MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029035172 · doi:10.1108/02621711211253231

Back to the future: revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model

2012· article· en· W2029035172 on OpenAlexaff
Steven H. Appelbaum, Sally Habashy, Jean‐Luc Malo, Hisham Shafiq

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Change and Leadership
Canadian institutionsOracle (Canada)GreoGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityChange management (ITSM)USableEmpirical researchComputer sciencePerspective (graphical)Value (mathematics)SociologyManagement scienceKnowledge managementPsychologyEpistemologyMarketingBusinessSocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.021
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations357
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management DevelopmentSame topicOrganizational Change and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207