Change Management Models Compared

Change management models answer different questions. Some sequence an organizational change (Kotter, Lewin), some describe what individuals go through (ADKAR®, Bridges, the change curve), and some diagnose readiness or scope (the change formula, Force Field Analysis, 7-S). This page compares fourteen models side by side by focus, shape, best use and main limitation.

How do the main change management models compare?

Each row summarizes the model's entry. Filter by focus or shape, or show only the models in the APMG Foundation syllabus.

Model	Originator · year	Focus	Shape	Best for	Main limitation	APMG syllabus
Kotter's 8-Step Change Model	John P. Kotter · 1996 / 2014	Organizational	Steps (8)	Leading large, sponsor-driven organizational change with visible momentum	Top-down in its 1996 form; limited empirical testing	Yes
ADKAR® Model	Jeffrey M. Hiatt (Prosci) · 1996 / 2006	Individual	Steps (5)	Diagnosing where individuals are stuck in a change	Individual lens; limited independent empirical validation	Yes
Lewin's Three-Stage Change Model	Kurt Lewin · 1947	Organizational	Phases (3)	Framing a discrete change as a move between stable states	Simplified; assumes stability; attribution debated	No
Bridges' Transition Model	William Bridges · 1980 / 1991	Individual	Phases (3)	Supporting people through loss and uncertainty	No organizational levers or timeline	Yes
The Change Curve (Kübler-Ross)	Elisabeth Kübler-Ross (adapted by practitioners) · 1969	Individual	Curve	Anticipating emotional reactions and the temporary performance dip	Built for dying patients; stages weakly supported	Yes
McKinsey 7-S Framework	Robert H. Waterman Jr., Thomas J. Peters & Julien R. Phillips · 1980	Organizational	Diagnostic (7)	Scoping change impacts and checking organizational alignment	Static and inward-looking; no method for changing	Yes
The Change Formula (Beckhard–Harris)	David Gleicher; Richard Beckhard & Reuben T. Harris · 1977	Organizational	Equation (4)	Finding the missing condition in a stalled change	Heuristic only; no sequencing or roles	Yes
Force Field Analysis	Kurt Lewin · 1947 / 1951	Both	Diagnostic (2)	Mapping forces for and against a change to prioritize actions	Subjective, static snapshot; forces interact rather than add up	Yes
Kelman's Three Levels of Adoption	Herbert C. Kelman · 1958	Individual	Diagnostic (3)	Judging whether adoption will last without outside pressure	Research on opinions, not organizations; no method	Yes
Appreciative Inquiry	David L. Cooperrider & Suresh Srivastva · 1987	Both	Cycle (4)	Building commitment and vision from existing strengths	Mostly case-study evidence; can silence real concerns	Yes
Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations	Everett M. Rogers · 1962 (5th ed. 2003)	Both	Curve (5)	Planning whom to engage first so adoption spreads	Pro-innovation bias; assumes voluntary adoption	Yes
Satir Change Model	Virginia Satir · 1991	Individual	Curve (5)	Preparing people and leaders for the performance dip	Clinical origin; no organizational levers or planning	No
Nudge Theory in Change	Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein · 2008	Individual	Diagnostic	Supporting adoption of small, repeated behaviors	Debated evidence; ignores reasons for objection	No
Burke–Litwin Model	W. Warner Burke & George H. Litwin · 1992	Organizational	Diagnostic (12)	Diagnosing causes of performance before deep change	Data-heavy; causal links not fully tested	No

Kotter's 8-Step Change Model

Originator · year: John P. Kotter · 1996 / 2014
Focus: Organizational
Shape: Steps
Elements: 8
Best for: Leading large, sponsor-driven organizational change with visible momentum
Main limitation: Top-down in its 1996 form; limited empirical testing
Tells you what to do?: Yes (prescriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

ADKAR® Model

Originator · year: Jeffrey M. Hiatt (Prosci) · 1996 / 2006
Focus: Individual
Shape: Steps
Elements: 5
Best for: Diagnosing where individuals are stuck in a change
Main limitation: Individual lens; limited independent empirical validation
Tells you what to do?: Yes (prescriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

Lewin's Three-Stage Change Model

Originator · year: Kurt Lewin · 1947
Focus: Organizational
Shape: Phases
Elements: 3
Best for: Framing a discrete change as a move between stable states
Main limitation: Simplified; assumes stability; attribution debated
Tells you what to do?: Yes (prescriptive)
APMG syllabus: No

Bridges' Transition Model

Originator · year: William Bridges · 1980 / 1991
Focus: Individual
Shape: Phases
Elements: 3
Best for: Supporting people through loss and uncertainty
Main limitation: No organizational levers or timeline
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

The Change Curve (Kübler-Ross)

Originator · year: Elisabeth Kübler-Ross (adapted by practitioners) · 1969
Focus: Individual
Shape: Curve
Elements: Varies
Best for: Anticipating emotional reactions and the temporary performance dip
Main limitation: Built for dying patients; stages weakly supported
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

McKinsey 7-S Framework

Originator · year: Robert H. Waterman Jr., Thomas J. Peters & Julien R. Phillips · 1980
Focus: Organizational
Shape: Diagnostic
Elements: 7
Best for: Scoping change impacts and checking organizational alignment
Main limitation: Static and inward-looking; no method for changing
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

The Change Formula (Beckhard–Harris)

Originator · year: David Gleicher; Richard Beckhard & Reuben T. Harris · 1977
Focus: Organizational
Shape: Equation
Elements: 4
Best for: Finding the missing condition in a stalled change
Main limitation: Heuristic only; no sequencing or roles
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

Force Field Analysis

Originator · year: Kurt Lewin · 1947 / 1951
Focus: Both
Shape: Diagnostic
Elements: 2
Best for: Mapping forces for and against a change to prioritize actions
Main limitation: Subjective, static snapshot; forces interact rather than add up
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

Kelman's Three Levels of Adoption

Originator · year: Herbert C. Kelman · 1958
Focus: Individual
Shape: Diagnostic
Elements: 3
Best for: Judging whether adoption will last without outside pressure
Main limitation: Research on opinions, not organizations; no method
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

Appreciative Inquiry

Originator · year: David L. Cooperrider & Suresh Srivastva · 1987
Focus: Both
Shape: Cycle
Elements: 4
Best for: Building commitment and vision from existing strengths
Main limitation: Mostly case-study evidence; can silence real concerns
Tells you what to do?: Yes (prescriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations

Originator · year: Everett M. Rogers · 1962 (5th ed. 2003)
Focus: Both
Shape: Curve
Elements: 5
Best for: Planning whom to engage first so adoption spreads
Main limitation: Pro-innovation bias; assumes voluntary adoption
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: Yes

Satir Change Model

Originator · year: Virginia Satir · 1991
Focus: Individual
Shape: Curve
Elements: 5
Best for: Preparing people and leaders for the performance dip
Main limitation: Clinical origin; no organizational levers or planning
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: No

Nudge Theory in Change

Originator · year: Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein · 2008
Focus: Individual
Shape: Diagnostic
Elements: Varies
Best for: Supporting adoption of small, repeated behaviors
Main limitation: Debated evidence; ignores reasons for objection
Tells you what to do?: Yes (prescriptive)
APMG syllabus: No

Burke–Litwin Model

Originator · year: W. Warner Burke & George H. Litwin · 1992
Focus: Organizational
Shape: Diagnostic
Elements: 12
Best for: Diagnosing causes of performance before deep change
Main limitation: Data-heavy; causal links not fully tested
Tells you what to do?: No (descriptive)
APMG syllabus: No

Which models are most often confused?

ADKAR® vs. Kotter: what is the difference?

Kotter's eight steps describe what leaders do to move an organization: create urgency, build a guiding coalition, communicate a vision, remove barriers, generate short-term wins and anchor the change. The ADKAR® Model describes what each individual needs to reach to change: awareness, desire, knowledge, ability and reinforcement. Kotter plans the organizational sequence; ADKAR® tracks individual adoption and shows where people are stuck. They are often used together: Kotter for the program, ADKAR® to diagnose groups that lag behind.

ADKAR® Model → · Kotter's 8-Step Change Model →

Lewin vs. Kotter: what is the difference?

Lewin's three stages — unfreeze, change, refreeze — are a compact frame for any planned change, built on the idea that the current state is held in balance by opposing forces. Kotter's eight steps, published decades later, expand that logic into a detailed leadership sequence for large organizational change. Lewin is lighter and suits a clear, bounded change; Kotter adds the coalition, vision and short-term wins that a wide change usually needs.

Lewin's Three-Stage Change Model → · Kotter's 8-Step Change Model →

Bridges vs. the change curve: what is the difference?

Both describe the individual side of change. Bridges' model frames it as a psychological transition that starts with an ending, passes through an uncertain neutral zone and ends with a new beginning. The change curve, adapted from Kübler-Ross's work on grief, tracks emotional reactions and the dip in morale and performance over time. Bridges helps plan support for loss and uncertainty; the change curve helps anticipate reactions and avoid misreading the dip.

Bridges' Transition Model → · The Change Curve (Kübler-Ross) →

ADKAR® vs. Bridges: what is the difference?

Both focus on individuals, but from different angles. ADKAR® lists the outcomes a person must reach, in order, so a change manager can find the first gap and act on it. Bridges describes the inner experience of letting go of the old and adjusting to the new. ADKAR® is a diagnostic and planning tool for adoption; Bridges is a lens for the emotional work of transition. Many teams use ADKAR® to measure progress and Bridges to shape how they support people.

ADKAR® Model → · Bridges' Transition Model →

Frequently asked questions about change models

Which change management model is best?

None is best in general. Organizational models such as Kotter and Lewin sequence the change, individual models such as ADKAR® and Bridges support adoption, and diagnostic tools such as the change formula, Force Field Analysis and 7-S show where to act. Most changes combine two or three.

Which change models focus on individuals?

ADKAR®, Bridges' transition model, the change curve, Kelman's levels of adoption and the Satir change model describe what individuals go through. Kotter, Lewin, 7-S and Burke–Litwin work mainly at organizational level.

Can you combine change models?

Yes. A common combination uses an organizational model for the overall sequence, an individual model for adoption, and a diagnostic tool when the change stalls. The models complement each other because they answer different questions.

Which change models are in the APMG Change Management Foundation exam?

The APMG Change Management v3 syllabus covers, among others, ADKAR®, Force Field Analysis, Kotter's approach, Kelman's levels of adoption, the change curve, Bridges' transition model, the change formula, Appreciative Inquiry, McKinsey 7-S for impact areas and Rogers' diffusion of innovations.

Are change management models evidence-based?

Most popular change models are practitioner frameworks built from experience rather than controlled studies, and some have been criticized for that. They remain useful as shared language and planning aids. Each entry in this guide notes the model's limitations and the evidence debate where there is one.