The Change Curve (Kübler-Ross)

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, a Swiss-American psychiatrist, described five stages in *On Death and Dying* (1969), based on interviews with terminally ill patients: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The stages were later applied to bereavement more broadly.

In later decades, consultants and trainers borrowed the sequence to describe how employees react to organizational change, drawing it as a curve of morale or performance over time. Kübler-Ross did not design the model for organizations, and the organizational versions are adaptations rather than her own work.

The change curve is therefore a borrowed metaphor: useful for anticipating reactions, but not a finding about workplaces.

Several variants exist, with five to seven stages and different labels. Some keep Kübler-Ross's terms; others use words such as shock, frustration, experiment, decision and integration. This guide uses one blended set:

1. Shock and denial. The change is announced. People freeze, play down its impact or carry on as before. Performance can hold up briefly.
2. Anger. As the change becomes real, frustration and blame appear.
3. Bargaining. People try to delay the change, limit its scope or negotiate exceptions.
4. Depression. Morale and performance reach their lowest point: the dip.
5. Acceptance and exploration. People start to test the new way and find what works.
6. Commitment. The new way becomes normal and performance recovers, often above its earlier level.

The change curve is therefore read along two axes, time and morale or performance, rather than as a checklist of emotions.

At Brightwater Health, outpatient clinics are moving to a new booking system. The change team uses the curve to plan support rather than to label people:

• Before go-live: brief managers that a dip is normal, so they do not treat early frustration as failure. Plan extra capacity for the weeks after launch.
• Shock and denial: give clear, repeated information about what changes and when. Do not expect early enthusiasm.
• Anger and bargaining: listen and record objections. Some will point to real flaws in the design.
• Depression: offer hands-on help at the desk, protect workloads and make progress visible.
• Exploration and commitment: share quick wins, invite tips from staff who have adapted and recognize effort.

Different people will be at different points at the same time, so the team checks where each group is rather than assuming one position for all.

The change curve is most useful as a planning aid for support and timing, not as a diagnosis of individuals.

The curve's strength is that it normalizes difficult reactions and warns leaders to expect a temporary dip instead of panicking. Its limits are real, though.

• Weak evidence for fixed stages. Grief researchers have questioned whether people move through distinct stages at all. Maciejewski and colleagues (2007) found acceptance was the most common response from the start, though the indicators peaked roughly in the predicted order, and Stroebe, Schut and Boerner (2017) warned against applying stage models to bereaved people.
• Not built for organizations. The source material concerns dying patients, not employees facing a new system or structure.
• Variants disagree. Labels and the number of stages differ between versions, so the curve is a family of models rather than one.
• Not linear. People can skip stages, move back or stay at one point. Kübler-Ross and Kessler later wrote that the stages are not stops on a linear timeline (On Grief and Grieving, 2005).
• Risk of labeling. Telling someone they are "in denial" can dismiss valid concerns.

The change curve is therefore best used as a loose map of likely reactions, combined with real feedback from the people affected.