Change management approaches

Posted byMichael SpechtPosted inChange ManagementTags:, ,

As I mentioned over the last few weeks I have been through some training in PRINCE2 project management and change management, provided by a local vendor Project Laneways (a bit of plug they are highly recommended and say I sent you), the end result I am a PRINCE2 Practitioner and certified in the Principles of Change Management through the APMG.

As part of the change management course we covered several different approaches to managing change, predominantly based around the book Making Sense of Change Management. The approaches ranged from general ideas, to more detailed frameworks but none really provided a full change management methodology. Which is both good and bad. Good as it allows students to pick and choose the best method of managing change, but bad as there is no detailed process for managing change as with PRINCE2.

Some of the approaches we covered were:

  • Lewin; Three step model
  • Bullock and Batten; Planned change
  • Kotter; Eight steps
  • Cameron and Green; based on Kotter
  • Beckhard and Harris; Change formula
  • McKinsey; Seven S model
  • William Bridges; Managing the transition
  • Senge; Systemic model
  • Stacey and Shaw; Complex responsive processes

The best in my mind are really a combination of Lewin, Bridges, Kotter and McKinsey.

3 thoughts on “Change management approaches”

  2. The really funny thing is some are not really approaches more conceptual ideas as how change takes place. There do not seem to be any solid change methodologies out there.

  3. Yeah… I tried to introduce our methodology as a juxtaposition to the models above, in part via the diagram on the blog when it talks about ‘ideal small world networks’ and Social Groups. The change management demo on the site also attempts to introduce an alternative model for change.

    You are right about there being no solid change methodologies out there. While this next thought is a bit tangental, Y Combinator seem to have captured the essence of this problem when they say the following;

    Tools for measurement. Now that so much happens on computers connected to networks, it’s possible to measure things we may not have realized we could. And there are some big problems that may be soluble if we can measure more. The most important of all is the defining flaw of large organizations: you can’t tell who the most productive people are. A small company is measured directly by the market. But once an organization gets big enough that people on in the interior are protected from market forces, politics starts to rule, instead of performance. An improvement of even a few percent in the ability to measure what actually happens in large organizations would have a huge impact on the world economy, and a startup that enabled it would be entitled to a cut.

    All good food for thought 🙂

    p.s. I hope the tags and links all work!

Comments are closed.