Kotter's Change Model

There are many experts in the field of organizational change, all have their own theories on how to better handle change in the workplace. While some ideas they have work, others might be need to be “updated” for today’s fast paced work environment. William Bridges and John Kotter both have interesting views on the subject. William Bridges uses a three point system of transition: a. Ending. This phase deals with emotions such as shock, anger and and denial. A person in this stage has just finished their functions in one role and is now letting the gravity of this situation sink in. Bridges suggests that a business or leader, in order to better this transition, should take steps like holding “regular meetings”(Bridges) before the change
He differs from Bridges when he preaches using short-term goals. He states, “With each small victory, the organization will feel that it’s on the right track, which motivates teams”(Veyrat). Short term goals can be effective but could prove to add more stressors if too many goals are given. One area where Kotter and Bridges agree on communication. Kotter’s step of sharing the vision is very similar to Bridges opinions on keeping everybody in the loop. Change can bring fear but proper communication can better counter
Therefore, its approach goes beyond process modeling to focus on the follow-up and support of the psychological side of the company to gradually absorb the transition, more organically and less traumatic”(Veyrat). I agree for the most part with this analysis of the two, yet I feel both bring important ideas and effective ways to help change in the workplace. Kotter’s ideas are very matter-of-fact to me while Bridges seems a bit more philosophical. Kotter stresses time, everything should happen quickly. I think this approach is hazardous. People could be more stressed out leading to important tasks being overlooked. Also, everybody is different and needs their own time to process and adapt to change. Bridges three part plan accounts for this and helps leaders effectively communicate with their employees while not making them feel rushed. Of course a person must be a positive contributor to the company and with a more relaxed and caring approach to change, they can be more effective. If a company goes by Kotter’s step of time importance 100%, problematic issues could occur forcing them to go back and re-do them. This wastes an organizations time and money, making it counterproductive. I feel that one must take different ideas from all these experts to make their organization thrive. No business is the same, so implementing the