The Commitment Escalator
The commitment escalator is an image of stakeholders moving step by step through rising levels of engagement with a change, from first awareness through understanding and acceptance to commitment. The commitment escalator draws on Daryl Conner's work on the commitment curve and helps a change team set engagement goals and matching communication for each stakeholder group.
Quick facts
- Type
- Stakeholder engagement concept (staged progression)
- Origin
- Commitment curve of Daryl Conner and Robert Patterson (1982), developed in Conner's Managing at the Speed of Change (1993)
- Used when
- Setting engagement objectives per stakeholder group and choosing how to communicate with each
- Related models
- Kelman's levels of adoption, stakeholder mapping, know–feel–do objectives
- Exam relevance
- APMG CM Foundation, Stakeholders & Communication (SC0204)
Model at a glance
- Awareness — people know that a change is coming
- Understanding — people grasp what the change means for them
- Acceptance — people view the change positively and are willing to try it
- Commitment — people act on the change and take ownership of it
What is the commitment escalator?
The commitment escalator pictures commitment to a change as something built in steps rather than switched on by an announcement. Each step rests on the one below: people cannot accept a change they do not understand, and they cannot understand one they have not heard about.
The diagram on this page uses a generic four-step sequence of awareness, understanding, acceptance and commitment. It is a simplified illustration drawn from the wider literature, not the escalator stages used in the APMG course text.
The image has two practical consequences. Communication goals differ by step, so one message cannot serve every group. And pushing a group straight to action without the earlier steps tends to produce shallow compliance.
The commitment escalator is therefore a way to plan engagement as a progression, not a single event.
Where does the idea of a commitment escalator come from?
The idea is usually traced to the commitment curve of Daryl Conner and Robert Patterson, published in 1982 and developed in Conner's book *Managing at the Speed of Change* (1993).
Conner's curve groups its stages into three phases, preparation, acceptance and commitment, and marks points where commitment can fail, such as unawareness, confusion or a negative perception of the change.
Later research looked at the nature of commitment itself. Lynne Herscovitch and John Meyer distinguished commitment to a change based on belief in its value, on a sense of obligation and on the cost of not supporting it, and found that the first two were linked to stronger support than the third.
The commitment escalator therefore has a practitioner origin, with research that refines what "commitment" means.
How do you use the commitment escalator with stakeholders?
- Set a target step for each group. Not everyone needs to reach the top. At Harbourside Council, the finance team needs awareness of a new service centre; the staff who will work there need commitment.
- Assess where each group is now, through conversations, pulse surveys and line leaders' feedback.
- Match the engagement to the step. One-way messages build awareness. Briefings and questions build understanding. Dialogue and addressing concerns build acceptance. Involvement in design and visible ownership build commitment.
- Review progress and adjust when a group stalls or slips back.
Know–feel–do objectives help describe each target step in concrete terms.
Used this way, the commitment escalator links the stakeholder map to the communication plan.
What are the limitations of the commitment escalator?
- It looks more linear than people are. Stakeholders move down as well as up, and can sit at different steps for different parts of the same change.
- Commitment comes in kinds. Herscovitch and Meyer's work suggests that support out of obligation or fear of the consequences differs from support out of conviction, while the escalator shows one kind.
- Steps are hard to measure. The line between understanding and acceptance is a judgment, so ratings are prompts for planning, not data.
- Variants differ. Authors use different numbers and names of steps, which makes it easy to mix up versions.
The commitment escalator is therefore best used as a planning aid, checked against what stakeholders actually say and do.
Commitment escalator vs. Kelman's levels of adoption: what is the difference?
| Commitment escalator | Kelman's levels of adoption | |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Practitioner models traced to Conner and Patterson's commitment curve | Herbert C. Kelman (1958), research on attitude change |
| What it describes | How commitment to a change builds over time | Why a person accepts influence |
| Structure | Steps climbed in sequence | Three processes ordered by depth: compliance, identification, internalization |
| Main use | Plan engagement and communication by step | Judge whether a behavior will last without pressure |
The commitment escalator describes the route to commitment; Kelman's levels describe the depth and basis of acceptance, so the two are often used together.
Exam focus
At Foundation level (SC0204), expect comprehension that commitment builds in stages and that engagement objectives differ by stage. The exam uses the course text's own escalator stages; learn them from the official study guide rather than from the generic sequence on this page. A common trap assumes every stakeholder must reach full commitment, or treats awareness of a change as acceptance of it.
Practise this syllabus area →FAQ
What is the commitment curve in change management?
The commitment curve is a model, usually credited to Daryl Conner and Robert Patterson, of how people move from first contact with a change through awareness and understanding to acceptance and lasting commitment. It also marks points where commitment can fail, such as confusion or a negative perception of the change.
What are the stages of the commitment escalator?
Versions differ. A common generic sequence runs from awareness to understanding, acceptance and commitment. Conner's commitment curve has more stages within three phases. Candidates for the APMG exam should learn the stages from the official study guide, because the exam uses that text's version.
Does every stakeholder need to reach commitment?
No. The target step depends on the group's role in the change. People who must work the new way need commitment, while groups only indirectly affected may need awareness or understanding. Setting a realistic target per group saves effort and keeps engagement focused.
How do you move stakeholders up the commitment escalator?
Match the engagement to the step. Broadcast messages build awareness, briefings and question sessions build understanding, dialogue that addresses concerns builds acceptance, and involvement in design and decisions builds commitment. Check progress regularly and expect some groups to slip back.
Sources
- Conner, D. R. & Patterson, R. W. (1982). Building Commitment to Organizational Change. Training and Development Journal, 36(4), 18–26, 28–30.
- Conner, D. R. (1993). Managing at the Speed of Change: How Resilient Managers Succeed and Prosper Where Others Fail. Villard Books.
- Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to Organizational Change: Extension of a Three-Component Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–487.
- APMG International — Change Management certification (syllabus topic SC0204)
- Last reviewed