Mohammad T Islam (BSc, MBA, MEd)

Organisations today face constant technological, economic, and cultural disruptions. To survive and thrive, they must adapt rapidly and effectively. Yet research consistently shows that most change initiatives fail, with estimates suggesting that up to 70% of organisational change efforts do not achieve their intended outcomes (Kotter, 2012). A key reason for this high failure rate is inadequate assessment of change readiness—the extent to which an organisation’s people, systems, and structures are prepared to adopt and sustain new ways of working. A Change Readiness Assessment (CRA) provides a structured way to evaluate the organisation’s preparedness before initiating a transformation. By examining dimensions such as leadership alignment, cultural openness, and resource allocation, organisations can identify potential barriers early and design interventions to increase the likelihood of success (Cameron & Green, 2015). This article explores the concept of CRA, its theoretical underpinnings, practical applications, and its critical role in organisational success. 1.0 Defining Change Readiness Change readiness refers to the collective willingness and capacity of an organisation to implement and sustain change initiatives. Holt et al. (2007) define it as a shared resolve of members to implement change and a belief in their collective ability to do so. It is not simply about whether individuals are open to change, but whether the entire system—people, culture, leadership, and resources—is aligned and capable of supporting the transformation. According to Vakola (2013), readiness must be understood at multiple levels: individual, team, and organisational. Employees may resist change if they lack skills or trust in leadership, while organisations may struggle if they lack resources, infrastructure, or strategic alignment. Thus, readiness is both a psychological state (beliefs and attitudes) and a structural condition (processes, resources, and leadership). 2.0 Dimensions of Change Readiness A comprehensive Change Readiness Assessment typically evaluates several interrelated dimensions: 2.1 Leadership Alignment Leadership plays a pivotal role in change success. Leaders must not only endorse the change but also model the desired behaviours and provide consistent communication (Holt et al., 2010). Misalignment among top leaders can send mixed signals, leading to confusion and resistance. Research shows that trustful and unified leadership is a key determinant of successful change implementation (Tasleem et al., 2023). Example: In the Abu Dhabi Police, Al Shamsi (2025) found that technological transformation efforts were hindered when leadership did not present a consistent vision. Through readiness assessments, leadership gaps were identified and addressed, enabling more effective digital adoption. 2.2 Cultural Openness and Organisational Climate An organisation’s culture—its values, norms, and collective behaviours—can either facilitate or obstruct change. A culture that supports openness, collaboration, and innovation is more likely to embrace change (Rusly, Corner & Sun, 2012). Conversely, rigid, risk-averse cultures often resist transformation (Vakola, 2013). According to Suwaryo et al. (2016), organisational commitment and a culture of trust are significant predictors of readiness. Similarly, Guerrero and Kim (2013) highlight that cultural competence and inclusivity are essential for organisations undergoing demographic or technological changes. Example: A multinational healthcare organisation studied by Caldwell, Chatman and O’Reilly (2008) demonstrated that cultural alignment was crucial for successfully implementing strategic reforms. Where staff felt alienated, resistance grew; where culture supported learning and innovation, change efforts were more sustainable. 2.3 Resource Allocation and Infrastructure Even if employees and leaders are motivated, change initiatives often fail due to insufficient resources—financial, technological, or human (Benzer et al., 2017). Effective readiness assessments evaluate whether the organisation has the capacity to allocate time, funds, and skilled personnel to support change without jeopardising ongoing operations. As Willis et al. (2016) observe in healthcare settings, aligning resources with strategic priorities is vital to sustaining cultural and procedural change. Without appropriate investment, employees may perceive change efforts as unrealistic or tokenistic, undermining trust and motivation. 2.4 Employee Readiness and Capability At the individual level, readiness involves an employee’s belief in the necessity of change, confidence in their ability to implement it, and perception of organisational support (Holt et al., 2007). Training, communication, and involvement in decision-making all increase readiness (Choi & Ruona, 2011). Example: Al Shamsi (2025) found that many officers within the Abu Dhabi Police lacked adequate training to use new digital platforms, which initially led to resistance. By identifying this gap early through a readiness assessment, the organisation was able to design targeted capacity-building programmes that improved adoption rates. 3.0 Theoretical Foundations Several frameworks inform the practice of readiness assessments: Armenakis and Harris’s (2002) model identifies five key components of readiness: discrepancy (need for change), appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and personal valence. Holt et al.’s (2007) readiness scale operationalises readiness across content, process, context, and individuals, making it a widely used diagnostic tool in both research and practice. Denison and Hooijberg (2012) argue that change readiness depends heavily on aligning organisational culture with strategy, highlighting adaptability, involvement, and mission clarity as crucial cultural dimensions. These frameworks emphasise that readiness is not a static condition but a dynamic capability that can be strengthened through deliberate action. 4.0 Practical Applications of Change Readiness Assessments 4.1 Early Warning System Readiness assessments act as diagnostic tools that highlight potential barriers before they derail transformation. By identifying gaps in skills, leadership support, or resource availability, organisations can mitigate risks and design tailored interventions (Miake-Lye et al., 2020). 4.2 Guiding Interventions The insights from readiness assessments inform change management strategies. For instance, if cultural resistance is detected, leaders may need to implement communication campaigns, workshops, or participatory decision-making processes to build buy-in (Tasleem et al., 2023). 4.3 Enhancing Employee Engagement Assessments can uncover employees’ emotional readiness for change, which is often overlooked. By addressing fears, clarifying expectations, and recognising contributions, organisations can foster commitment and motivation (Choi & Ruona, 2011). 4.4 Case Example – Abu Dhabi Police Al Shamsi (2025) provides a practical example where the Abu Dhabi Police used readiness assessments during a digital transformation initiative. The assessment revealed training gaps and cultural barriers that could have undermined the project. By addressing these proactively through training and leadership development, the organisation improved adoption and reduced resistance. 5.0 Challenges in Conducting Readiness Assessments Despite their value, CRAs face … Read more

Stakeholder analysis and engagement are critical to the success of organisational change initiatives. Stakeholders are individuals or groups with a vested interest in, or influence over, a project, programme, or transformation (Freeman, 1984). Their perceptions, expectations, and levels of support or resistance significantly affect outcomes. By systematically analysing stakeholders, managers can identify power dynamics, interests, and potential areas of resistance, enabling the design of tailored strategies to foster alignment. Equally important, engaging stakeholders through inclusive participation, co-design, and communication builds legitimacy, ownership, and commitment to change. This article examines theories, practices, and real-world applications of stakeholder analysis and engagement, with particular reference to healthcare digitalisation and corporate transformation. Stakeholder Analysis: Frameworks and Tools Stakeholder analysis involves identifying, categorising, and prioritising stakeholders. A widely cited model is the power-interest matrix, which maps stakeholders by their influence over, and interest in, a change initiative (Cameron and Green, 2015). Those with high power and high interest must be engaged closely, while those with low power and low interest may require minimal attention. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) developed the salience model, which evaluates stakeholders based on power, legitimacy, and urgency. This helps organisations prioritise which stakeholders to address first, especially under resource constraints. Similarly, Scholes and Clutterbuck (1998) highlight the importance of identifying opinion leaders within stakeholder networks, as these actors can either accelerate or block acceptance of change. In corporate practice, Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan demonstrated how structured stakeholder mapping across regulators, investors, employees, and NGOs enabled the company to balance conflicting demands while securing broad legitimacy (Unilever, 2019). By anticipating stakeholder concerns, Unilever avoided reputational risks and embedded sustainability within its business model. Stakeholder Engagement: From Communication to Co-Creation Stakeholder engagement extends beyond consultation to include co-design and co-creation. Traditional approaches often relied on one-way communication, where leaders disseminated information to stakeholders. However, contemporary perspectives stress dialogue, participation, and empowerment (Greenhalgh et al., 2016). Engagement is now seen as a relational process where stakeholders co-create value, knowledge, and solutions. Recent scholarship emphasises healthcare digitalisation as a prime context for stakeholder engagement. For example, Laurisz et al. (2023) found that involving clinicians, patients, and managers in co-creating digital services under the “Healthcare 4.0” paradigm led to greater adoption rates and sustainability. Similarly, Wentzel, Van Limburg and Karreman (2012) showed that co-creation in antibiotic stewardship programmes increased compliance and reduced resistance from medical staff. Corporate examples further illustrate this. Microsoft’s transformation under Satya Nadella involved engaging employees as change partners, not just recipients. By promoting a growth mindset and inclusive dialogue, the company overcame cultural resistance and achieved sustained performance gains (Takahashi and Takahashi, 2022). Stakeholder Engagement in Healthcare: Co-Creation in Action Healthcare is increasingly shaped by multi-stakeholder ecosystems where patients, providers, regulators, and technology companies intersect. Engagement is essential to navigate this complexity. Claessens et al. (2022) proposed a co-creation roadmap for sustainable healthcare quality, highlighting the need for early involvement of clinicians to avoid implementation failures. Similarly, Tončinić et al. (2020) evaluated digital platforms enabling patients, clinicians, and researchers to co-design healthcare innovations, demonstrating enhanced usability and acceptance. Digital transformation initiatives often fail when frontline clinicians feel excluded. Garmann-Johnsen, Helmersen and Eikebrokk (2018) showed that web 2.0 tools enabling staff contributions fostered ownership of digital change processes. This is consistent with Janamian and Crossland (2016), who developed a framework for value co-creation in primary care, stressing patient inclusion in service design. Beyond adoption, engagement fosters trust. In vaccine development and distribution, engaging communities through transparent dialogue reduced hesitancy and built public trust in science (Best, Moffett and McAdam, 2019). This example shows that co-production of legitimacy is as important as technical success. Corporate Transformation and Stakeholder Legitimacy In the corporate sector, stakeholder engagement enhances legitimacy during major transformations. Unilever, as noted, engaged NGOs and consumers in shaping its sustainability strategy. Similarly, Schiavone, Leone and Sorrentino (2020) demonstrated that co-creation in healthcare networks improved service experiences and stakeholder satisfaction. By analogy, corporations engaging customers in product innovation co-create shared value and reduce resistance. Large-scale digital business models in healthcare and beyond require engaging multiple stakeholders simultaneously. Schiavone, Mancini and Leone (2021) described how ridesharing-based healthcare models required alignment between patients, regulators, and service providers to function effectively. Without active engagement, conflicting interests could stall innovation. Challenges and Limitations While beneficial, stakeholder engagement poses challenges. First, it can be time-consuming and resource-intensive (Greenhalgh et al., 2016). Achieving consensus among diverse stakeholders may delay implementation. Second, power imbalances can marginalise certain voices, particularly patients in healthcare or lower-level employees in corporations (Aflaki and Lindh, 2023). To mitigate this, managers must ensure equitable participation mechanisms. Third, engagement without genuine influence risks tokenism. Stakeholders may feel disillusioned if their input does not affect outcomes (Carlini et al., 2024). Therefore, transparency about the scope of influence is vital. Finally, engagement must adapt to cultural contexts. What works in a European healthcare system may not translate directly to Asian or African contexts due to differing stakeholder expectations and power structures (Nudurupati et al., 2015). Effective stakeholder analysis and engagement are indispensable for change success. By mapping power, interest, and salience, managers can anticipate resistance and design responsive strategies. By moving from consultation to co-creation, organisations foster trust, legitimacy, and adoption. Evidence from healthcare digitalisation demonstrates how engaging clinicians, patients, and policymakers increases sustainability, while corporate cases such as Unilever illustrate the strategic value of inclusive engagement in building legitimacy. Nevertheless, challenges such as resource constraints, power imbalances, and risks of tokenism require careful management. Ultimately, stakeholder engagement is not just a management tool but a governance imperative for sustainable transformation in both healthcare and corporate contexts. References Aflaki, I.N. and Lindh, M. (2023). Empowering first-line managers as change leaders towards co-creation culture: the role of facilitated sensemaking. Public Money & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.2007636. Best, B., Moffett, S. and McAdam, R. (2019). Stakeholder salience in public sector value co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), pp.1595–1615. Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2015). Making Sense of Change Management. 4th ed. Kogan Page. Carlini, J., Muir, R. and McLaren-Kennedy, A. (2024). Transforming health-care … Read more

In today’s dynamic organisational landscape, effective change management remains a central challenge for leaders. Traditional models such as Lewin’s unfreeze–change–refreeze and Kotter’s 8-Step Process primarily emphasise organisational structures and leadership actions. However, Jeff Hiatt (2006) introduced the ADKAR model, which shifts the focus from organisational systems to the individual’s experience of change. This model proposes that transformation only succeeds when individuals transition effectively through five stages: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). This article critically explores the ADKAR model, highlighting its practical applications, strengths, and limitations. Contemporary examples from healthcare, higher education, and IT system rollouts illustrate its relevance, while scholarly perspectives examine its enduring contribution to change management theory and practice. 1.0 Awareness of the Need for Change The first stage of ADKAR emphasises the necessity of creating awareness of why change is required. Without understanding the rationale, employees are likely to resist (Hiatt, 2006). Awareness is built through transparent communication and linking change to organisational survival or improvement. For example, in healthcare settings, Hopkinson (2024) reported that applying ADKAR principles to continuous glucose monitoring adoption helped clinicians understand the urgency of technological change in improving patient safety. Similarly, in IT rollouts, awareness campaigns clarify how new systems enhance efficiency, reducing scepticism among staff (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). Creating awareness ensures employees are not only informed but also convinced that change is necessary, laying the foundation for subsequent adoption. 2.0 Desire to Support the Change Awareness alone is insufficient; individuals must develop desire to engage with and support the change. This stage acknowledges the emotional dimension of transformation. Leaders must connect change initiatives to personal motivators such as career growth, recognition, or alignment with values. Memana (2025) highlighted that ADKAR aligns with ethical and participatory approaches, which enhance employee motivation by fostering inclusivity and respect. In higher education, case studies show that when faculty perceive change as supporting student success and institutional reputation, they are more likely to commit actively (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). By addressing intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, the desire stage transforms passive awareness into active commitment. 3.0 Knowledge of How to Change Even motivated employees cannot change without the knowledge of what to do differently. The third stage involves providing training, resources, and guidance to ensure employees understand processes, systems, and skills required. For example, in enterprise resource planning (ERP) rollouts, organisations often fail when employees lack knowledge of system functionalities (Somers & Nelson, 2001). ADKAR addresses this gap by emphasising structured training programmes tailored to diverse learning styles. In academic contexts, knowledge-building occurs through workshops and peer learning, enabling cultural transformations such as inclusive teaching practices (Kezar, 2014). Knowledge provision bridges the gap between motivation and action. 4.0 Ability to Implement Behaviours While knowledge is critical, employees must also possess the ability to apply it in practice. This stage recognises that capability requires experience, resources, and feedback. Common barriers include lack of confidence, inadequate support, or restrictive organisational structures. In healthcare reforms, Dube et al. (2025) observed that training medical staff in competency frameworks was ineffective without opportunities for practice and feedback. Similarly, IT transitions often stall when employees are denied sufficient time to adapt. ADKAR emphasises mentoring, coaching, and incremental practice to ensure knowledge translates into consistent behaviour. Ability reflects the moment when change becomes operational reality. 5.0 Reinforcement to Sustain Outcomes The final stage of ADKAR underscores the importance of reinforcement to prevent regression. Reinforcement mechanisms include recognition, rewards, cultural embedding, and continuous monitoring. Hiatt and Creasey (2012) note that reinforcement sustains behavioural change by making it part of organisational norms. For example, in higher education, reinforcement occurs when performance evaluations align with new pedagogical standards. In IT system rollouts, ongoing helpdesks and rewards for early adopters encourage long-term commitment. Reinforcement ensures change is not temporary but becomes a sustained transformation embedded within organisational culture. Strengths of the ADKAR Model The ADKAR model’s greatest strength lies in its focus on the individual. Unlike structural approaches, it acknowledges that organisational change is the aggregate of individual transitions. This person-centred orientation fosters employee engagement and psychological safety. Second, its diagnostic capability allows leaders to identify where change initiatives fail—whether due to lack of awareness, motivation, skills, or reinforcement (Hiatt, 2006). This practical clarity makes ADKAR widely used in consulting and corporate training. Third, ADKAR aligns with modern calls for ethical and participatory change management. Memana (2025) emphasises its contribution to sustainable outcomes by integrating employee voices rather than imposing top-down directives. Critiques and Limitations Despite its strengths, scholars note limitations. Critics argue that ADKAR overemphasises the individual, sometimes neglecting structural and systemic barriers such as organisational politics, culture, or external constraints (Burnes, 2017). Additionally, the model is perceived as linear, while in reality, change is often iterative and cyclical (By, 2005). Employees may move back and forth across stages rather than progressing sequentially. Finally, ADKAR requires substantial leadership commitment to personalised interventions, which may be resource-intensive in large organisations. Without such investment, its principles risk superficial application. Practical Applications IT System Rollouts: Hiatt & Creasey (2012) demonstrated that ADKAR can diagnose resistance points—such as lack of awareness or insufficient training—allowing targeted interventions. Healthcare Transformation: Hopkinson (2024) showed ADKAR’s value in introducing continuous glucose monitoring, ensuring clinicians progressed through each stage before adoption. Higher Education Reform: Kezar (2014) documented ADKAR’s application in aligning teaching practices with inclusivity goals, fostering cultural change among faculty. Corporate Mergers: In mergers, ADKAR addresses emotional resistance by building desire and reinforcing unity, helping employees transition smoothly (Hiatt, 2006). The ADKAR model, developed by Jeff Hiatt (2006), represents a significant evolution in change management by shifting focus from organisational systems to individual adoption. Its five stages—Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement—offer a practical, diagnostic tool for guiding employees through transformation. Examples from IT, healthcare, and education confirm its applicability across diverse contexts, while modern research underscores its alignment with participatory and ethical management practices (Memana, 2025). Nonetheless, its limitations—notably its linearity and focus on the individual over systemic dynamics—require complementary approaches. Leaders must apply ADKAR flexibly and … Read more

Organisational change is an inevitable reality in today’s dynamic and competitive business environment. In response to increasing complexity, John Kotter (1996) developed the 8-Step Process for Leading Change, expanding on Kurt Lewin’s earlier unfreeze–change–refreeze model. Kotter’s 8-Step Process for Leading Change framework provides a structured roadmap for organisations to manage transformation effectively, particularly in contexts such as mergers, digital transformation, and sustainability initiatives. Despite its widespread adoption, scholars argue that the model’s linear design may not reflect the iterative realities of contemporary organisational change (Suh et al., 2025). This article critically examines Kotter’s framework, applying examples from business and healthcare, and evaluates both its strengths and limitations. 1.0 Creating a Sense of Urgency Kotter (1996) argued that change begins with urgency; organisations must highlight risks of inaction to mobilise stakeholders. Without urgency, resistance dominates. For instance, during Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan, urgency around climate change drove environmental initiatives, framing sustainability not only as ethical but also as essential for competitiveness (Unilever, 2023). Recent studies reaffirm urgency’s role in digital change. Komna and Mpungose (2024) found that in South Africa’s public sector IT reforms, leaders who established urgency by highlighting inefficiencies achieved higher stakeholder buy-in. Conversely, failing to communicate urgency often results in complacency and failed reforms. 2.0 Forming a Powerful Coalition A second critical step is building a coalition of influential leaders who can steer change. Kotter (1996) emphasised leadership beyond formal hierarchy, noting that symbolic and charismatic leaders can mobilise diverse stakeholders. Vijaykumar, Das and Sixl-Daniell (2025), in their study of Twitter’s buy-out and transition into “X,” observed that successful coalitions often blend executives, middle managers, and cultural influencers. Without such a coalition, leadership fragmentation undermines credibility. In healthcare contexts, Tsatsou (2025) showed that oncology nursing reforms required multidisciplinary leadership groups, reinforcing Kotter’s insight. 3.0 Creating a Vision for Change The third step involves crafting a compelling vision that aligns strategy, people, and operations. A vision provides clarity and direction in times of uncertainty. In medical education reform in the UAE, Dube et al. (2025) demonstrated that developing a shared vision of competency-based education aligned stakeholders and reduced resistance. Similarly, Spicer (2025) found that in post-secondary mental health initiatives in Canada, a clear vision helped overcome fragmented institutional practices. Without a strong vision, organisational change risks becoming a series of disjointed activities rather than a coherent transformation. 4.0 Communicating the Vision Kotter stressed that communication must be continuous, multi-channel, and repetitive to ensure clarity. Leaders must model behaviours aligned with the vision. Mendez (2024) showed in nursing burnout interventions that clear communication across professional levels helped sustain morale. Similarly, Seufert and Ju (2025) reported that when Z-Group implemented robotics for store cleaning, leaders who communicated frequently achieved higher levels of employee trust. Failure to communicate adequately leads to misinformation and resistance, a recurring theme in change management failures (Abernathy, 2025). 5.0 Removing Obstacles Structural, cultural, or psychological barriers must be addressed. Empowering staff with authority and resources is critical for momentum. Wong et al. (2025) described how implementing a surgical risk calculator in Hong Kong hospitals required removing bureaucratic bottlenecks and granting staff autonomy to act. Similarly, Karimi and Ljungqvist (2025) emphasised that in banking and real estate reforms, obstacle removal—including outdated IT systems—was a prerequisite for sustainable change. Obstacles left unresolved undermine credibility and stall progress. 6.0 Creating Short-Term Wins Kotter highlighted the importance of visible, early successes to build momentum and silence sceptics. Valenza et al. (2025), in oral healthcare reform, documented that celebrating pilot programme results boosted confidence in broader changes. Dillard (2025) also observed that consulting firms utilising short-term wins as part of Kotter’s framework secured client trust faster. Short-term wins not only reinforce urgency but also reduce resistance by proving that change is achievable. 7.0 Building on the Change Rather than declaring victory prematurely, Kotter argued for consolidating gains and embedding change deeper. In the digital transformation of healthcare, Subramani (2025) noted that transformational leaders sustained commitment by reinforcing cultural narratives of loyalty and continuous improvement. Similarly, Suh et al. (2025) stressed that in family medicine residency programmes, iterative reinforcement of Kotter’s steps was essential, as change is rarely linear. This step underscores the need for change as an ongoing process rather than a one-off event. 8.0 Anchoring Changes in Culture Finally, Kotter (1996) argued that changes must be embedded in organisational culture to ensure long-term sustainability. Values, rituals, and policies must reflect new behaviours. Gómez Cortés and Ramirez Orozco (2025) observed that many change efforts fail because organisations neglect cultural embedding, leading to regression. In contrast, Unilever’s sustainability initiatives succeeded because environmental values became ingrained in brand identity. Anchoring change requires both structural reinforcement and symbolic alignment with values. Critical Perspectives While Kotter’s model remains one of the most influential change frameworks, scholars have criticised its sequential and linear design. Suh et al. (2025) and Rodríguez Villanueva and Schwarz (2025) highlight that real-world change is iterative and cyclical, not strictly stepwise. Moreover, modern contexts such as digital transformation and artificial intelligence adoption require agility and rapid adaptation beyond Kotter’s original framework (Houston Jackson, 2025). Nevertheless, Kotter’s emphasis on urgency, vision, communication, and culture remains highly relevant, particularly in large-scale, complex changes (Komna & Mpungose, 2024). Kotter’s 8-Step Process for Leading Change provides a powerful roadmap for managing organisational transformation. Its strengths lie in its clarity, comprehensiveness, and emphasis on both leadership and culture. Applications in sustainability, digital transformation, and healthcare confirm its enduring relevance. However, its limitations—particularly its linearity and assumption of predictable stages—require adaptation in contemporary, complex environments. Leaders must apply Kotter’s principles flexibly, integrating them with iterative, adaptive approaches such as agile change management. Ultimately, Kotter’s model remains an indispensable foundation for understanding and navigating organisational change, but it must be seen as a guideline rather than a rigid formula. References Abernathy, A. (2025). Exploring the Challenges Faced by Organisational Change Leaders: A Qualitative Study. ProQuest. Dillard, D. (2025). A Mixed Methodology Study on Effective Products and Services for Consulting Firms. Gardner-Webb University. Dube, R., George, B.T., & Kar, S.S. … Read more

Change management is one of the most critical disciplines in modern organisational practice, especially as businesses and institutions face constant pressures from technological disruption, globalisation, and sustainability imperatives. Among the various frameworks available, Kurt Lewin’s Change Management Model (1951) stands out as one of the most influential and enduring. Despite its simplicity, the model continues to provide managers and leaders with a powerful framework for guiding organisational transformation. The model consists of three distinct stages: Unfreeze, Change, and Refreeze. These phases help organisations prepare for, implement, and consolidate new practices. While originally conceptualised in the mid-20th century, the framework remains relevant in contexts such as digital transformation, healthcare innovation, and cultural change programmes (Burnes, 2017; Gloria, 2025). 1.0 The Unfreeze Stage: Preparing for Change The Unfreeze stage focuses on preparing individuals and organisations for transformation by breaking down existing practices, assumptions, and behaviours. Lewin (1951) described this as a process of destabilising the status quo, making people receptive to change. Key activities in this stage include: Communicating the urgency for change. Identifying and addressing potential resistance. Building a compelling vision for the future. Burnes (2017) emphasises that unfreezing requires leaders to create a sense of discomfort with current practices while presenting a positive alternative. For example, in the financial services industry, the adoption of stricter post-crisis regulations involved “unfreezing” by showing the risks of previous practices and the benefits of compliance and transparency. Recent research demonstrates its applicability in sustainable industries. Gloria (2025) found that unfreezing through vision-building and stakeholder engagement was essential for implementing agile and resilient manufacturing processes. Similarly, Nababan and Girsang (2024) argue that unfreezing organisational culture is critical for developing digital communication strategies in retail. 2.0 The Change Stage: Transition and Implementation Once readiness is achieved, the Change stage involves transitioning towards new behaviours, processes, or structures. This stage often generates uncertainty and anxiety among employees, as familiar ways of working are replaced with the unknown. Key activities in this stage include: Providing training and development opportunities. Ensuring clear and consistent communication. Demonstrating leadership support and modelling new behaviours. Rajapakshe (2025), in a study of mergers and acquisitions in Sri Lanka’s telecommunications industry, highlights that leadership visibility and human resource practices such as training and mentoring were critical to the successful transition. Without adequate support, employees may disengage or resist the process. In healthcare, Mugge et al. (2024) demonstrated that ICT adoption for circular economy initiatives succeeded during the change stage only when empathy and tailored resources were provided. Similarly, McMahon et al. (2024) emphasise the importance of structured change activities for digital sustainability initiatives. 3.0 The Refreeze Stage: Embedding Change The final stage, Refreeze, ensures that changes are institutionalised and embedded in the organisational culture. Without this consolidation, employees may revert to old habits, undermining the change effort (Lewin, 1951). Key activities include: Reinforcing new practices through incentives and recognition. Aligning organisational culture and structures with new behaviours. Monitoring progress and celebrating milestones. Burnes (2017) stresses that refreezing is essential for stability. In healthcare, for instance, the adoption of digital medical records only became successful once staff training and leadership reinforcement were institutionalised. Rajapakshe (2025) similarly notes that in post-merger integration, the refreezing stage is critical for aligning cultural practices across merged entities. Without reinforcement, employees may continue to identify with legacy structures rather than the new organisational identity. Applications of Lewin’s Model in Modern Contexts a) Digital Transformation Lewin’s model has been applied in Industry 4.0 environments. Hedberg and Thelander (2025) show that aircraft manufacturers used unfreeze-change-refreeze cycles to coordinate digital transformation projects. While unfreezing addressed legacy system inertia, refreezing involved embedding digital tools into everyday work practices. b) Organisational Culture Change Nababan and Girsang (2024) demonstrated that cultural transformation in Indonesian retail required unfreezing deep-seated practices before shifting to new communication strategies. Refreezing ensured these practices became embedded in team norms. c) Sustainability and Circular Economy McMahon et al. (2024) applied Lewin’s model to circular economy transitions in ICT. The unfreezing process involved highlighting environmental risks of existing practices, while refreezing reinforced sustainability behaviours through corporate policies. Critiques of Lewin’s Model Despite its continued relevance, Lewin’s model faces several criticisms: Oversimplification of change: Modern organisations face continuous, non-linear transformations, which do not neatly follow a three-stage cycle (Memana, 2025). Rigidity: The model may be less effective in highly dynamic industries where change is constant. Hedberg and Thelander (2025) argue that iterative and agile approaches are often required. Cultural limitations: In contexts with strong cultural inertia, unfreezing may require longer, multifaceted efforts, which Lewin’s model underplays. Nevertheless, many scholars argue that the model’s simplicity is also its strength. It provides an accessible foundation that can be adapted or integrated with other frameworks, such as Kotter’s 8-Step Process or ADKAR (Gómez Cortés & Ramirez Orozco, 2025). Strengths of Lewin’s Model Clarity and simplicity: Provides a straightforward roadmap for leaders and managers. Foundation for modern models: Many subsequent frameworks are built upon Lewin’s concepts. Focus on behaviour and culture: Recognises that sustainable change requires not only structural adjustments but also cultural embedding. Towards a Hybrid Approach Recent research suggests that organisations benefit from hybridising Lewin’s model with contemporary frameworks. For example: Kotter’s urgency-building and coalition strategies can enhance the unfreeze stage. ADKAR’s reinforcement focus can strengthen the refreeze stage. Agile methods can supplement the change stage to manage continuous adaptation (Hedberg & Thelander, 2025). By blending Lewin’s foundational principles with modern adaptations, organisations can achieve transformation that is both structured and flexible. Lewin’s Change Management Model remains a cornerstone of organisational change theory. Its three stages—Unfreeze, Change, and Refreeze—provide a simple yet powerful framework for guiding transformation. While critics argue that it may oversimplify today’s complex, non-linear environments, the model’s enduring relevance lies in its adaptability. In contexts ranging from mergers and acquisitions to digital transformation and sustainability, Lewin’s framework continues to guide leaders in navigating resistance, supporting transitions, and embedding cultural change. For sustainable transformation, the model works best when combined with modern approaches that account for iterative and continuous change. As organisations continue … Read more