Back to the future: revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Visible short-term wins and empowered coalitions accelerate digital uptake.
“A review of Kotter's eight-step model reveals that visible short-term wins and empowered coalitions accelerate digital uptake (Appelbaum et al., 2012).”
From Digital transformation: a comparative analysis of SME digital maturity models (2025) · cites this paper as Appelbaum et al., 2012
Cites
Action Research and Minority Problems
Lewin, K. (1946) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x · Cited by 6,554 · see citing works
Information richness. A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1983) · doi:10.21236/ada128980 · Cited by 2,263 · see citing works
Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants
Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250140602 · Cited by 1,058 · see citing works
Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/ame.1997.9707100659 · Cited by 722 · see citing works
Building change leadership capability: ‘The quest for change competence’
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2000) · Journal of Change Management · doi:10.1080/714042459 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Change leaders and change managers: Different or complementary?
Caldwell, R. (2003) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/01437730310485806 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Digital transformation: a comparative analysis of SME digital maturity models
Ondrík, P., & Jankal, R. (2025) · Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues · doi:10.9770/w7354634293 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J., & Shafiq, H.
- Affiliations
- Concordia University (CA)
- Oracle (Canada) (CA)
- Venue
- Journal of Management Development
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2012-08-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 764-782
- ISSN
- 0262-1711 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2029035172
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 29.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Management Development (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Change
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
- Keywords
- Kotter's change management model, leading change, organizational change, change management, model validity, implementation planning, stakeholder engagement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review