Is change linear as a curve?

You probably already know how words, stories, graphics, and even numbers can be adapted to fit different perspectives or points of view. I am naturally a curious and thoughtful person, always seeking to dig deeper and double-check assumptions. Recently, I was listening to a presentation about leading change — a topic I’ve been passionate about for years, perhaps because I consider myself somewhat slow in adapting to change. The presentation, of course, included the “Change Curve.” While I appreciate its value as a framework, it has always struck me as somewhat too neat and linear. It didn’t fully resonate with how I, or many people I know, experience change in real life. As a certified change practitioner, I decided to explore the origin of this model a bit further.

Back to the source: Elisabeth Kübler-Ross

I started reading Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s biography. What an extraordinary woman. A psychiatrist with deep compassion, she changed the way terminally ill patients were treated and helped normalize conversations about dying. Together with her students, she conducted around 200 interviews with terminally ill patients in the 1960s, leading to her groundbreaking book On Death and Dying (1969). While reading the book, she explicitly stated that these stages are not sequential stops, but coping mechanisms that may appear in different orders, overlap, or repeat.

Later, together with David Kessler, she expanded this work to grief in general, including the loss of loved ones (On Grief and Grieving, 2005). Even there, she emphasized: “The five stages of grief are tools to help us frame and identify what we may be feeling. They are not stops on some linear timeline. Not everyone goes through all of them, or in a prescribed order.” (grief.com)

There are no curves in both books.

From grief to corporate change So where did the Change Curve come from? The exact origin in corporate training is unclear. What is clear is that the 1980s provided fertile ground for its spread. That decade brought privatizations, global competition, mass layoffs, mergers and acquisitions, and rapid technological disruption. Organizations were in constant upheaval. Executives desperately needed simple tools to help them “manage the human side” of change. The grief stages were adapted into the visual metaphor of the Change Curve to meet this need.

Since then, it has appeared in countless trainings and presentations and has become a widely recognized model. In 2020, Kübler-Ross’s family trademarked the term Kübler-Ross Change Curve®, highlighting its evolution from idea to brand.

Source: https://www.ekrfoundation.org/

Why it persists Our brains are evolutionary energy savers. Our brains are really keen and fast into simplifying complex information. Change is a complex matter. Our brains are wired to perceive change as uncertainty, which can trigger resistance. Uncertainty to our brains means a potential threat. At least this is what evolution experts say nowadays.

I tend to agree with them. So if our brain can simplify and digest something easily and in this way reduce uncertainty, it will most certainly do so. First, it can create a sense of predictability, which may or may not reflect reality. Second, it will save us enormous amounts of energy.

Nowadays, if you learn about and practice Organizational Change Management, it is certain that you will come across the Change Curve. It remains one of the most commonly taught tools. I believe that there is value in it. I also think that it served its purpose throughout the past decades. People needed some instrument to apply to the craziness of the world.

That said, human experiences of change are rarely linear. Emotional reactions are diverse, overlapping, and deeply individual. The Change Curve is valuable as a metaphor and a conversation starter, but it is important to recognize its limits.

Useful tools today In my own practice, I often complement it with other models like ADKAR, which focus on individual needs — Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement — and help leaders support people through change in personalized, practical ways. For example, fostering “Desire” by answering “What’s in it for me?” helps create genuine buy-in rather than a generalized message that might not resonate.

Source: https://www.prosci.com/blog/adkar-model

There are also models like Thrive and Survive that embrace diversity in people’s responses to change. Ultimately, no model is “true” or “false.” Each is a tool that serves different purposes. The key is to use them thoughtfully, selecting the ones that best fit the unique context and people involved.

What models or approaches do you find most helpful in navigating change?

Here are also some of my sources:

1. https://grief.com/grief-quotes-memes/grief-quote-by-elisabeth-kubler-ross-and-david-kessler-from-book-on-grief-and-grieving-pg-7/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief?utm_source=chatgpt.com

3. https://www.prosci.com/blog/adkar-model

4. On Grief and Grieving, 2005, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, David Kessler

5. On Death and Dying (1969), Elisabeth Kübler-Ross

6. https://www.ekrfoundation.org

7. „Does a performance dip always occur during organizational change?“ 🔗 Oxford Review

8.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950584910000170