Rethinking the Change Curve: Why Grief Models Fail in Business

The widely used “change curve,” derived from the “five stages of grief” model by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, has become a staple in change management. This model, which outlines emotional responses to change—from denial to acceptance—has been adopted in workplaces globally. However, recent research suggests that its application may be more harmful than helpful in organizational contexts.

The change curve traces its origins back to Kübler-Ross’s work with terminally ill patients in the 1960s. She identified five emotional responses—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—that individuals experience when confronted with death. While this framework offers relatable insights into personal loss, its adaptation for workplace changes has raised significant concerns.

Issues with the Change Curve in Business

In collaboration with recent commerce graduate Logan Holdsworth, I explored the implications of applying a model designed for grief to workplace dynamics. We identified four main issues that arise from this adaptation. First, the change curve lacks robust scientific validation. According to the Kübler-Ross Foundation, her original interviews aimed to facilitate discussions about death, a topic often avoided in American society, rather than to establish a scientific framework. Despite this, change management consultants have employed the model for their own purposes, often overlooking its limitations.

Second, the change curve inaccurately presents emotional responses as universal and linear. Kübler-Ross herself noted that her stages are not universally applicable and that many individuals experience multiple stages simultaneously. This nuance is frequently overlooked in organizational settings, leading to a misguided belief that employees will inevitably follow a predictable psychological path during change initiatives.

The third concern is the tendency to “psychologise” employee resistance. The change curve may lead management to misinterpret legitimate opposition to change as mere denial. Employees might resist alterations because they believe a proposed change is unnecessary or poorly conceived, yet the model frames their concerns as irrational feelings. This perspective can breed cynicism and disengagement among staff, as legitimate grievances are dismissed.

Finally, applying a model about coping with death to workplace change raises ethical questions. Employees can choose to accept or reject changes within their organizations, unlike the inevitability of death. The change curve implies that employees must adapt to changes regardless of their reservations, potentially ignoring their valid concerns.

Lessons from Kübler-Ross’s Work

Despite the challenges associated with the change curve, valuable lessons can be drawn from Kübler-Ross’s original work. She emphasized the importance of listening to patients and validating their emotions—principles that hold significant relevance in change management.

Research from Lester Coch and John French in 1948 underlines that involving employees in the design and implementation of change initiatives significantly boosts the likelihood of success. Unfortunately, this notion is often overlooked by proponents of the change curve, who may prioritize emotional responses over meaningful engagement with staff.

Encouraging organizations to actively involve employees in decision-making could lead to more successful change programs. Rather than viewing resistance solely as an emotional hurdle, leadership should recognize it as an opportunity for dialogue and collaboration. By fostering an environment where employees feel heard, organizations can navigate change more effectively and reduce unnecessary emotional distress.

Ultimately, while the change curve may provide a framework for understanding emotional responses, its application in the workplace requires careful reconsideration to ensure it genuinely addresses the complexities of human experience in organizational change.