BUS 6563 Module 2 Change Framework Comparison Example

Unfreeze, Eight Steps or Continuous Change? Choosing a Change Framework for a Mutual Insurer's Transformation

Student Name

American College of Education

BUS6563: Organizational Transformation in Practice

Module 2 Assignment

Instructor Name

April 22, 2030

Introduction

The first paper in this case found that Lakefront Mutual Insurance, a composite Milwaukee property and casualty insurer, operates in a turbulent environment of rising weather losses, costly reinsurance, slow rate approval, AI-enabled competitors and a consolidating agent channel, and that it must transform its risk selection, core systems, distribution and capacity for change. Leading such a transformation requires a framework that fits the situation. This paper compares four widely used change frameworks against criteria drawn from the case, weighs the evidence for each and recommends an approach for Lakefront.

Criteria From the Case

Four criteria follow from the first paper. A framework must handle multiple interacting changes rather than a single initiative. It must work in an organization with a long history and strong culture, where change has been rare. It must address both a large, bounded project, replacing core systems, and an ongoing need to adapt as the environment keeps shifting. And it should rest on evidence rather than practitioner intuition alone. These criteria guide the comparison below.

Lewin's Three Steps

Lewin (1947) pictured a group's customary behavior as a level kept in place by opposing pressures, some favoring movement and some resisting it. To change it, leaders must first loosen that balance, then shift behavior to a different point and finally lock in the new level with supporting routines. The model's strength is its insight that behavior is held in place by forces, so change can come from reducing restraining forces as well as adding driving ones. Its weaknesses for Lakefront are that refreezing implies a stable end state, which a turbulent environment will not allow, and that the model offers little guidance for managing many changes at once.

Kotter's Eight Steps

Kotter (1995) drew on observation of companies attempting transformation and laid out an eight-stage sequence that begins with convincing people the status quo is dangerous and assembling a powerful leadership group, moves through crafting and spreading a picture of the future and clearing obstacles, then uses early visible successes to build momentum until new behaviors become part of how the organization works. The model is practical and widely used, and its emphasis on urgency and a guiding coalition suits a mutual whose board has already sensed danger. Its limits are that it is sequential and leader-driven, treating change as a campaign with an end, and that its evidence base is mainly practitioner experience rather than systematic research.

The Burke-Litwin Model

Burke and Litwin (1992) built a causal model that separates deep, organization-wide drivers, such as outside pressures, strategy, top leadership and culture, from the operating machinery of structure, procedures, supervision and team climate, and specifying how each affects motivation and performance. The model is diagnostic rather than procedural: it helps leaders identify which factors must change and how changes in one will affect others. For Lakefront, it fits the need to coordinate interacting changes, since system replacement is transactional but succeeds only if leadership and culture also shift.

Episodic and Continuous Change

Weick and Quinn (1999) contrasted change that arrives in occasional, deliberate bursts when an organization has fallen out of step with its environment with change that unfolds steadily through many small adjustments in organizations that never stop adapting. Episodic change follows the logic of unfreezing and refreezing; continuous change follows a logic of freezing a pattern long enough to see it, rebalancing and unfreezing again. Lakefront needs both: an episodic program to replace systems and reset distribution, and continuous adaptation thereafter, because the forces driving change will not stop.

What the Evidence Supports

Stouten et al. (2018) integrated practitioner models, including Lewin and Kotter, with scholarly research and identified steps with stronger empirical support: careful diagnosis of the problem, assessing readiness, building a shared vision and guiding coalition, communicating effectively, mobilizing energy, empowering others, developing change-related skills, generating small wins, monitoring progress and institutionalizing change. They noted that some popular prescriptions, such as creating a sense of urgency, have mixed evidence, and that the sequence of steps is less fixed than practitioner models imply. Their review supports combining frameworks rather than adopting one.

Comparing Against the Criteria

Against the four criteria, no framework is sufficient alone. Lewin explains forces but assumes a stable end state. Kotter guides a campaign but treats change as sequential and finite and rests on practitioner evidence. Burke-Litwin handles interacting changes and has a diagnostic logic but says little about process. Weick and Quinn address the need for ongoing adaptation but are conceptual rather than step-by-step. The integrative review offers the strongest evidence base and can organize the others.

How the Frameworks Apply to Lakefront's Four Changes

Applied to the four areas of change from the first paper, the frameworks fall into place. Replacing core systems is a bounded, episodic program that benefits from a guiding coalition, readiness checks and staged wins. Redesigning distribution with agents requires attention to culture and leadership, which Burke-Litwin highlights. Improving pricing within regulatory limits is partly technical and partly a matter of stakeholder trust. Building capability to change continuously matches Weick and Quinn's continuous change. No single model covers all four.

A Note on Urgency

Urgency deserves particular care at Lakefront. Leaders may be tempted to stress danger to employees after three loss years, but the integrative review found mixed evidence for urgency as a lever, and fear can push employees toward caution. The plan will instead pair an honest account of the losses with a clear picture of what the transformation will build, giving people both a reason to change and a direction.

Recommended Approach

Lakefront should combine frameworks by purpose. Burke-Litwin will guide diagnosis, identifying which transformational and transactional factors must change and how they interact. The core system replacement and distribution redesign will run as an episodic program using the evidence-supported steps from Stouten et al. (2018), including a guiding coalition, readiness assessment, small wins and monitoring. After the episodic program, Lakefront will build continuous change capability, in Weick and Quinn's sense, through regular reviews of loss trends, technology and agent needs, with authority for teams to adjust practices. Lewin's force field analysis will be used tactically to plan around specific restraining forces.

Risks of the Approach

Combining frameworks risks confusion if leaders use different language for the same work. To prevent this, the transformation office will publish a simple roadmap showing which framework governs which activity. A second risk is that the episodic program consumes so much energy that continuous capability is never built; the plan addresses this by beginning continuous practices, such as quarterly environment reviews, during the program rather than after.

Conclusion

Compared against criteria drawn from Lakefront's situation, Lewin, Kotter, Burke-Litwin and Weick and Quinn each contribute something and none suffices alone. The integrative evidence review supports combining them. The recommended approach uses Burke-Litwin for diagnosis, an evidence-based episodic program for systems and distribution, continuous change practices for ongoing adaptation and force field analysis for specific obstacles. The next module maps the stakeholders whose support the transformation will require.

References

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103

Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752-788. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361