation. Lewin proposed that change involves three stages: unfreezing the current state, making the change, and refreezing into a new stable state.
Unfreezing involves creating the conditions for change by disrupting the status quo. People need to understand why the current way of doing things is no longer adequate. This might involve sharing performance data, highlighting competitive threats, or making visible the gap between where the organisation is and where it needs to be. Without unfreezing, people resist change because they see no reason for it.
Changing (sometimes called moving or transitioning) is the implementation phase where new behaviours, processes, or structures are introduced. Lewin recognised that this phase involves uncertainty and learning — people are between the old way and the new way, which creates anxiety and confusion. Support, communication, and involvement during this phase are critical.
Refreezing stabilises the new state by embedding changes into organisational norms, policies, systems, and culture. Without refreezing, organisations risk reverting to old patterns once the initial energy of the change initiative fades. This might involve updating procedures, aligning reward systems with new behaviours, or reinforcing new ways of working through management practice.
Strengths and Limitations
Lewin's model provides conceptual clarity that more complex models sometimes lack. It's excellent for analysis — diagnosing at which stage a change initiative has stalled is immediately useful. If an organisation launched a new performance management system but nobody uses it, the problem is likely inadequate unfreezing (people didn't see why the old system needed replacing) or inadequate refreezing (the new system wasn't embedded into daily practice).
The model's limitation is its simplicity. Critics argue that the three stages are too broad to guide practical implementation. "Make the change" doesn't tell you how. Others question whether refreezing is realistic in organisations facing continuous change — if the environment keeps shifting, is a stable end state achievable or even desirable? Lewin himself may not have intended such rigid interpretation, but the criticism persists.
The refreezing concept also assumes a relatively linear progression, which doesn't always match organisational reality. Change is often messy, iterative, and overlapping rather than sequential.
Kotter's Eight-Step Process
John Kotter developed his eight-step model in 1996, building on research into why change initiatives fail. Where Lewin provides a broad framework, Kotter offers a detailed implementation roadmap.
The eight steps are:
- Create a sense of urgency — Help others see the need for change and the importance of acting now. Without urgency, people continue with business as usual.
- Build a guiding coalition — Assemble a group with enough power, credibility, and expertise to lead the change. One person cannot drive organisational change alone.
- Form a strategic vision and initiatives — Create a clear picture of the future state and identify the key initiatives needed to achieve it. The vision must be communicable and compelling.
- Enlist a volunteer army — Communicate the vision broadly and generate buy-in from a critical mass of people. Change requires widespread commitment, not just top-down direction.
- Enable action by removing barriers — Identify and remove obstacles that prevent people from acting on the vision. These might be structural, procedural, or cultural.
- Generate short-term wins — Plan for and create visible improvements early in the process. Short-term wins build momentum, provide evidence that the change is working, and sustain commitment.
- Sustain acceleration — Use the credibility from early wins to tackle bigger, more complex changes. Don't declare victory too early.
- Institute change — Anchor new approaches in the organisational culture. Make explicit connections between new behaviours and organisational success.
Strengths and Limitations
Kotter's model is practical and actionable. Each step tells you what to do, making it genuinely useful for planning change programmes. The emphasis on urgency, coalition-building, and short-term wins reflects common reasons change initiatives fail — complacency, lack of leadership support, and loss of momentum.
The model implies a linear sequence, which doesn't always reflect reality. Some steps may need to happen simultaneously, and organisations may need to revisit earlier steps as circumstances change. The model is also leadership-centric — it focuses on what leaders do to manage change rather than on how individuals experience it. This means it's strong on the strategic and operational dimensions of change but weaker on the psychological and emotional dimensions.
Critics also note that Kotter's model was derived primarily from research in large corporations, which may limit its applicability in smaller organisations, public sector contexts, or less hierarchical structures.
Bridges' Transition Model
William Bridges made a distinction that fundamentally shifts how we think about change. He argued that change is the external event — the restructure, the new system, the merger — while transition is the internal psychological process people go through in response to that event. Organisations can implement change overnight, but transition takes much longer.
Bridges identified three phases of transition:
Endings — Every transition begins with an ending. Before people can embrace something new, they must let go of the old. This involves loss — of familiar routines, established relationships, known competencies, or cherished identity. Organisations often underestimate this phase, pushing forward with implementation while people are still grieving what they've lost.
Managers can support people through endings by acknowledging what is being lost, allowing time for people to process the change, being honest about what is ending and what isn't, and respecting the emotional responses that loss provokes. Dismissing people's attachment to the old way of working as resistance creates conflict rather than progress.
The Neutral Zone — This is the uncomfortable in-between period when the old way has ended but the new way hasn't yet taken hold. People feel disoriented, confused, and anxious. Productivity often dips. The temptation is to rush through this phase, but Bridges argued it's actually where the real transformation happens — people are rethinking, experimenting, and gradually developing new approaches.
The neutral zone requires patience, clear communication about what's expected, temporary support structures, and tolerance for the inevitable mistakes people make while learning new ways of working. It's also a period of creativity and innovation if managed well — people freed from old patterns can develop better approaches than those planned from above.
New Beginnings — The final phase isn't just the implementation of new processes; it's people genuinely embracing a new identity and new ways of working. New beginnings require people to feel competent in the new approach, see how it serves them and the organisation, and experience early successes that reinforce the change.
Strengths and Limitations
Bridges' model addresses what Lewin and Kotter largely overlook — the emotional and psychological experience of the people going through change. This makes it particularly valuable for HR professionals whose role is to support people through organisational transitions.
The model explains why technically well-planned changes still fail — because the transition wasn't managed. An organisation might implement a new HRIS system perfectly on schedule and on budget, but if people haven't psychologically transitioned from the old system, adoption will be poor and workarounds will proliferate.
The limitation is that the model says less about how to plan and implement change at an organisational level. It's primarily a model of individual psychological experience, which makes it an excellent complement to Kotter or Lewin rather than a standalone planning tool.
The Kubler-Ross Change Curve
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross originally developed her model to describe the stages of grief experienced by people facing terminal illness. It was subsequently adapted for organisational change, describing the emotional journey people experience when confronted with significant workplace changes.
The stages typically include:
Shock and denial — The initial reaction to unexpected change. People struggle to process the information and may deny it's happening or believe it won't affect them. Productivity and morale drop as people absorb the news.
Frustration and anger — As reality sets in, people may become angry or frustrated. This might manifest as resistance, complaints, blame, or disengagement. The anger isn't necessarily irrational — it reflects genuine concerns about loss of control, status, competence, or security.
Depression and confusion — Energy drops as people begin to accept that the change is real but haven't yet found a way forward. This is the lowest point of the curve. People may feel overwhelmed, uncertain, or demotivated.
Experimentation and acceptance — Gradually, people begin to engage with the new reality. They start experimenting with new approaches, finding what works, and building new competencies. Energy and productivity begin to recover.
Integration — The change becomes normalised. People have adapted, developed new skills, and integrated the change into their routine. Performance recovers and may exceed pre-change levels as the benefits of the change are realised.
Strengths and Limitations
The change curve is powerful because it normalises emotional responses to change. When managers understand that resistance, frustration, and reduced productivity are predictable phases rather than signs of failure, they're better equipped to support people through the transition.
The model helps organisations plan for the inevitable dip in performance that accompanies significant change. Knowing that productivity will temporarily decrease allows for realistic expectations and appropriate support mechanisms.
However, the model has significant limitations. Not everyone experiences all stages, and people don't move through them in a neat sequence. Some people adapt quickly while others take much longer. The model was developed for individual grief, and applying it directly to organisational change is a conceptual stretch — losing a colleague to terminal illness is a fundamentally different experience from a departmental restructure.
There's also a risk that the model is used to pathologise legitimate concerns. If employees resist a poorly planned restructure, their resistance might reflect rational assessment rather than an emotional stage to be managed through.
Comparing the Models
Each model addresses a different question:
Lewin: asks: What are the broad phases of change?
Kotter: asks: What steps should leaders take to implement change?
Bridges: asks: What psychological journey do people go through during change?
Kubler-Ross: asks: What emotional responses should we expect?
In practice, these perspectives complement rather than compete. A strong change management approach might use Kotter's eight steps to plan the implementation, Bridges' model to design support for people going through the transition, Lewin's framework to diagnose why a previous change failed, and the Kubler-Ross curve to help managers recognise and respond to emotional reactions.
The table below summarises the key differences:
Using These Models in CIPD Assignments
Change management appears across multiple CIPD units, most prominently in 5CO01 (Organisational Performance and Culture in Practice). When writing about change in assignments, several approaches will strengthen your work.
Don't just describe one model. Assessors at Level 5 expect you to compare and evaluate. Describing Kotter's eight steps demonstrates knowledge; comparing Kotter with Bridges and explaining when each is more appropriate demonstrates analysis.
Apply to your organisation or case study. Abstract descriptions of models are insufficient. Show how a specific model helps explain a real change initiative — what worked, what didn't, and why. If your organisation recently restructured, analyse the experience through multiple lenses.
Acknowledge limitations. Every model simplifies reality. Noting that Lewin's three stages may be too broad, or that the Kubler-Ross curve wasn't designed for organisational contexts, demonstrates critical thinking.
Consider the people dimension. CIPD assignments should reflect the profession's focus on people. A purely process-focused analysis of change misses the human element. Bridges' model and the Kubler-Ross curve ensure you address how change affects individuals, which is central to the people professional's role.
Link to practice. What would you do differently based on your analysis? What support would you put in place? What communication strategies would you recommend? Connecting theory to practical recommendations shows the application skills assessors value.
Which Model Should You Choose?
There's no single best model. The right choice depends on what you're trying to achieve:
If you're diagnosing why a past change failed, Lewin's model helps identify whether the problem was inadequate unfreezing, poor implementation, or insufficient refreezing.
If you're planning a new change initiative, Kotter's eight steps provide the most practical implementation guidance.
If you're concerned about how people will cope with change, Bridges' transition model focuses attention on the psychological journey and the support people need.
If you're preparing managers to lead their teams through change, the Kubler-Ross curve helps them understand and respond to the emotional reactions they'll encounter.
The strongest approach — in both practice and assignments — is to draw on multiple models, using each for what it does best.