Compare and contrast two different change models.

Compare and contrast two different change models.

 

Topic 3: Change Models

 

 

Name

Institution

Course

Instructor

Date

 

 

Topic 3: Change Models

Topic 3 DQ 1

There are various change models that are applicable in the current health care system. However, this paper will focus on the comparison and contrasting of Lewin’s Model and Kotter’s Model of change. In Lewin change model, a change can happen through three steps including unfreezing, changing and refreezing (Hussain et al., 2018). In particular, the unfreezing stage involves creating awareness on how the current behavior level is impeding the organizational growth. The most important thing at this stage is to create more knowledge and the necessity of the change to motive stakeholders to accept the change. The second step is changing where the stakeholders begin to accept new behaviors, thinking, and processes. They start to discover and learn behaviors and things that could lead to higher organizational growth. The final stage is refreezing that focuses on ways of supporting and solidifying what stakeholders have learnt and ensuring lasting behavioral change. The changes initiated are refrozen into new organizational norms. Therefore, it is apparent that this model requires developing of a perception that there is need for change, creation of a new desired behavior level, and eventually adopting the new behavior as a norm. The strength of this model is that it provides steps of change that enables the organization to through each by determining the weaknesses and strengths, which helps in focusing on core competencies. It also coherent, plan, and goal oriented. However, it may lack human experiences and feelings.

On the other hand, the Kotter’s 8 step model of change emphasizes on making change as a campaign through 8 steps. The first step involves creation of sense of urgency. This step requires efforts to motivate needed collaboration, sacrifices, and ideas associated with change. Once the stakeholders developed the feeling of necessity of change, it is imperative to focus energy and guidance for change through formulation of guiding coalition to carry out the change. The next step is creation of vision for change to enable precise understanding of what the change entails. The next step is to communicate the change vision to enable stakeholders to conceptualize how the entire change will benefit and affect them. The next step involves ensure wider vision-oriented action through eradication of factors that impedes change vision. The next step is to create short terms goals and achievements to inspire interest and energy for change. The next step is consolidation of gains to generate more change. The final step involves integration of changes in the organizational culture (Small et al., 2016).

Essentially, both Lewin’s Model and Kotter’s Model of change share similarities such as step-by-step models. Steps are clear, which is essential in providing clear guidance in the change process. However, the difference is that Lewin’s Change Model involves fewer steps unlike Kotter’s Model that entails eight steps. Moreover, Kotter’s Model requires significant amount of time to implement compared to Lewin change model. On the other hand, the preferred model is Lewin’s model since it provides scope of individualized participation. The preffered form of leadership to implement the model is participative leadership which requires decisions to be derived from all managerial levels, thus ensuring involvement of the entire organization.

 

References

Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (2018). Kurt Lewin’s change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in organizational change. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 123-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002

Small, A., Gist, D., Souza, D., Dalton, J., Magny-Normilus, C., & David, D. (2016). Using Kotter’s change model for implementing bedside handoff: a quality improvement project. Journal of nursing care quality, 31(4), 304-309. doi: 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000212