Anyone working in change management encounters two models: ADKAR by Prosci and the 8-Step Model by John Kotter. Both are standards, both are taught in certifications, both appear in almost every consulting deck. In practice, however, they solve different problems and suit different situations. Those who mix them or treat them as interchangeable will get good results with neither. This article shows what each model really does, where its limits are, and how to choose the right one for your situation — or, as often makes sense, combine both.
ADKAR Model
The ADKAR model by Prosci views change from the individual's perspective: change only succeeds when every affected person passes through five phases — Awareness (of the need), Desire (to go along), Knowledge (of what to do), Ability (to do it), and Reinforcement (to lock in the new). ADKAR's strength lies in diagnosis: when change stalls, you can check for each person or group which phase they're stuck at. A leader with awareness but no ability needs training. An employee with knowledge but no desire needs convincing. ADKAR is thus an excellent tool for change managers who must steer operationally. It's less suited for designing the overall architecture of a transformation program.
View DetailsKotter's 8-Step Model
John Kotter's 8-Step Model goes the opposite direction: it views change from the perspective of leading an entire organization. The eight steps range from creating urgency to formulating a vision, removing obstacles, and anchoring new approaches in culture. Kotter's strength lies in strategic architecture: those planning a large transformation program get a through-line from the first leadership conversation to permanent anchoring. Kotter deliberately isn't a detail model — it stays at the level of leadership work. For concrete work with individual employees, you need complementary tools. The 2012 Accelerate extension addresses that the original 8 steps were too linearly conceived — in practice they run in parallel and iteratively.
View DetailsADKAR and Kotter operate on different levels. Kotter is organizational architecture: the sequence of leadership decisions that create a transformation frame. ADKAR is individual diagnostics: the status of every affected person in transition. Those using only Kotter design a beautiful transformation frame — and wonder why employees don't go along. Those using only ADKAR coach individuals perfectly through change — and wonder why the organization as a whole stays put. The combination isn't complicated: Kotter sets the frame, ADKAR measures progress within it.
Bridges Transition Model
The Bridges Transition Model adds a third perspective: the emotional journey of transition. William Bridges distinguishes between change (the external change — a new system, a new structure) and transition (the inner process of people dealing with it). His three phases — Ending, Neutral Zone, New Beginning — explain why change resistance is often not a communication problem but a grief process. Bridges isn't meant as a stand-alone model but as a complementary lens. Combined with Kotter and ADKAR, it helps take the emotional dimension of change seriously — which is easily underestimated in purely rational models.
View DetailsSatir Change Model
The Satir Change Model adds a fourth, finer lens: it describes how systems — teams, families, organizations — react to change. According to Satir, they pass through five phases: Late Status Quo, Resistance, Chaos, Integration, New Status Quo. The central insight is that chaos isn't an error but a necessary intermediate state — and change managers who suppress chaos block the path to the new state. Satir is especially valuable for organizations in deep transition phases where leaders are unsure whether current uncertainty is normal or a sign of failure.
View DetailsCAUTION
The typical change trap is model-worship: teams pick a model, apply it mechanically, and wonder why change still doesn't work. Models are maps, not the terrain. No model replaces careful observation, honest conversations, and the willingness to change course when needed.
| Criterion | ADKAR | Kotter 8 Steps |
|---|---|---|
| Perspective | Individual | Organization |
| Main benefit | Diagnosing change blockers | Architecting transformations |
| Use phase | Operational steering | Strategic planning |
| Typical role | Change manager, HR | Top management, program lead |
| Effort | Low-medium (per person) | High (program level) |
| Complemented by | Bridges Transition, coaching | ADKAR, vision models, storytelling |
KEY TAKEAWAY
Use Kotter for the overall architecture of your transformation. Use ADKAR to measure whether it lands with people. The combination is stronger than either model alone.
CONCLUSION
ADKAR and Kotter aren't competing models but complementary tools. Those architecting a transformation need Kotter. Those ensuring people come along need ADKAR. Those wanting to understand the emotional journey and organizational dynamics add Bridges and Satir. In practice, a staged approach works: Kotter sets the frame, ADKAR measures progress, Bridges and Satir help with resistance and crises. No single model solves all problems — but those who master the models and know when each fits lead change with a clarity pure gut-feel change managers can't reach.