The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm JMD 31,8 Back to the future: revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model 764 John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada Steven H. Appelbaum Sally Habashy P \\S \\L Group, Montreal, Canada Jean-Luc Malo Ergoplan, Montreal, Canada, and Hisham Shafiq Oracle Corporation, Montreal, Canada Abstract Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to gather current (2011) arguments and counterarguments in support of the classic change management model proposed by John P. Kotter in his 1996 book Leading Change. His work was based on his personal business and research experience, and did not reference any outside sources that has questioned its value. A current perspective on a limited tested model aims to be a focus of this paper. Design/methodology/approach - The literature on change management was reviewed for each of the eight steps defined in Kotter's model, to review how much support each of these steps had, individually and collectively, in 15 years of literature. Findings - The review found support for most of the steps, although no formal studies were found covering the entire spectrum and structure of the model. Kotter's change management model appears to derive its popularity more from its direct and usable format than from any scientific consensus on the results. However the model has several limitations, that are identified, impacting upon its universal acceptance and popularity. Research limitations/implications - Further studies should examine the validity of Kotter's model as a whole. More importantly, change management research should form a greater link with stakeholders in order to translate current research into a format usable by practitioners. Practical implications - No evidence was found against Kotter's change management model and it remains a recommendable reference. This paper attempts to \"test\" the \"how-to-do-change management\" with empirical and practitioner literature that was not evident in the original text. The model would be most useful as an implementation planning tool, but complementary tools should also be used during the implementation process to adapt to contextual factors or obstacles. Originality/value - Based upon a thorough review, this is the first formal review of Kotter's change management model, 15 years after its introduction. Keywords Change management, Organizational change, Corporate strategy, Empowerment, Engagement, Vision, Management Paper type Conceptual paper Journal of Management Development Vol. 31 No. 8, 2012 pp. 764-782 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0262-1711 DOI 10.1108/02621711211253231 Introduction Businesses are constantly required to adapt to a changing environment in order to maintain their position in the market and even more so if they are to truly grow (Biedenbacha and Soumlderholma, 2008). Changes are an inevitable part of the current market. The current rate of technological advancement and growing global competition lets us foresee a continuing need for change in the future (Armenakis and Harris, 2009). Many authors argue that change never starts because it never stops (Weick and Quinn, 1999). Many organizations, in an attempt to adapt to the constant evolutions of their environment, are adopting cultures of a learning or agile organization. Whether or not an organization tries to constantly evolve, successfully implementing changes can be a major determinant of its short- and long-term success. Considering that \"research suggests that failed organizational change initiatives range from one-third to as high as 80% of attempted change efforts\" (Fisher, 1994; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Hirschhorn, 2002; Knodel, 2004; Sirkin et al., 2005; Kotter, 2008; Meaney and Pung, 2008; Whelan-Berry and Somerville, 2010), considerable research efforts have been deployed to fill that knowledge gap and support managers in the field of change management. The paper looks at one of the eminent change management models, specifically, John P. Kotter's. His model was first published in a 1995 article in the Harvard Business Review. The following year, it was published with greater detail in classic the book titled Leading Change. Both Kotter's (1995) article and 1996 book were based on his personal business and research experience, and did not reference any outside sources. This was not typical of an academic undertaking and led to the need to present this paper to test it over 15 years. Although Kotter's model of change management lacks rigorous fundaments, it became an instantaneous success at the time it was advocated and it remains a key reference in the field of change management. In 1997, Leading Change (Kotter, 1996) became a business bestseller. It subsequently became the best-selling book ever of its kind. Hundreds of researchers refer to one or other of Kotter's publications on change management. This book has been cited over 4,000 times in Google Scholar. The model is also presented to this day in academic textbooks such as Langton et al. (2010). The general lack of empirical fundaments to most change management theory (Todnem, 2005) probably is not alien to this success. \"Theories and approaches to change management currently available to academics and practitioners are often contradictory, mostly lacking empirical evidence and supported by unchallenged hypotheses concerning the nature of contemporary organizational change management\" (Todnem, 2005). The success of the theory and at the same time the lack of research and rigorous investigation are quite counterintuitive in the world of empirical research that has been the underpinning of accepted OB and OD references and classics. However, the model has several limitations that are identified impacting upon its universal acceptance and popularity that will be explored later in this paper. One of the most interesting aspects of the 1996 classic book is that there are neither footnotes nor references. A bibliography cannot be found yet this work has had tremendous academic as well as practical success. This paper traces the evolution of the literature and thinking originally selected by Kotter to the formulation of the eight step model. Finally it explores the current validation of the model by an updated 2011 literature search to compare/contrast the 1996 foundation. This paper attempts to \"test\" the \"how-to-do-change management\" with empirical and practitioner literature that was not evident in the original text 15 years ago. This paper will present a short review of articles related to each of the eight components of Kotter's model in the attempt to highlight the value of each. According to Kotter - the eight steps to transforming your organization are as follows (Kotter, 1996; Smith, 2005): (1) establish a sense of urgency about the need to achieve change - people will not change if they cannot see the need to do so; Revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model 765 JMD 31,8 (2) create a guiding coalition - assemble a group with power energy and influence in the organization to lead the change; (3) develop a vision and strategy - create a vision of what the change is about, tell people why the change is needed and how it will be achieved; (4) communicate the change vision - tell people, in every possible way and at every opportunity, about the why, what and how of the changes; (5) empower broad-based action - involve people in the change effort, get people to think about the changes and how to achieve them rather than thinking about why they do not like the changes and how to stop them; (6) generate short-term wins - seeing the changes happening and working and recognizing the work being done by people towards achieving the change is critical; (7) consolidate gains and produce more change - create momentum for change by building on successes in the change, invigorate people through the changes, develop people as change agents; and (8) anchor new approaches in the corporate culture - this is critical to long-term success and institutionalizing the changes. Failure to do so may mean that changes achieved through hard work and effort slip away with people's tendency to revert to the old and comfortable ways of doing things. 766 The following sections critically discuss each of the eight steps. Step 1: establish a sense of urgency According to Kotter (1995), successful change efforts must begin with individuals and groups evaluating a company's \"competitive situation, market position, technological trends and financial performance\". Bold or risky actions normally associated with good leadership are generally required for creating a strong sense of urgency (Kotter, 1995, p. 43). Kotter (1995) further states that leaders must find ways to communicate this information \"broadly and dramatically\". He claims that the first step is essential as the start of organizational changes require aggressive cooperation of many individuals. This need for change must be understood; otherwise, the change agents will not have enough \"power and credibility to initiate the required change program\" (Kotter, 1997). Kotter (1996, p. 44) also recommends the use of consultants as a tactic for creating a sense of urgency and challenge the status quo. Armenakis et al. (1993) strengthen Kotter's statement by suggesting the recruitment of sources outside the organization, as they can reinforce the change agent's message. A diagnostic report compiled by a consulting firm, for instance, can be utilized as a tool to add credibility to the need for change message. A study by Gist et al. (1989) supports the assertion that a message generated by more than one source, particularly if external to the organization, is given a greater air of believability and confirmation. The news media, for example, is also an external source that can be instrumental in creating a sense of urgency and as a result, a readiness for change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Radio and television broadcasts, magazines, and newspapers can all be sources of information affecting employee knowledge and since such sources tend to have an air of objectivity, they are often persuasive in the creation of readiness for change (Armenakis et al., 1993). However, this information is not easily managed by the change agent. Belasco (1990) speaks of the change agent as having the individual inertia to accomplish goals. Five key change sentiments were proposed by Armenakis et al. (1999). The authors argued that the sentiments were essential to \"encourage change readiness, adoption and institutionalization\". Discrepancy, one of the five sentiments used to explain the reactions of the change recipients, was deemed important in 38 per cent of studies as identified by Armenakis et al. (1999). It is the term used when describing \"a deviation from acceptable performance\" and \"captures the sentiment that a need for change does in fact exist\" (Armenakis et al., 1999). The authors referred to discrepancy as the \"burning platform\" which Kotter (1995) claims establishes a sense of urgency for change, and in turn motivates strategic change (Armenakis et al., 1999). Numerous studies (Lewin, 1946; Coch and French, 1948; Bandura, 1986; Pettigrew, 1987; Nadler and Tushman, 1989) have demonstrated the need for change recipients to believe a discrepancy exists. Different forms of persuasive communication, a source of information regarding discrepancy, send \"symbolic information\" regarding a number of aspects of the change effort: commitment to the change effort, its prioritization, and urgency for the change effort (Armenakis et al., 1993). Armenakis et al. (1993) cite the example of a CEO who travels to various corporate locations in order to discuss the need for change. This type of oral persuasive communication not only allows the message itself to be communicated, but also, the importance of the issues to be symbolically magnified by the fact that time, effort, and resources are utilized to communicate the changes directly. Additionally, frequency of interaction regarding change is expected to create momentum. Ginsberg and Venkatraman (1995), and Kotter (1995) state that \"the more the change is a topic of conversation, the greater its implied urgency\". Jansen (2004) deduces that apathy is conveyed if there is little interaction regarding the change, thus deeming it unimportant. Discussions about the change, whether negative or positive, indicate that the change is progressing and employees are feeling the need to rationalize of events ( Jansen, 2004). As a result, energy for change is created by the implication of change. Buchanan et al. (2005) state that \"the timing, sequencing and pacing of events can also be fateful for sustainability\