What are the pros and cons of using a linear vs. a circular change model?

Linear change models offer structured guidance, ideal for singular changes, providing clarity and ease of implementation. Conversely, circular models promote ongoing adaptation and resilience, though they may lack defined endpoints, leading to ambiguity and prolonged transitions.

Choosing a change model based on linear, circular, etc. is an incorrect approach. You aren't required to use an "off the rack" approach. You build a process for executing change within your business. Awareness of the various types of change models can help but should never be a constraint. As Dr. Deming referred to quality systems as "instant pudding" the prepackaged change management systems are just a different flavor of instant pudding. You build a process that fits your business with people who understand the business and the culture of the company. These do not need to be executives. You need people who understand how the company actually works. Document what you created, run it and evaluate it for success. Change it until it works.

Linear change models (e.g., Lewin's model) provide a structured approach, facilitating planning and implementation. However, they may oversimplify complex changes and lack flexibility. Circular change models (e.g., Kotter's model) offer a continuous improvement mindset, adapting to evolving circumstances. Yet, they may lack clear milestones and can be perceived as never-ending. Choosing between them depends on the organization's needs and the nature of the change. 🔄

Linear change models can be useful when you are working with a diverse team of stakeholders that works on different timelines. Using each step as a checkpoint allows the group to make goals aligned to the checkpoints, and to work consistently towards these. It has weaknesses if certain stakeholders do not have the capabilities, engagement or motivation to complete the steps in the process.

Forças do modelo: O modelo de Mudança Linear garante uma visão de longo prazo, com passo a passo claro, e facilita muito o planejamento de ponta a ponta. Eles oferecem um senso de segurança aos colaboradores, tanto os que vão receber a mudança, quanto para os que vão implementa-la. Ele também é o mais comum e consolidado do mercado. Ponto contra do modelo linear: Ele engessa um pouco o processo, exatamente por ser muito estruturado, ele tem menor adaptabilidade a imprevistos e nem sempre consegue se encaixar em modelos de mudanças ágeis.

In my experience, linear change models are good in theory. Because so many of these models are known, leaders have a sense of comfort when they see an approach based on a linear model. The reality is that change itself is not linear. When an organization introduces change, the employees are being asked to change their say, act and do. This happens through iteratively, with lots of practice. A linear model lines up nicely with a project plan, but a circular model better represents how people move through change. Circular change models will require more resources and ask for more from leaders and employees. Change is an active process, requiring involvement from leaders and employees.

Circular change models like Action Research and Appreciative Inquiry understand that change is an ongoing process with feedback loops and continuous adjustments. These models are effective for navigating complex and emergent changes that need experimentation, learning, and adaptation. However, their lack of a defined direction or endpoint may affect the measurement of progress and success as they depend on the stakeholder driving the research.

I suggest adopting an agile approach that involves crafting user stories aimed at achieving the desired outcome. This enables you to prioritize elements in your product backlog, facilitating the implementation of change within your organization and delivering value more rapidly. By prioritizing the most impactful or practical items first, you can ensure efficiency. Additionally, this approach allows for swift adjustments and implementation, as change items in the user story are planned in shorter cycles, typically lasting between 2 to 3 weeks. Agile isn't just for software development; it has its place in many areas.

Ahoy, me hearties! Let me tell ye about another type o' change model: the circular one. Picture it like sailin' 'round and 'round in circles, adjustin' yer course as ye go. Circular change models be like the ebb and flow o' the tide. They're for the brave souls who ain't afraid to explore uncharted waters, learnin' and adaptin' as they go. 🌀 But beware, me mateys, for these models come with their own set o' challenges. Without a clear destination on the horizon, ye might find yerself lost at sea, wonderin' if ye be makin' any progress at all. 🌀 So weigh anchor, and set sail with caution. The circular model may lead ye on a wild adventure, but only the boldest buccaneers be brave enough to chart that course! 🌊🌀🗺️

In my experience, I've found that for the majority of organizations, the specific change model employed is less critical than the mere presence of one. It's not uncommon for leaders to embark on change initiatives without a clearly defined change model, often resulting in hurdles and inefficiencies along the way. Therefore, having a robust method and plan in place can dramatically improve the likelihood of success. This underscores the importance of establishing a solid framework to guide the change process effectively. Moreover, flexibility is key. While adhering to a structured plan is essential, it's equally important for the plan to be adaptable to evolving circumstances and unforeseen challenges.

I did some research on this topic as part of my dissertation. I found that there is a growing skepticism among experienced change agents about linear models. There seems to be a trend towards more iterative models. However, the future will tell which models will gain popularity and dominate the market.

A linear change model offers clarity and structure but may overlook complexities and hinder adaptability. For instance, in renewable energy projects like offshore wind power, a linear approach may streamline initial development but struggle to address evolving regulatory requirements. Conversely, a circular model promotes flexibility and sustainability by continuously iterating and learning, as seen in optimizing battery energy storage systems. However, it might lack defined milestones, causing confusion or delays in manufacturing projects. Balancing both models could maximize efficiency and innovation while ensuring long-term success.

I agree with Jen L. S. and Stephan Meyer, and will add this thought: Anyone who leads change must also be flexible and adapt to change. A linear model in my experience is outdated and inflexible. Change Leaders need to customize the change experience through feedback, empathy, and action.

Overall, while both linear and circular change models have their strengths, a circular change model is typically better suited for complicated changes due to its emphasis on flexibility, adaptability, continuous improvement, and collaboration. By embracing these principles, organizations can navigate complexity more effectively and increase the likelihood of successful change implementation.