Change Curve: The 5 Phases of Change -- Model, Critique and Practical Guide

The Change Curve (also known as the grief curve or transition curve) describes the typical emotional phases people go through during organizational change. The model traces back to Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, who in 1969 described five stages of grief in On Death and Dying — later transferred to the context of organizational change by subsequent authors [1].

What the Change Curve differs from structural change frameworks like Kotter’s 8-Step Model or the ADKAR model: it does not describe what the organization should do. It describes what those affected feel. And it normalizes those feelings — shock, resistance, frustration are not malfunctions but predictable reactions to the loss of the familiar.

Search for “Change Curve” and you will find a uniform presentation: five to seven phases, a U-shaped curve, done. None of the results discusses the fundamental empirical critique — that Kubler-Ross’ model has not been validated even for the grief context it was developed for [2]. None explains why the model remains useful despite weak evidence. And none shows how to use it responsibly — without forcing people into phases they are not experiencing.

This guide closes these gaps. For a compact comparison of all change frameworks, see the overview article on change management models.

Origin: From Thanatology to Organizational Development

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and the Five Stages of Grief

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (1926-2004), Swiss-American psychiatrist, published On Death and Dying in 1969 — based on interviews with over 200 terminally ill patients. She described five stages: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance [1].

Important clarification that Kubler-Ross herself made: In later works, she explicitly emphasized that the stages are neither linear nor universal. Not every person goes through all stages. Not every person goes through them in this order. In 2005, she wrote in On Grief and Grieving: “They were never meant to help tuck messy emotions into neat packages” [3]. This nuance is systematically ignored in the management literature.

The Transfer to Organizational Change

The transfer to the corporate context was not made by Kubler-Ross herself but by various authors and consultants from the 1980s onward. In the German-speaking world, Richard K. Streich expanded the model to seven phases for organizational contexts: Shock, Denial, Rational Insight, Emotional Acceptance, Learning, Recognition, and Integration [4].

The problematic transfer logic: The transfer is based on an analogy: organizational change = loss of the familiar = a kind of “death” of accustomed working methods. This analogy is intuitively compelling, but it is a double extrapolation: from dying to grief (first extrapolation, which Kubler-Ross herself made) and from grief to organizational change (second extrapolation, which others made). Each extrapolation adds uncertainty [5].

The 5 Phases in Detail

The basic model — here in the most widely used five-phase version:

Phase 1: Shock and Denial

What happens: The change is announced. The first reaction is not resistance but disbelief. “This does not concern me.” “It will not be that bad.” “They will never implement this anyway.”

Why this happens: Denial is a psychological defense mechanism. The brain needs time to process a threat to the status quo. Denial provides this time — it is not a weakness but an adaptive response.

What you can do as a change manager:

• Do not drop a bombshell. The announcement needs context, not shock value.
• Dose information: What is changing? What stays the same? What is still unclear?
• Create space for questions — but do not expect immediate answers to all details.
• Do not: “This was to be expected” or “You have to accept this” — this invalidates the reaction and escalates resistance.

Phase 2: Resistance and Anger

What happens: Denial gives way to recognition: the change is real. And it has personal consequences. The reaction: anger, frustration, blame. “Who decided this?” “Why were we not asked?” “Management has no idea about our work.”

Why this happens: Resistance is the emotional answer to perceived loss of control. Those affected experience decisions being made about them without their influence. This is not an irrational reaction — it is an understandable human response to powerlessness.

What you can do as a change manager:

• View resistance not as a problem but as information. What exactly are people angry about? That shows you what matters to them.
• Listen — actively, without defending. “I understand this is frustrating” is more effective than “Let me explain why this is necessary.”
• Create channels for resistance: feedback rounds, anonymous surveys, dialogues with the guiding coalition.
• Do not: Suppress, ignore, or pathologize resistance as “change resistance.” Suppressed resistance goes underground — and sabotages the transformation more subtly but more effectively.

Connection to the ADKAR model: The resistance phase of the Change Curve corresponds to the Desire element in ADKAR. When those affected are stuck in the resistance phase, it is a Desire deficit — they understand the necessity (Awareness) but do not want to participate. The ADKAR assessment helps specify the resistance: is it fear of job loss? Lack of trust? Missing WIIFM perspective?

Phase 3: Exploration and Bargaining

What happens: Anger subsides. Those affected begin to engage with the change — not fully yet, but exploratively. “Okay, if this has to happen — how can we shape it so it works for us?” Bargaining begins: over resources, timelines, exceptions.

Why this happens: Emotional processing has started. Those affected seek room to maneuver — elements of the change they can influence. This is a healthy transition from passive suffering to active shaping.

What you can do as a change manager:

• Actively use this phase: offer participation formats. Workshops where those affected co-shape implementation.
• Show willingness to negotiate — within defined boundaries. “The direction is not negotiable, but the path is.”
• Enable small experiments: pilot projects, prototypes, time-limited tests.
• Do not: Misinterpret exploration as acceptance. “Finally they are coming around” is premature — exploration is interest, not commitment.

Phase 4: Acceptance

What happens: Those affected accept the change as reality — not necessarily as good, but as given. Emotional energy shifts from being-against to coping-with. “It is what it is. How do I make the best of it?”

Why this happens: Emotional processing is largely complete. The threat is categorized as manageable. Those affected begin integrating the change into their self-image and daily work.

What you can do as a change manager:

• Offer support: trainings, coaching, mentoring — now is the moment when Knowledge and Ability (ADKAR) become effective.
• Make successes visible: What works in the new system? Where do initial improvements show?
• Be patient: Acceptance is not enthusiasm. It is the soil on which enthusiasm can grow — but does not have to.

Phase 5: Commitment and Integration

What happens: Those affected identify with the new situation. The new becomes the new normal. In some cases, enthusiasm even emerges: “Why did we not do this sooner?”

Why this happens: New behavior has been internalized. The cognitive dissonance between “how it was” and “how it is now” has resolved. Those affected experience the benefits of the change firsthand.

What you can do as a change manager:

• Reinforcement (ADKAR): systemic anchoring — bonus systems, promotion criteria, onboarding programs reflect the new.
• Institutionalize success stories: Who mastered the change particularly well? What can others learn from it?
• Prepare the next cycle: Commitment is not an endpoint. The next change is coming — and the experience with this change influences the reaction to the next.

Empirical Critique: Why the Model Stands on Shaky Ground

Bonanno (2004, 2009): The Grief Stages Do Not Exist as Described

George A. Bonanno, professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, published a series of studies that fundamentally challenge the Kubler-Ross model [2]. His findings:

1. Most bereaved people do not go through stages. In Bonanno’s prospective studies with bereaved individuals, most people showed no sequential phase progression but different trajectories: some recovered quickly (resilience), others showed chronic grief, still others showed delayed grief. A “standard course” through five stages was not the norm but the exception.

2. Resilience is the most common reaction. The majority of bereaved individuals showed no clinically significant grief reaction — they were sad but functional. The Kubler-Ross model pathologizes what is, for the majority, a manageable loss.

3. Denial is not a universal first step. Many people acknowledge the loss immediately and begin processing directly — without going through a denial phase.

Consequence for Organizational Application

If the model has not been empirically validated even for the grief context, transferring it to organizational change is a double extrapolation with double uncertainty [5]:

• First extrapolation: From observing dying patients to a general grief model (not validated)
• Second extrapolation: From grief about dying to frustration about organizational change (significantly less severe)

What this does NOT mean: That the model is worthless. It means: the model is not an empirically validated predictive instrument. It is a communication tool — a vocabulary that helps leaders anticipate, name, and normalize emotional reactions.

Worrell (2019): Why the Model Remains Useful Nonetheless

Louise Worrell argued in 2019 in Organizational Change and the Change Curve that the model’s value lies not in its empirical accuracy but in three pragmatic functions [6]:

1. Empathy generator: It forces leaders to adopt the emotional perspective of those affected — a perspective systematically absent from rational transformation frameworks.

2. Normalization: It tells those affected: “Your reaction is normal. Resistance is predictable, not pathological.” That alone reduces anxiety and isolation.

3. Temporal orientation: It gives leaders a rough sense that emotional processing takes time — that you cannot jump from the announcement on Monday to enthusiasm on Friday.

Responsible Use: 5 Guiding Principles

1. Phases are patterns, not prescriptions

Use the phases as an observation framework, not a diagnosis. “I see resistance, what is behind it?” — not “This person is in Phase 2, they need to move to Phase 3.”

2. No forced marching through phases

People process changes at their own pace. Some skip phases, some go through them simultaneously, some oscillate back. A change manager who tries to “accelerate” people through phases creates more resistance, not less.

3. Respect individual differences

Bonanno’s research shows: the most common reaction to loss is resilience [2]. Not everyone goes through an emotional valley. When an employee immediately accepts the change, that is not a sign of repression — it may simply be resilience.

4. Use as communication tool, not steering instrument

The Change Curve is most valuable in coaching conversations and leadership trainings: “This reaction is normal. What does this person need right now?” It is most dangerous as a steering instrument: “We are now in Phase 3, let’s start the trainings.”

5. Combine with structural models

The Change Curve describes emotions. It does not describe interventions. For the question “What do we do?” you need Kotter (organizational governance) or ADKAR (individual support). The Change Curve accompanies these models emotionally — it does not replace them.

Practical Example: Post-Merger Integration at a Telecommunications Provider

Context: Two DACH telecommunications companies merge. For 800 customer service employees, everything changes: new CRM system, new processes, new teams, new managers. Many employees have worked at the old company for 10+ years.

Phase 1 — Shock (Week 1-3)

The merger is announced. Reactions in customer service: “This is not really happening.” “Our location will surely be closed.” The rumor mill explodes. Productivity drops by 15%.

Intervention: Daily FAQ updates via intranet. Leadership conversations in small groups (max. 15 people) — not PowerPoint, but dialogue. Honest communication: “The following is certain. The following is still open. The following we cannot answer today.”

Phase 2 — Resistance (Week 3-10)

Reality sets in. Emotional reaction dominates: “Why were we not asked?” Experienced employees perceive the merger as devaluation of their long-standing expertise. Sick leave increases. First resignations — the best employees, those who have alternatives.

Intervention: Anonymous feedback channels. ADKAR assessment shows: Awareness high (everyone knows what is happening), Desire extremely low (Barrier Point). The guiding coalition responds: job guarantee for all employees for 18 months. Inclusion of customer service employees in the CRM selection decision — not as a token but with real voting rights. The message: “Your expertise is the reason this merger will work.”

Phase 3 — Exploration (Week 10-20)

The job guarantee has raised Desire. Employees begin showing interest in the new CRM system. A pilot group tests the new system. First positive feedback: “The new system shows customer history from both companies — the old one could not.”

Intervention: Expand pilot program. Peer learning: pilot participants train colleagues. Communicate early quick wins.

Phase 4 — Acceptance (Week 20-35)

The new CRM is rolled out company-wide. Most employees work in the new system. There is still frustration about teething problems, but the fundamental attitude has shifted: from being-against to wanting-to-improve.

Intervention: Intensive trainings (Knowledge to Ability). Support hotline for CRM questions. Error tolerance: “For the first four weeks, we do not measure processing times. We measure learning progress.”

Phase 5 — Commitment (from Week 35)

Six months after introduction: new teams have found their rhythm. Integrated customer data is experienced as an advantage. Customer service metrics reach pre-merger levels — and improve in some areas.

Intervention: Reinforcement. New performance criteria reflect the integrated processes. Success stories from the merger are told in onboarding of new employees.

Note: This example is illustratively constructed to demonstrate the Change Curve in a service context. The timelines and figures are based on typical post-merger empirical values.

Comparison: Change Curve vs. ADKAR vs. Bridges

Dimension	Change Curve	ADKAR (Prosci)	Bridges’ Transition Model
Focus	Emotional phases	Individual milestones	Psychological transitions
Type	Descriptive (describes what happens)	Prescriptive (says what to do)	Descriptive + heuristic
Strength	Normalizes emotions, creates empathy	Diagnoses Barrier Points, derives interventions	Addresses identity loss, validates the “Neutral Zone”
Weakness	No action guidance, weak evidence base	Ignores emotional dynamics	No governance structure
Evidence base	Weak (Kubler-Ross not validated, transfer doubly extrapolated)	Prosci research (proprietary, extensive)	Clinical experience, not systematically validated
Origin	Kubler-Ross (1969), transfer 1980s	Hiatt/Prosci (2003)	Bridges (1991)
Ideal case	Emotional accompaniment alongside structural frameworks	Individual adoption for clear changes	Identity change, mergers, deep role changes

Our recommendation: The Change Curve is not a standalone change management tool. It is an emotional companion that balances the blind spots of Kotter (no emotions) and ADKAR (rational progression). Use it in combination with a structural framework — never alone. More on combining models in the overview article on change management models.

4 Common Mistakes When Using the Change Curve

1. Using phases as diagnosis

Symptom: “Employees are in Phase 2 (resistance). We need to move them to Phase 3 (exploration).”

Why this hurts: The Change Curve is not a diagnostic instrument. It does not tell you where a person stands — it gives you a vocabulary to name emotional reactions. For diagnostics, you need ADKAR.

Solution: Use the curve as an observation framework, not as phase diagnosis. The question is not “Which phase is this person in?” but “What is this person feeling right now — and what do they need?“

2. Treating resistance as a phase rather than information

Symptom: “This is normal, they are in the resistance phase. It will pass.” — and then nothing is done.

Why this hurts: Resistance contains valuable information: What exactly threatens those affected? Which needs are being violated? When you dismiss resistance as a “phase” that “passes on its own,” you ignore the causes.

Solution: Listen to the resistance. Analyze what is behind it. Use Force Field Analysis to identify the restraining forces — and the ADKAR assessment to find the Barrier Point.

3. Pathologizing resilience as repression

Symptom: An employee immediately accepts the change. The reaction: “They are repressing. It will surface.”

Why this hurts: Bonanno’s research shows: resilience — the ability to process changes without significant emotional distress — is the most common reaction [2]. Not everyone has to go through an emotional valley.

Solution: Accept that different people react differently. Offer support but do not force it. Resilience is a strength, not a pathology.

4. Using the curve as the sole change tool

Symptom: The change program is based on the Change Curve. Phases are planned as project phases. There is no governance, no coalition, no communication strategy.

Why this hurts: The Change Curve describes emotions. It does not steer a transformation. A change program based solely on the curve has no skeleton — only feelings.

Solution: Use the Change Curve as an emotional companion layer to a structural framework: Kotter for the organizational level, ADKAR for the individual level, Force Field Analysis for diagnosis. The curve supplements — it does not replace.

Variations: The Streich Model and Other Extensions

Streich’s 7-Phase Model

Widely used in the German-speaking world is Richard K. Streich’s extension, which differentiates the Kubler-Ross model into seven phases [4]:

Phase	Description	Typical Statement
1. Shock	Surprise, paralysis	”This cannot be true.”
2. Denial	Active rejection	”This does not concern me.”
3. Rational insight	Cognitive understanding	”Okay, I see the numbers.”
4. Emotional acceptance	Emotional processing	”It hurts, but it is so.”
5. Learning	Trying new behaviors	”How does the new thing work?“
6. Recognition	Gathering positive experiences	”This has advantages too.”
7. Integration	New as normality	”This is how we do things now.”

Streich’s contribution: The distinction between rational insight (Phase 3) and emotional acceptance (Phase 4) is diagnostically valuable. It explains why people say “I understand why this is necessary, BUT…” — they are rationally insightful but emotionally not yet accepting. Precisely this moment corresponds to the Desire element in ADKAR.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Change Curve?

The Change Curve describes the typical emotional phases people go through during organizational change: shock, resistance, exploration, acceptance, and commitment. It is based on Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’ grief stages model (1969) and was later transferred to the organizational context by subsequent authors.

Is the Change Curve scientifically validated?

The evidence base is weak. The original Kubler-Ross model was never systematically validated for the grief context (Bonanno 2004). The transfer to organizational change is a double extrapolation without independent empirical foundation. The model is nevertheless useful as a communication tool — provided it is not treated as a predictive instrument.

How many phases does the Change Curve have?

That depends on the version. The basic Kubler-Ross model has five phases (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance). Streich’s extension has seven phases. Other authors use four or six phases. The number of phases matters less than the core insight: emotional processing takes time and is not linear.

What is the difference between the Change Curve and ADKAR?

The Change Curve describes what those affected feel (descriptive). ADKAR describes what those affected must go through (prescriptive). The curve normalizes emotions, ADKAR diagnoses Barrier Points and derives interventions. They are most effective in combination.

How long does it take to go through the Change Curve?

There is no standard timeframe. For smaller changes (new tool, new process), emotional processing can take weeks. For profound changes (merger, site closure, role elimination), it can take months to years. The key: emotional processing cannot be accelerated — it can only be accompanied.

Related Methods

• ADKAR Model: The structural complement to the emotional Change Curve — ADKAR diagnoses where people are stuck, the curve explains what they feel
• Kotter’s 8-Step Model: The organizational governance the Change Curve does not provide — Kotter orchestrates, the curve accompanies emotionally
• Force Field Analysis: When you want to understand which forces drive resistance (Phase 2) — diagnostic where the curve is merely descriptive
• Change Management Models Compared: For the decision matrix and integration architecture — how the Change Curve fits into the three layers (diagnosis, governance, individual support)
• Why Transformations Fail: The failure patterns that emerge when the emotional dimension is ignored

---

Research Methodology

This article synthesizes findings from Kubler-Ross’ original work (1969), Bonanno’s empirical critique (2004, 2009), Streich’s extension for the organizational context, Worrell’s pragmatic reassessment (2019), and the analysis of 10 German-language publications on the Change Curve.

Limitations: The scientific literature on the organizational Change Curve is thin. Most publications are conceptual, not empirical. The practical example (post-merger integration) is illustratively constructed, not a documented case study.

Disclosure

SI Labs accompanies organizations through transformation processes and uses the Change Curve as a communication tool in change support — always in combination with structural frameworks, never as a standalone model. This practical experience informs the assessment of the method in this article. Readers should be aware of potential perspective bias.

References

[1] Kubler-Ross, Elisabeth. On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan, 1969. ISBN: 978-0684839387 [Monograph | Foundational Work | Citations: 50,000+ | Quality: 75/100 (historically significant, empirically not validated)]

[2] Bonanno, George A. “Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events?” American Psychologist 59, no. 1 (2004): 20-28. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20 [Journal Article | Empirical Critique | Citations: 8,000+ | Quality: 92/100]

[3] Kubler-Ross, Elisabeth, and David Kessler. On Grief and Grieving: Finding the Meaning of Grief Through the Five Stages of Loss. New York: Scribner, 2005. ISBN: 978-0743266284 [Monograph | Self-Correction | Quality: 70/100]

[4] Streich, Richard K. “Fit for Leadership: Entwicklungsfelder zur Fuhrungspersonlichkeit.” Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, 2013. ISBN: 978-3658012748 [Monograph | German-Language Extension | Quality: 65/100]

[5] Elrod, P. David, and Donald D. Tippett. “The ‘death valley’ of change.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 15, no. 3 (2002): 273-291. DOI: 10.1108/09534810210429309 [Journal Article | Change Curve Analysis | Citations: 400+ | Quality: 72/100]

[6] Worrell, Louise. “Organizational Change and the Change Curve.” In: The Palgrave Handbook of Organizational Change Thinkers. Ed. David B. Szabla et al. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. [Book Chapter | Pragmatic Reassessment | Quality: 70/100]