Kotter's 8 Step Change Model
- Darlene Edgar
Expert Program Management. (2021, February 25). Kotter's 8-Step change model explained [Video]. YouTube.
Kotter's 8-Step Change Model was introduced in 1995 and consists of three phases: creating a climate for change, engaging and enabling the organization, and implementing and sustaining change.
Phase 1: Create Urgency
Convince others of the need for immediate action.
Ensure everyone understands why the change is necessary.
Phase 2: Build a Coalition
Recognize the need for influential and respected individuals to support the change.
Form a change steering group representing different parts of the organization.
Phase 3: Create a Vision
Develop a clear and easily understandable vision for the future of the organization.
Ensure all members of the coalition can articulate the vision.
Phase 4: Communicate the Vision
Effectively communicate the vision throughout the organization.
Aim to win hearts and minds and ensure everyone is pulling in the same direction.
Phase 5: Empower Others
Remove obstacles and barriers to change.
Empower the team to succeed by adjusting organizational structures, rewards systems, and identifying and addressing resistance.
Phase 6: Create Quick Wins
Structure initiatives to deliver early successes.
Break initiatives into phases with tangible benefits at the end of each.
Phase 7: Build on the Change
Reinforce change by repeating phases four through six.
Communicate the vision, empower others, and schedule quick wins regularly.
Phase 8: Embed the Change
Make the change part of the organizational systems and processes.
Integrate change into daily work routines to ensure it sticks.
Advantages of the model include its focus on obtaining buy-in from key employees, compatibility with traditional organizational structures, and clear steps through the change process.
Disadvantages include its top-down nature, potential resistance from employees, and greater emphasis on initiating rather than sustaining change.
Graves, L., Dalgarno, N., Van Hoorn, R., Hastings-Truelove, A., Mulder, J., Kolomitro, K. & van Wylick, R. (2023). Creating change: Kotter’s Change Management Model in action. Canadian Medical Education Journal. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/76680
Creating System-Level Change in Medical Education:
Objective: Address chronic pain overprescription by implementing a comprehensive pain management curriculum in medical schools.
Key Steps Taken:
Sense of Urgency and Coalition Building:
Recognized the urgency of addressing chronic pain and overprescription.
Formed a coalition involving diverse stakeholder groups from medical schools, subject matter experts (SMEs), indigenous people, Francophones, and interprofessional teams.
Vision and Initiatives:
Developed a strategic vision for the curriculum.
Outlined initiatives to guide curriculum development.
Curriculum Structure and Content Development:
Established a curriculum structure informed by previous initiatives.
Engaged subject matter experts to develop 10 modules.
Modules were reviewed by additional SMEs for accuracy and to address issues of stigma.
Short-Term Wins:
Shared competencies with medical schools and mapped them to relevant assessments.
Conducted a mid-project summit involving key partners and SMEs.
Pilot Evaluation and Feedback:
Students provided feedback during pilot evaluation meetings with curriculum leads.
Significant increases in knowledge on all learning objectives were observed.
Sustaining Acceleration:
Established a training committee to consult on the feasibility of expected competencies.
Advised on implementation strategies to integrate and sustain the new curriculum.
Consulted with the Medical Council of Canada to institutionalize the change.
Implementation and Integration:
Launched the new curriculum with faculty development programs.
Provided tools to support instructors in delivering the curriculum effectively.
Embedded new outcome-based evaluation processes to ensure alignment with objectives and ongoing improvement.
Kang, S. P., Chen, Y., Svihla, V., Gallup, A., Ferris, K., & Datye, A. K. (2022). Guiding change in higher education: An emergent, iterative application of Kotter’s change model. Studies in Higher Education, 47(2), 270-289. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10276961
Introduction:
Institutional change in higher education often fails due to various factors like ineffective leadership, faculty reluctance, financial tensions, and competing values.
Higher education institutions have unique characteristics such as shared governance, tenure systems, and multiple power structures.
Teleological change models may not be effective in higher education due to faculty autonomy and shared governance.
Application of Kotter's Change Model:
Kotter's change model was employed successfully in managing a major change process in the engineering department of a Hispanic-serving research university over four years.
Key to success was the inclusion of faculty-elected members in the guiding team to fit within the shared governance model.
Transparency and communication were vital in helping faculty understand the benefits of the change.
Short-term wins were celebrated, but they needed to be authentic to avoid demotivation.
Sustainability was ensured through ongoing professional development, aligning hiring practices with the new culture, and institutionalizing changes related to symbols, priorities, and approaches.
Implications and Conclusions:
The adaptation of Kotter's model involved interdisciplinary collaboration and an iterative approach.
Short-term wins enhanced credibility and sustained acceleration, contributing to a shift in culture and the commitment of faculty to new teaching approaches.
The combination of Design-Based Implementation Research (DBIR) with Kotter's model facilitated a nuanced understanding of the change process.
Limitations include the study being conducted in a single institution over a relatively short time span, with a focus on a Hispanic-serving research institution.
Future Directions:
Further research is needed to examine sustained changes and triangulate data across sources.
The study's findings may not be generalizable to other contexts, and future research could explore the effects of changes originating externally.
Overall, the study highlights the importance of adapting change models to the unique context of higher education, considering factors such as faculty autonomy, shared governance, and cultural norms within academic departments.