Which Change Management Model Should You Use? Kotter vs ADKAR vs Lewin vs McKinsey 7-S

Every change management professional eventually reaches the same question: which model should I actually use? The academic literature offers dozens. Consultancies promote their proprietary frameworks. Training programmes teach one or two in depth. But when you are standing in front of a leadership team about to launch a significant transformation, you need a clear understanding of what each model does, where each one excels, and what each one misses.

This article provides that understanding. It covers the four models that dominate real-world change management practice: Lewin’s Three-Stage Model, Kotter’s 8-Step Process, the ADKAR Model, and McKinsey’s 7-S Framework. For each one it explains the theory, the practical application, the strengths, the limitations, and the situations in which it works best. It then provides a comparison framework for choosing between them, and a note on how they can be combined.

By the end you will have a working knowledge of the major models and a practical decision framework for choosing the right one for your next change initiative.

---

Key Takeaways

70% Of change initiatives fail to achieve their intended outcomes, with people and culture factors cited as the primary cause in the majority of cases

4 Dominant change management models covered in this article, each with a different primary focus and best-fit scenario

Individual vs Organisational: the critical distinction that determines which model to lead with in any given change context

None Of the models is universally superior. The best change management approach combines models according to the nature and scale of the change

• No single change management model covers everything. Each one was developed for a specific kind of change challenge and has corresponding blind spots.
• Lewin’s model is the simplest and most powerful for understanding the basic psychology of change. It is a conceptual foundation, not an implementation guide.
• Kotter’s 8-Step Process is best suited to large-scale, top-down organisational transformations with strong leadership sponsorship and sufficient time for sequential execution.
• ADKAR is the most individual-focused model and the most practical tool for frontline managers and HR professionals supporting employees through change. It is the model most useful for diagnosing why individuals are resistant.
• McKinsey 7-S is uniquely useful for diagnosing organisational alignment: understanding why change is not “sticking” even when the strategy is clear and leadership is committed.
• Effective change leaders do not pick one model and apply it dogmatically. They use models as diagnostic lenses and design tools, drawing on different frameworks at different stages of the same change initiative.

---

Why Change Management Models Exist and What They Are For

Change management models are simplified representations of how organisational change works. They distil complex human and organisational dynamics into a structure that leaders and practitioners can use to plan, sequence, and monitor change efforts. None of them captures the full complexity of what happens when you try to change how an organisation or its people operate. All of them provide useful structure that prevents the most common and costly change management mistakes.

The mistake most organisations make is treating change management as a communication plan bolted onto a project timeline. Effective change management is the process of shifting mindsets, behaviours, systems, and culture so that new ways of working become the default. That requires a structured understanding of how people and organisations actually change, which is what the models provide.

The research on why change fails is consistent. Our article on building resilience during organisational change covers both the human cost of poorly managed change and the organisational resilience practices that successful change leaders build before, during, and after major transitions. Understanding why change fails is the essential context for understanding what each model is designed to prevent.

---

---

Model 1: Lewin’s Three-Stage Model (Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze)

Kurt Lewin, one of the founding figures of modern social psychology, developed his three-stage model of change in the 1940s. Despite its age, it remains the most conceptually important model in the field because it captures the fundamental psychology of human change with remarkable precision.

The Three Stages

Stage 1 Unfreeze The current state is “unfrozen” by creating the motivation to change. This involves challenging the existing status quo, creating a compelling case for change, and addressing the psychological safety concerns that make people resistant to letting go of established ways of working. Without successful unfreezing, change cannot begin. Lewin’s concept: driving forces must outweigh restraining forces before change can occur.

Stage 2 Change The transition state: new behaviours, processes, and ways of working are introduced and practised. This is the most uncertain and uncomfortable stage for most people, because it requires operating in unfamiliar ways before the new approach feels natural. Leadership support and psychological safety are most critical during this stage. This stage is where most change initiatives stall: they begin the transition but do not complete it before reverting to old patterns.

Stage 3 Refreeze The new state is stabilised and embedded. New behaviours become norms. Structures, policies, and reward systems are aligned to reinforce the new way of working. Without this stage, organisations regress: people drift back to familiar patterns because the environment still rewards the old approach even after the change has been announced. The most underinvested stage in most change programmes. Declaring success too early is one of the most common change management mistakes.

Lewin’s Force Field Analysis

Lewin also developed the Force Field Analysis tool, which is one of the most practically useful instruments in any change manager’s toolkit. It maps the “driving forces” (factors pushing towards the change) and “restraining forces” (factors pushing against it) to identify where energy should be focused. Strengthening driving forces and weakening restraining forces is more effective than simply pushing harder, because the restraining forces usually represent genuine concerns that, if unaddressed, will cause the change to fail.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths Conceptually clear and easily communicated to leaders and teams Force Field Analysis is immediately practical in diagnosis and planning Highlights the frequently neglected “refreeze” stage Universal applicability: works for individual, team, and organisational change

Limitations Does not provide a step-by-step implementation guide Assumes change is linear and sequential; complex change rarely is Does not address individual variation in change readiness The “refreeze” concept can imply more stability than modern organisations experience

Best used for: Understanding the basic psychology of change; diagnosing resistance; communicating the change rationale to senior leaders unfamiliar with change management concepts.

---

Model 2: Kotter’s 8-Step Process for Leading Change

John Kotter’s 8-Step Process, first published in his 1996 book “Leading Change,” is the most widely referenced change management model in corporate settings. It was developed from Kotter’s research into why large-scale organisational transformations succeed or fail, and it provides a sequential process designed to build and sustain momentum through a complex change initiative.

The Eight Steps

#	Step	What It Addresses	Most Common Mistake
1	Create a sense of urgency	Establishing why the status quo is no longer viable and why change is needed now	Manufacturing urgency without genuine data; people see through it immediately and become cynical
2	Build a guiding coalition	Assembling a group of senior leaders with the authority, credibility, and commitment to drive change	Coalition of senior titles without genuine conviction; one dissenting executive can undermine the whole programme
3	Form a strategic vision and initiatives	Creating a clear, compelling picture of the future state and the specific initiatives that will get there	Vision statements that are abstract, forgettable, or disconnected from the lived reality of the people expected to deliver them
4	Enlist a volunteer army	Building a broad coalition of people across the organisation who are invested in making the change succeed	Relying only on the senior coalition; change requires advocates at every level of the organisation
5	Enable action by removing barriers	Identifying and removing the structural, process, and cultural obstacles that prevent people from acting on the change	Asking people to change how they work without removing the systems, processes, or incentives that reward the old behaviour
6	Generate short-term wins	Creating visible, early successes that demonstrate progress, build confidence, and neutralise critics	Waiting too long for the “big win” while resistance builds; small, early victories are essential for maintaining momentum
7	Sustain acceleration	Using early wins as a springboard for deeper, broader change rather than declaring victory prematurely	Declaring success after early wins and withdrawing leadership attention before change is embedded
8	Institute change	Anchoring new behaviours and approaches in the organisation’s culture, structures, and succession decisions	Embedding change in documents and policies without changing the cultural norms and leadership behaviours that determine what is actually valued

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths Provides a clear, sequenced roadmap that leaders can follow Strong on leadership-driven change and top-down transformation The “short-term wins” step is practically powerful and often overlooked Widely recognised, making it easy to get leadership buy-in for the approach Updated 2014 version adds a more fluid, parallel-running approach

Limitations Primarily top-down: less effective for change that needs grassroots ownership Sequential steps can be too rigid for fast-moving or complex change Does not provide a tool for diagnosing individual resistance Assumes sustained leadership attention that is often unavailable in practice Less useful for culture change where the mechanism is diffuse rather than led

Best used for: Large-scale, top-down transformation programmes with strong executive sponsorship, a clear future-state vision, and sufficient time for a phased approach.

---

Model 3: The ADKAR Model

ADKAR, developed by Jeff Hiatt and Prosci, stands for Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement. It is the only major change management model that is explicitly built from the individual perspective rather than the organisational perspective. This makes it uniquely useful for HR professionals, L&D leaders, and frontline managers who are responsible for supporting people through change rather than leading it from the top.

The fundamental premise of ADKAR is that organisational change only happens when individuals change, and that individuals move through five sequential building blocks. If any one building block is missing or weak, the individual will not successfully make the transition, regardless of how well the organisational change is led.

The Five Building Blocks

A Awareness Understanding why the change is necessary and what happens if it does not occur. Without awareness of the need, there is no foundation for motivation.

D Desire Personal motivation to support and engage with the change. Desire cannot be mandated. It must be created through addressing what is in it for the individual.

K Knowledge Understanding how to change: the skills, processes, behaviours, and systems that the new way of working requires. Training primarily addresses this building block.

A Ability The demonstrated capability to implement the change with the required level of performance. Knowledge of what to do is different from the ability to do it under real working conditions.

R Reinforcement The mechanisms that sustain the change: recognition, rewards, accountability structures, and consequences that make the new way of working the path of least resistance.

ADKAR as a Diagnostic Tool

The most powerful application of ADKAR in practice is as a diagnostic framework for understanding why specific individuals or groups are not adopting the change. When someone is resistant, the ADKAR model helps identify precisely where the barrier lies:

• If they do not understand why the change is happening: the gap is at Awareness. Address with communication, not training.
• If they understand but do not want to change: the gap is at Desire. Address with involvement, personal benefit framing, or addressing legitimate concerns, not with more information.
• If they want to change but do not know how: the gap is at Knowledge. Address with training and coaching.
• If they know how but cannot yet do it consistently: the gap is at Ability. Address with practice, feedback, and performance support tools.
• If they can do it but keep reverting to old habits: the gap is at Reinforcement. Address with accountability structures, recognition, and removing incentives for the old behaviour.

This diagnostic precision is what makes ADKAR the most practically useful model for managers and HR professionals working with individuals and teams. It prevents the most common intervention error in change management: delivering training to solve a problem that is actually a Desire or Reinforcement gap.

The connection between ADKAR’s Reinforcement stage and the learning and development infrastructure that supports it is explored in our article on how to drive behavioural change through training. And the broader accountability structures that sustain Reinforcement are covered in our article on how to foster accountability with practical templates and frameworks.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths The only major model that starts from the individual’s perspective Outstanding diagnostic tool for pinpointing where resistance lies Prevents the common mistake of using training to solve a motivation problem Practical for HR, L&D, and frontline managers, not just senior change leaders Widely used, extensively validated, and supported by research data from Prosci

Limitations Does not address organisational systems, culture, or structure Assumes change is linear; individual change is rarely as tidy as the model implies Less useful for systemic or whole-organisation transformation planning Full Prosci methodology requires certification and toolkits that carry a cost

Best used for: Diagnosing individual resistance; designing targeted change interventions for specific groups; supporting frontline managers in having productive change conversations with their teams.

---

---

Model 4: McKinsey 7-S Framework

The McKinsey 7-S Framework, developed by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman at McKinsey in the early 1980s and later refined by Richard Pascale and Anthony Athos, takes a fundamentally different approach from the three models above. Rather than providing a process for leading change, it provides a diagnostic lens for understanding organisational alignment: whether the seven key elements of an organisation are aligned with each other, and whether they support the intended change.

The model identifies seven elements, divided into “hard” elements (Strategy, Structure, Systems) that are relatively tangible and easy to change, and “soft” elements (Shared Values, Skills, Style, Staff) that are harder to define but often more powerful in determining outcomes.

Element	Type	What It Covers	Change Management Implication
Strategy	Hard	The plan for achieving competitive advantage and organisational goals	Does the change align with strategy? Does strategy need to change as part of the initiative?
Structure	Hard	How the organisation is divided, organised, and coordinated	Does the current structure enable or hinder the change? Are reporting lines and decision rights aligned with the new way of working?
Systems	Hard	The formal and informal processes by which the organisation operates: workflows, IT systems, performance management, reward structures	Are the systems rewarding the old behaviour? Does the IT infrastructure support the new way of working?
Shared Values	Soft	The core values and culture that guide organisational behaviour. At the centre of the model: all other elements align around shared values.	Does the change align with stated values? Is the culture ready for this change? Are values being lived or merely stated?
Skills	Soft	The capabilities and competencies that exist within the organisation	Does the workforce have the skills the change requires? Where are the critical capability gaps?
Style	Soft	The leadership approach and management style that characterises the organisation	Does the leadership style model and support the change? Are leaders walking the talk?
Staff	Soft	The people in the organisation, their capabilities, development needs, and how they are recruited, retained, and developed	Does the organisation have the right people? Are talent management processes aligned with the future direction?

Using 7-S as a Change Diagnostic

The central insight of the 7-S model is that all seven elements must be aligned for change to stick. The most common reason that well-planned change initiatives fail is that two or three elements are changed (typically Strategy, Structure, and Systems) while the soft elements remain unchanged. The culture continues to reward the old behaviour. Leaders continue to operate in the old style. Skills are not developed to match the new requirements. The change is announced and then gradually undermined by an environment that is still shaped for the old way of working.

The 7-S framework is most powerful as a diagnostic used before a change initiative begins, to identify misalignment that will create resistance, and after implementation has stalled, to identify which elements are holding the change back.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths The only model that explicitly addresses the full range of organisational elements affecting change Outstanding for diagnosing why change is not embedding even when the process has been followed Forces attention to the soft elements that most change plans underinvest in Useful across mergers, restructuring, cultural change, and strategic pivots

Limitations Does not provide a process for implementing change, only a framework for diagnosing alignment The soft elements are difficult to assess objectively and harder to change deliberately Can generate a large and complex diagnosis without clear prioritisation of where to act More useful at the strategic or executive level than at the team or individual level

Best used for: Pre-change alignment diagnosis; post-implementation review of why change has not embedded; mergers and acquisitions integration planning; culture change initiatives.

---

How to Choose: A Practical Decision Framework

The question is not which model is best. It is which model is best for your specific change, at this specific moment, with these specific constraints. The following guide provides a practical starting point for that decision.

Your Primary Change Challenge	Lead With	Rationale
Communicating why change is necessary to resistant stakeholders	Lewin + Force Field	Force Field Analysis maps the specific concerns and motivators of resistant stakeholders, enabling targeted communication rather than generic messages
Leading a large-scale transformation with executive sponsorship	Kotter 8-Step	Provides the sequential leadership roadmap needed for complex, multi-year transformation with visible senior ownership
Diagnosing why specific individuals or teams are not adopting the change	ADKAR	ADKAR identifies the specific building block where resistance is located, enabling a targeted intervention rather than a generic communication or training response
Understanding why a change initiative is stalling despite leadership commitment	McKinsey 7-S	7-S diagnoses misalignment between strategy and the organisational elements that determine whether change actually embeds in practice
A merger, acquisition, or whole-company restructuring	Kotter + 7-S	Kotter provides the leadership process; 7-S provides the alignment diagnostic. Together they address both the “how to lead it” and the “why it might not stick” questions
Building a training and development plan for a team going through change	ADKAR	ADKAR’s Knowledge and Ability stages provide the clearest framework for designing training that addresses actual gaps rather than assumed ones

The most effective change management practitioners do not pick one model. They use Lewin to explain the psychological landscape of change to their leadership team, ADKAR to diagnose individual and team readiness, Kotter to structure the leadership activities and communication plan, and 7-S to audit whether the organisational environment supports the change they are trying to make.

---

---

Beyond the Four Models: Other Frameworks Worth Knowing

The four models above cover the majority of change management practice, but several other frameworks are worth knowing for specific contexts.

Bridges’ Transition Model distinguishes between change (the external event) and transition (the internal psychological process people go through). It is particularly useful for helping teams understand and normalise the emotional experience of change, including the frequently difficult “neutral zone” between endings and new beginnings. Our article on how to rebuild trust in low morale teams addresses many of the emotional dynamics that Bridges’ model illuminates.

The Satir Change Model provides a more granular picture of the emotional curve people typically experience through change: from late status quo through chaos and integration to a new status quo. It is particularly useful for leaders who need to understand why performance typically drops before it rises during significant change, and why this is normal rather than a sign that the change is failing.

Nudge Theory, developed by Thaler and Sunstein, provides a complementary lens for designing the environmental conditions that make new behaviours easier to adopt. Rather than relying on people to consciously choose the new behaviour, nudge theory focuses on designing the default: making the right choice the easiest choice. This has practical applications in change management particularly relevant to the Reinforcement stage of ADKAR and the Systems element of 7-S.

---

Conclusion: Use Models as Lenses, Not Recipes

The temptation in change management is to find the right model and follow it. The reality is that effective change management requires a diagnostic mindset: using models as lenses to see different aspects of a complex situation more clearly, and then designing interventions that address what each lens reveals.

Lewin helps you understand the basic psychology. Kotter gives you the leadership roadmap. ADKAR helps you target your interventions. 7-S tells you whether the organisational environment will sustain what you are building. Together, they provide a more complete picture of what successful change requires than any single model can offer alone.

The investment in understanding these frameworks is significant. But it is a fraction of the cost of launching a change initiative without one.

Related reading: Change management and learning agility are closely linked: organisations that change most successfully are those whose people are most capable of learning quickly from new experiences. Our article on why learning agility is the secret weapon in digital transformation explores this connection in depth, providing practical frameworks for building the adaptive capability that makes all change management more effective.

---

---