Rethinking Change: An Analytical

Framework for Inclusive Transformation in

UK Public Services, Healthcare, and
Education
Part I: The Canon of Change Management: Foundational
Models and Philosophies
The landscape of organisational transformation is dominated by a set of foundational models
that have shaped how leaders approach and implement change for decades. Understanding
these models—their core principles, inherent assumptions, and operational logic—is the
essential first step for any leader, particularly those in the complex and highly scrutinised
environments of the UK public sector, healthcare, and education. This section provides a
detailed examination of four seminal frameworks: the process-centric models of Kurt Lewin
and John Kotter, which view change as a structured, organisation-wide progression, and the
people-centric and systems-focused models of Prosci ADKAR and McKinsey 7-S, which
shift the focus to individual journeys and holistic organisational alignment. By dissecting
their theoretical underpinnings, we establish the necessary groundwork for a later critical
analysis of their suitability and limitations within a modern context defined by legal and
ethical equality imperatives.

Section 1: The Process-Centric Models: Guiding the Organisation

Process-centric models provide a high-level, strategic roadmap for leaders, conceptualising

change as a series of distinct stages to be managed from the top down. Their primary focus is
on the organisation as a whole, guiding it from a current state to a desired future state through
a structured sequence of activities.

1.1 Kurt Lewin's Three-Step Model (Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze)

Developed by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1940s, the Three-Step Model is one of
the most influential and foundational theories in organisational change. Its enduring appeal
stems from its elegant simplicity and accessibility, offering a clear, high-level framework that
breaks down the complex process of transformation into three manageable stages. Lewin's
core principle is that the behaviour of any individual in response to change is a function of
group behaviour and dynamics; therefore, to change an individual, one must first address the
forces within the group. He conceptualised change not as a singular event, but as a process or
a transition—an internal journey that individuals and groups undertake. The model uses the
analogy of changing the shape of a block of ice: it must first be melted (unfrozen), then
moulded into a new shape (changed), and finally solidified in its new form (refrozen).

Stage 1: Unfreeze The initial stage, "Unfreeze," is arguably the most critical and challenging
phase of the process. Its purpose is to prepare the organisation for change by dismantling the
existing status quo and creating the motivation to move away from the current comfort zone.
This involves breaking down established mindsets, values, and behaviours that act as barriers
to transformation.

A key activity in this stage is to create a compelling and urgent rationale for the change.
Leaders must build awareness of how current practices are hindering the organisation or
present a significant risk if left unaddressed. This can be achieved by highlighting potential
threats, examining untapped opportunities, or presenting hard evidence such as declining
performance metrics, negative financial results, or poor customer satisfaction feedback. For
example, a compelling message might be that "implementing accessibility testing in our
process means we find fewer accessibility bugs in production, which in turn means less work
for the entire team". Without a sense of urgency or a deadline, motivation to change remains
low.

Effective communication is paramount. The goal is to ensure that employees at all levels
understand the imminent change, the logic behind it, and how it will benefit them. This
requires managing and understanding the doubts and concerns that will inevitably arise.
Change leaders should proactively predict where resistance might occur and address those
concerns upfront, correcting misconceptions with honesty and transparency. Research shows
that in a traditional top-down approach, the gap in understanding the reasons for change
between the C-suite and entry-level employees can be as high as 31%, whereas more open
communication strategies can shrink this gap to just 3%.

Stage 2: Change (or Transition) Once the organisation is "unfrozen," the "Change" stage
begins. This is the implementation phase, where the actual transformation takes place and
people begin to learn and adopt new behaviours, processes, and ways of thinking. Lewin
referred to this phase as a "transition," emphasising the internal psychological journey
individuals make in response to the external change.

This stage is often characterised by uncertainty and fear, which can heighten resistance.
Therefore, continuous and robust support is essential for success. This support can take many
forms, including clear and consistent communication about the rollout, empowerment of
employees to take action, and the provision of adequate training and resources to build
necessary skills. Leadership must remain visible, dispelling rumours and addressing concerns
as they arise. It is also a time for learning; mistakes should be expected as part of the process,
and role models and change champions can be used to demonstrate the new ways of working
and help others adapt. Allowing people to help develop their own solutions can also
significantly aid the transition process.

Stage 3: Refreeze The final stage, "Refreeze," is aimed at stabilising the organisation and
embedding the change into its culture, making the new way of doing things the new status
quo. This stage is crucial; without it, there is a significant risk that the organisation will revert
to its old habits and processes. The goal is to reinforce the new behaviours and ensure they
are sustained over time.

Key activities in the Refreeze stage include establishing new policies, procedures, and
organisational structures to support the change. Performance metrics may need to be updated
to align with the new processes, such as tracking metrics from a new CRM system. It is also a
time to celebrate successes, which reinforces the value of the change and motivates staff.
Rewards do not have to be monetary; public recognition and sharing stories of success can be
highly effective. Finally, this stage requires a commitment to continuous support, such as
ongoing training and coaching, until the new behaviours become second nature. Some
contemporary models, like ADKAR, have built upon this concept, referring to it as
"Reinforcement" to make the step more explicit.

Despite its foundational importance and simplicity, Lewin's model faces several modern
criticisms. It is often seen as too linear and simplistic for the complex, volatile, and non-linear
nature of today's organisational environments. The very concept of "refreezing" into a stable
state seems outdated in a world that demands constant adaptation and agility. Critics also
point out that the model is a top-down framework that provides a broad overview but lacks
detailed guidance on how to execute each stage effectively. Furthermore, it has been
criticised for its disregard for the emotional journey of individuals and for ignoring the role of
power and politics in organisational change.

A more profound limitation emerges when considering its application in the modern public
sector. The concept of 'Refreeze' is fundamentally at odds with the need for continuous
improvement and agility that defines contemporary public service delivery. Public sector
organisations operate in a state of near-constant flux, driven by shifting political mandates,
evolving societal needs, technological advancements, and regulatory changes. The 'Refreeze'
stage, by definition, aims to create a new, stable, and solidified status quo. This very act of
creating a new rigid state erects a barrier to the next inevitable wave of change. It forces the
organisation into a cycle of disruptive and resource-intensive 'Unfreeze' events each time a
new adaptation is required. A literal application of the 'Refreeze' stage, therefore, risks
building organisational inertia and resistance to future transformations, rather than cultivating
a culture of perpetual adaptation and change capability. This represents a critical flaw for
public bodies that must be perpetually responsive and agile to serve the public effectively.

1.2 John Kotter's 8-Step Process for Leading Change

Building on Lewin's foundational ideas, Harvard Business School Professor John Kotter
developed his 8-Step Process for Leading Change in the 1990s. Based on his research of over
100 organisations undergoing transformation, Kotter's model offers a more detailed and
actionable framework for leaders. It is a top-down, sequential model that places a heavy
emphasis on strong leadership, the creation of a compelling vision, and the generation of
momentum to drive large-scale change.

The 8 Steps in Detail

1. Create a Sense of Urgency: This first step is foundational and echoes Lewin's
'Unfreeze' concept. Kotter argues that for change to be successful, leaders must create
a powerful sense of urgency to combat complacency. This involves identifying and
highlighting potential threats, crises, or major opportunities in the market or operating
environment. The goal is to secure the buy-in of at least 75% of the organisation's
management, creating what is often referred to as a "burning platform" to convince
people that the risk of standing still is greater than the risk of changing.
2. Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition: No leader can drive major change alone. This
step involves assembling a group of influential people from different parts of the
organisation who have the credibility, skills, connections, and authority to lead the
change effort. This coalition should be a diverse team, representing various functions
and levels, and must work together with a shared commitment to the transformation.
 3. Create a Vision and Strategy: The guiding coalition's next task is to develop a clear,
simple, and compelling vision for the future. This vision serves as a guiding star for
the entire change effort, helping to direct, align, and inspire action. It must be easy to
communicate and should appeal to employees' emotions as well as their logic—their
"hearts and minds". This vision is then supported by a coherent strategy that outlines
how it will be achieved.
4. Communicate the Vision: Once created, the vision must be communicated
frequently and powerfully through every available channel. It is not enough to
announce it in a single meeting or email. The vision should be integrated into all
aspects of the organisation, from performance reviews to training programmes.
Leaders must "walk the talk," consistently modelling the behaviours demanded by the
new vision and honestly addressing people's concerns and anxieties.
5. Enable Action by Removing Barriers: In this step, the organisation actively
identifies and removes obstacles that could hinder the change effort. Barriers can take
many forms: outdated processes, inefficient organisational structures, or even
individuals who are actively resisting the change. Removing these barriers empowers
employees to take risks, innovate, and act on the vision without being constrained by
legacy systems or cultures.
6. Generate Short-Term Wins: Large-scale change is a long journey, and momentum
can wane. This step focuses on planning for and creating visible, unambiguous
successes early in the process. These "wins" provide tangible proof that the change is
working, which helps to build credibility, reward the efforts of the volunteer army,
and undermine the arguments of cynics and resisters. Celebrating these wins publicly
is crucial for maintaining energy and motivation.
7. Sustain Acceleration (Consolidate Gains): Kotter warns against declaring victory
too early. After the first few wins, leaders must use the increased credibility to press
harder and tackle bigger challenges. This is the stage for changing all the systems,
structures, and policies that do not align with the vision, and for developing
employees who can implement the vision. The process involves continuous
improvement, analysing what went right and building upon it.
8. Institute Change (Anchor in Culture): The final step is to make the change stick by
anchoring it deeply within the organisation's culture. This is achieved by consistently
articulating the links between the new behaviours and organisational success.
Processes like recruitment, promotion, and leadership development must be aligned
with the new culture to ensure that it is sustained long after the initial change project
is complete.

In recent years, Kotter has acknowledged that change in today's world is often not a linear
process. He has evolved the original 8 Steps into a more dynamic set of "8 Accelerators" that
can run concurrently and continuously, often operating through a network structure that
works in conjunction with the traditional hierarchy.

Despite its popularity, Kotter's model is not without its critics. A primary criticism is that it is
a rigid, time-consuming, and strictly sequential process, where skipping a step can derail the
entire initiative. Its strong top-down orientation is seen as a significant drawback, as it limits
the scope for employee participation and co-creation, which can lead to frustration and
disengagement. Some argue that the model is overly focused on creating urgency at the
expense of providing detailed guidance in other areas, and that it may not be suitable for
collectivist cultures that prioritise consensus and group cohesion over strong, individualistic
leadership.
When viewed through the lens of UK public sector obligations, the model's core logic
presents a significant structural conflict with the legal requirements of the Public Sector
Equality Duty (PSED). The PSED mandates that public bodies must have 'due regard' to
advancing equality, a process that necessitates broad, meaningful consultation and
engagement with affected groups, particularly those with protected characteristics. Kotter's
model, in contrast, advocates for the formation of a "powerful guiding coalition"—a select
group of influential leaders who define and drive the change from the top down. This
centralisation of decision-making power inherently creates an "in-group" of change leaders
and an "out-group" of change recipients, which risks marginalising the very voices that the
PSED is designed to empower and include. The model's emphasis on communicating a pre-
defined "vision" is antithetical to the principles of co-creation, where the vision itself is
developed participatively with a diverse range of stakeholders. Therefore, a public body that
adheres strictly to Kotter's framework risks establishing a change process that is procedurally
flawed from a PSED perspective from its inception, creating a significant legal and ethical
vulnerability before the substance of the change is even considered.

Section 2: The People-Centric and Systems-Focused Models

In contrast to the top-down, process-driven frameworks of Lewin and Kotter, another stream
of change management theory shifts the focus either to the journey of the individual
employee or to the holistic alignment of the entire organisational system. These models
recognise that successful transformation depends less on a rigid sequence of steps and more
on understanding human psychology and ensuring that all parts of the organisation are
working in harmony.

2.1 The Prosci ADKAR Model

The ADKAR model, developed by Jeff Hiatt, founder of the change management firm Prosci,
represents a significant shift in perspective. It is a goal-oriented framework that focuses on
the individual's journey through change, operating on the fundamental premise that
organisational change is the cumulative result of individual change. Unlike the high-level
strategic roadmaps of Lewin and Kotter, ADKAR provides a more granular, tactical, and
bottom-up approach, making it a powerful tool for managing the human side of
transformation.

The acronym ADKAR stands for five sequential and cumulative goals or outcomes that each
individual must achieve for a change to be successful.

The Five Elements (Goals)

1. Awareness: The first goal is to build Awareness of the need for change. This stage is
about answering the fundamental question: "Why is this change necessary?". It
involves clear communication about the business drivers, the nature of the change, the
risks of not changing, and the problems with the current state. The credibility of the
person delivering the message is crucial; research shows that employees prefer to hear
organisational messages from senior leaders but messages about personal impact from
their direct supervisors.
2. Desire: Once aware, an individual must have the Desire to participate in and support
the change. This is often the most challenging stage, as it involves a personal choice
and addresses the critical "What's in it for me?" (WIIFM) question. Fostering desire
 requires appealing to both logic and emotion, highlighting personal and organisational
benefits, and actively involving employees in the process to create a sense of
ownership. Addressing concerns and resistance head-on is vital to building this
motivation.
3. Knowledge: This goal focuses on providing the Knowledge of how to change. It is
not enough for people to want to change; they must know what to do differently. This
stage involves providing targeted training and education on the new processes,
systems, skills, and behaviours required. Because change impacts everyone
differently, training should be tailored to the specific needs of various groups and
delivered in a safe, practical environment where employees can learn without risk.
4. Ability: Ability is the bridge between theory and practice. It is the demonstrated
capability to implement the new skills and behaviours effectively in the day-to-day
work environment. This stage recognises that knowledge alone is insufficient.
Developing ability requires hands-on practice, coaching, mentoring, and continuous
feedback. Change leaders must identify and address potential barriers to ability, which
can include psychological blocks ("I've always done it this way"), physical
limitations, or a lack of time and resources.
5. Reinforcement: The final goal is Reinforcement, which encompasses all actions
taken to sustain the change and make it stick. Without reinforcement, individuals and
teams are likely to revert to old, familiar habits. This stage involves celebrating
successes, providing positive recognition and rewards, collecting feedback, and
implementing accountability systems to ensure the new behaviours become embedded
in the culture.

The ADKAR model is highly valued for its practical applicability. It can be used as a
diagnostic tool to assess where individuals or groups are in their change journey and to
identify specific "barrier points". For instance, if a change is failing, a leader can assess
whether the root cause is a lack of Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, or Reinforcement,
and then apply targeted interventions to address that specific gap. This focused approach
makes it a popular choice across many sectors, including healthcare for projects like EMR
rollouts and policy changes, and in the UK public sector, where numerous government
suppliers explicitly offer ADKAR-based change management services.

Despite its people-centric focus, a critical analysis reveals a potential vulnerability in the
ADKAR model's application within the context of the UK Equality Act 2010. The model's
intense focus on the individual can inadvertently mask systemic barriers and, in doing so, risk
placing the burden of "failure" on the individual rather than on the organisation's legal duty to
adapt. This creates a pathway to potential indirect discrimination.

For example, the Equality Act 2010 and the associated PSED place a firm legal duty on
public bodies to make 'reasonable adjustments' for disabled people and to eliminate policies
or practices that put individuals with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
Consider a public authority implementing a new, mandatory software system. If an employee
with a visual impairment struggles to use the new interface, a standard ADKAR assessment
might diagnose this as a lack of 'Ability'. The prescribed ADKAR solution would likely
involve providing additional training, coaching, or resources to that individual to help them
develop the 'Ability' to use the system. However, the true root cause of the problem is not the
employee's individual deficit but a systemic failure: the software itself is not accessible. The
legal duty under the PSED and reasonable adjustment provisions requires the
organisation to address the systemic barrier—for instance, by procuring accessible software
or providing assistive technology. It does not permit the organisation to place the entire
burden of adaptation on the disabled employee. By framing the problem as an individual's
lack of 'Ability', an organisation relying exclusively on the ADKAR model could fail in its
legal duty to make a systemic adjustment, thereby creating a situation of indirect
discrimination and exposing itself to legal challenge.

2.2 The McKinsey 7-S Framework

The McKinsey 7-S Framework, conceived in the late 1970s by consultants at McKinsey &
Company, offers a different lens for viewing organisational change. Rather than prescribing a
linear process, it functions as a holistic diagnostic tool for analysing an organisation's design
and internal alignment. The central tenet of the model is that seven key internal elements are
deeply interconnected and interdependent; for an organisation to perform effectively,
especially during a period of change, these seven elements must be in harmony. A change in
any single element will inevitably create ripple effects, necessitating adjustments in the others
to restore balance.

The framework categorises the seven elements into "Hard S's" and "Soft S's." The hard
elements are considered more tangible, easier to define, and more readily influenced by
management. The soft elements are more abstract, deeply rooted in the organisation's culture,
and more difficult to change.

The 'Hard S's'

 Strategy: This refers to the organisation's overarching plan for achieving its
objectives and gaining a sustainable competitive advantage. It is the route map that
defines how the organisation intends to succeed in its environment.
 Structure: This is the formal organisational chart—the way the organisation is
structured, including reporting lines, departmental divisions, and the hierarchy of
authority (e.g., centralised, decentralised, matrix).
 Systems: These are the daily activities, procedures, and workflows that staff use to
get their work done. This includes everything from the IT infrastructure and financial
systems to performance management processes and operational routines.

The 'Soft S's'

 Shared Values: Positioned at the heart of the model, this element represents the core
values, beliefs, and cultural norms that guide the organisation. These are the
foundational principles that shape employee behaviour and corporate culture, often
unwritten but deeply understood.
 Style: This refers to the leadership style of top management and the overall operating
approach of the organisation. It encompasses how leaders interact with employees,
make decisions, and what they pay attention to, which in turn heavily influences the
culture.
 Staff: This element considers the organisation's people—their roles, demographics,
and the approaches to recruitment, training, motivation, and retention.
 Skills: This refers to the distinctive competencies and capabilities of the organisation
as a whole and of its workforce. These are the collective skills that enable the
organisation to execute its strategy.
The 7-S Framework is typically applied to diagnose misalignments that could hinder
performance or a change initiative. The process involves analysing the current state ("as is")
of each of the seven elements, defining the desired future state ("to be") that would be
required to support the new strategy or change, and then identifying the gaps and
inconsistencies between them. This analysis then informs the development of action plans to
bring the elements back into alignment. Due to its holistic nature, the model is frequently
used to navigate complex transformations such as mergers, major strategy shifts, or cultural
change programmes, and has found particular utility in the healthcare sector.

While the 7-S model provides a valuable holistic perspective, its very structure—the division
between 'hard' and 'soft' elements—can create a conceptual trap for leaders, especially in the
public sector. This division can lead to the de-prioritisation of the 'soft' elements, which are
precisely where the most critical equality and inclusion issues reside. The 'hard' elements of
Strategy, Structure, and Systems are often perceived as more concrete, manageable, and
measurable; changing an organisational chart or implementing a new IT system feels like a
tangible action. Conversely, the 'soft' elements of Staff, Skills, Style, and Shared Values are
seen as abstract, cultural, and more difficult to influence.

In the resource-constrained and process-driven environment of the public sector, there is a

natural tendency for managers to gravitate towards addressing these 'hard', seemingly more
controllable factors first. A 2012 independent review of the PSED noted that public bodies
too often engage in "useless bureaucratic practices" and "tick-box" exercises, suggesting a
focus on process (a 'hard' system) over substantive cultural change (a 'soft' value). However,
the core aims of the PSED—advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations—
are fundamentally about people, culture, and behaviour. Issues such as unconscious bias
(Skills), inclusive leadership (Style), workforce diversity (Staff), and creating an equitable
culture (Shared Values) are central to PSED compliance. By conceptually separating these
critical levers and labelling them as 'soft', the 7-S model may unintentionally encourage
public sector leaders to treat them as secondary or less urgent than the 'hard' structural
changes. This can result in a change process that is perfectly aligned on paper according to
the 'hard' metrics but fails to achieve the meaningful, cultural, and behavioural shifts required
for genuine equality outcomes, thereby undermining the very purpose of the PSED.

Inherent Limitations
Model Core Philosophy Primary Focus Key Strengths (Pre-Inclusion
Analysis)
Change is a
process of Overly Simplistic and
disrupting an old Simplicity and Linear: Assumes a
equilibrium, Accessibility: Easy stable environment for
Organisational
Lewin's 3- transitioning, and to understand and 'refreezing', which is
Process (High-
Step Model solidifying a new provides a clear, rare. Lacks detailed
Level)
one. Individual high-level roadmap guidance and neglects
behaviour is a for any change. the emotional/political
function of group aspects of change.
dynamics.
Kotter's 8- Change is a Organisational Action-Oriented Rigid and Top-Down:
Step Process complex, leader- Process and Structured: The sequential, top-
driven project (Detailed) Provides a clear, heavy approach limits
that requires step-by-step guide employee participation
 Inherent Limitations
Model Core Philosophy Primary Focus Key Strengths (Pre-Inclusion
Analysis)
building
significant for leaders to follow, and can cause
momentum with a strong frustration. Skipping a
through a clear emphasis on vision, step can derail the
vision and a communication, and process. Lacks detail in
sequence of momentum. some areas.
strategic actions.
Organisational
People-Centric and Individualistic Focus:
change is the
Diagnostic: Focuses Can place the onus of
collective result
on the human side of failure on the
of individual
Individual change. Can be used individual's lack of
ADKAR change. Success
Journey to pinpoint specific "Ability" or "Desire"
Model depends on
(Tactical) "barrier points" for rather than on systemic
guiding each
individuals or groups or organisational
person through
and apply targeted barriers that need to be
five key personal
interventions. addressed.
outcomes.
Holistic and
Static and
Comprehensive:
Descriptive: It is a
Organisational Provides a robust
diagnostic tool, not a
effectiveness and framework for
process model. It tells
the ability to analysing the entire
McKinsey System you what to look at,
change depend on organisation to
7-S Alignment but not how to
the alignment and identify
Framework (Diagnostic) implement the change.
interplay of seven misalignments and
The "hard" vs. "soft"
key internal gaps, ensuring all
distinction can lead to
elements. aspects are
undervaluing cultural
considered during a
elements.
change.

Part II: Change in Context: Sector-Specific Applications

and Realities
While foundational models provide the theoretical architecture for change, their true utility is
revealed only when applied within the complex, messy reality of specific sectors. The UK's
healthcare, education, and public service landscapes are not sterile corporate environments;
they are intricate ecosystems defined by unique pressures, stakeholder dynamics, and cultural
norms. This section moves from abstract theory to concrete practice, examining how change
management models are deployed, adapted, and sometimes resisted within the NHS, schools
and universities, and local and central government. Through case studies and analysis of
sector-specific challenges, we can identify the patterns of success and failure that inform a
more nuanced approach to transformation.

Section 3: Transformation in UK Healthcare (The NHS)

The National Health Service (NHS) is in a state of perpetual transformation, driven by a
confluence of powerful forces. These include the need to comply with an ever-changing
regulatory landscape, the complex integration of new technologies, the challenge of
managing patient services amidst fluctuating demand, and the constant balancing act between
the needs of diverse stakeholders such as patients, clinicians, and administrators. Common
change initiatives range from the technical, like implementing Electronic Health Record
(EHR) systems and transitioning to telehealth services, to the structural, such as departmental
reorganisations and hospital mergers.

Case Study Analysis

The application of change management models in the NHS and similar healthcare systems
provides critical lessons.

 Electronic Health Record (EHR) Implementation: The shift from paper-based to

electronic records is a cornerstone of modern healthcare transformation and has been
shown to significantly reduce medication errors. However, it is a profoundly
disruptive change that requires careful management. The ADKAR model is
particularly well-suited for this type of initiative. To build

Awareness, leaders must clearly communicate how a unified EHR system improves
patient care by enabling seamless record sharing across departments (e.g., from acute
care to rehabilitation). To build

Knowledge and Ability, healthcare providers require extensive, hands-on training in a

safe, non-patient-facing "sandbox" environment to ensure they are confident and
competent before the system goes live.

 Service Decentralisation: One case study from the Mercy Hospital System highlights
a successful, planned change to address plummeting patient and provider satisfaction
with a centralised scheduling system. By implementing a structured change
management process to decentralise scheduling to local offices, the organisation
achieved remarkable results: an 11% increase in patient visits, a 5.3% rise in front
desk courtesy ratings, and a reduction of 1,500 calls per month, saving significant
staff time. This success was attributed to a clear plan that included workflow analysis,
interdepartmental communication strategies, and defined success measures.
 Post-Merger Data Integration: In another example, a prominent hospital merger
resulted in operational chaos due to disorganised and inaccurate patient data. A formal
change plan was executed to improve data integrity and streamline access. This
involved creating a new policy and procedure framework for data requests that
mandated collaboration between operations, security, and compliance stakeholders.
The outcome was a dramatic reduction in data access time from 21 days to just 2
days, alongside improved collaboration and patient satisfaction.
 Participatory Action Research (PAR) in Nurse Education: Moving beyond
traditional models, a UK university demonstrated a co-creative approach by using
PAR to develop a tool for measuring the impact of public involvement in nurse
education. PAR is a methodology centred on collaborative practice, inviting
marginalised community representatives to work as equal partners to address local
issues and remediate power imbalances. This represents a shift towards more
inclusive and participatory forms of change within the broader healthcare ecosystem.
Sector-Specific Dynamics and Challenges

The healthcare environment presents unique challenges that test the limits of standard change
models.

 Managing Clinical Staff: Resistance from highly skilled healthcare professionals is a

primary obstacle. Clinicians may resist changes they perceive as disruptive to patient
care, an imposition on their professional autonomy, or an addition to already heavy
workloads. Change fatigue and burnout are endemic in the sector, making staff weary
of new initiatives.
 Stakeholder Complexity: The NHS is a web of stakeholders with often competing
interests. Clinicians, managers, patients, unions, regulatory bodies (like the Care
Quality Commission), and government departments all have a stake in how services
are delivered. This complexity makes models like McKinsey 7-S popular, as they
provide a framework for analysing and aligning these disparate components.
Engaging these groups through town halls, regular feedback sessions, and other
participatory methods is not just good practice; it is essential for success.
 Siloed Organisational Structures: Healthcare systems are notoriously siloed, with
deep divisions between departments, specialties, and management structures. This
makes inter-departmental communication and collaboration a significant hurdle that
any change initiative must overcome.
 The Shift to Patient-Centred Care: The move away from a provider-centric model
to one where patients are active partners in their care represents a fundamental
cultural transformation. This requires not just new processes but a complete redesign
of care delivery, extensive retraining of staff, and the active, ongoing involvement of
patients in decision-making—a principle that aligns closely with co-creation
methodologies.

These dynamics reveal a central tension at the heart of NHS transformation: the conflict
between the hierarchical, command-and-control culture required for clinical safety and the
collaborative, consensus-driven approach needed for effective and sustainable change.
Clinical environments, by necessity, rely on strict protocols, clear lines of authority, and
adherence to evidence-based practice to ensure patient safety. This can foster a culture where
directives are expected to be followed without question. However, successful change
management, particularly when it involves highly skilled and autonomous professionals like
doctors and nurses, depends on securing their buy-in, respecting their expertise, and engaging
them in the process.

Applying a rigid, top-down model like Kotter's can be perceived as just another management
mandate, triggering immediate resistance from clinicians protective of their professional
judgment. Conversely, a purely bottom-up or laissez-faire approach may fail to align with
overarching strategic goals or critical regulatory standards. The most successful change
initiatives in healthcare, therefore, often employ a hybrid model. They combine a clear, non-
negotiable strategic vision and uncompromisable safety parameters set by leadership (a
Kotter-like element) with a deeply participatory process for designing and implementing the
specific workflows and practices (an ADKAR or Co-creation-like element). The case of a
health system using ADKAR to transition to a team nursing model during the COVID-19
pandemic exemplifies this blend: the "why" of the change was an urgent, top-down directive,
but its successful implementation relied on achieving individual buy-in, ensuring role clarity,
and managing the people side of the transition effectively.
Section 4: Reform in UK Education

The education sector, from primary schools to universities, is a landscape of continuous

reform. Change is driven by a multitude of factors, including evolving pedagogical theories,
large-scale curriculum reforms like the shift to Competency-Based Education and Training,
the integration of digital technologies into teaching and learning, and a growing imperative to
create more inclusive and equitable learning environments for all students.

Case Study Analysis

The application of change models in educational settings shows a clear pattern of adaptation
to fit the unique culture of teaching and learning institutions.

 Creating Inclusive Schools with Kotter's Model: A notable case study from
Vanderbilt University demonstrates how Kotter's 8-Step model can be effectively
adapted to guide the creation of inclusive school environments. The adaptation
reframes Kotter's corporate language into educational practice. For example, 'Forming
a guiding team' is translated into assembling a group that represents the full diversity
of the school community—including different job titles, levels of status, and areas of
expertise—and training them to work together effectively. 'Enable action' involves the
practical steps of reviewing and analysing school data to identify priorities and create
a data-informed action plan. Finally, 'Anchor the changes' means embedding new
inclusive behaviours and practices into the core processes and procedures that direct
the school's day-to-day activities.
 University Curriculum Reform: A systematic literature review on curriculum
change in universities highlights the utility of Kotter's model in this context. Here,
'Creating a sense of urgency' is often linked to evolving educational needs or demands
from the labour market. The 'guiding coalition' is composed of influential
stakeholders, including faculty members, administrators, and external industry
partners. Crucially, the review found that creating a shared vision

collaboratively with faculty was a significant factor in achieving their buy-in and
support for the change.

 Pinpointing Barriers with ADKAR: A study of change management in a public

educational institution in the Gulf region used the ADKAR model as a diagnostic tool.
The analysis revealed strengths in the 'Desire' to change among staff but significant
weaknesses in the 'Knowledge' element (due to the absence of clear guidelines for
implementation) and the 'Ability' element (stemming from unclear leadership
authority and responsibility). This case illustrates how ADKAR can effectively
pinpoint the specific human-factor barriers that are stalling a change initiative,
allowing leaders to apply targeted remedies.

Sector-Specific Dynamics and Challenges

Managing change in education involves navigating a distinct set of challenges.

 Complex Stakeholder Environment: Educational institutions serve a uniquely broad

and emotionally invested community of stakeholders, including teachers, support
staff, students, parents, governors, local authorities, and community partners.
 Achieving consensus and buy-in across these diverse groups is a formidable
challenge.
 Professional Autonomy and Resistance: Like clinicians, teachers are highly skilled
professionals who value their autonomy in the classroom. Top-down mandates that
are perceived to undermine their professional judgment, ignore their practical
expertise, or simply add to their already significant workload are often met with
resistance.
 Resource Constraints: The public education sector frequently operates under tight
budgetary constraints, which can make it difficult to fund the necessary components
of successful change, such as comprehensive training, new technology, or additional
staff support.
 Cultural Inertia: Schools and universities are institutions with deep-rooted traditions
and cultures. The sentiment that "this is the way we've always done things" can be a
powerful restraining force against innovation and reform.

The successful application of change models in education reveals a critical pattern: the
models are most effective when they are adapted to become pedagogical tools in themselves.
Rather than being implemented as rigid administrative mandates, they work best when they
are used to foster a culture of collaborative inquiry, reflection, and learning. The core
business of an educational institution is learning, and change initiatives often fail when they
are perceived by staff as external, bureaucratic tasks imposed upon the "real work" of
teaching and supporting students.

The Vanderbilt case study on inclusion, for instance, succeeded because it reframed Kotter's
steps as a collective learning process: the team came together to analyse data, identify
priorities based on that evidence, and build capacity to meet student needs. Similarly, the
university curriculum reform study demonstrated that the key to faculty buy-in was not
simply communicating a vision, but developing it collaboratively—a shared learning activity.
Therefore, the most effective school leaders do not simply "implement a change model."
Instead, they "facilitate a change inquiry," using the structure of a model like Kotter's or the
diagnostic power of a model like ADKAR to guide their staff through a process of collective
problem-solving and professional learning. This approach aligns the change process with the
institution's fundamental purpose and values, which dramatically reduces resistance and
builds a powerful sense of shared ownership.

Section 5: Modernisation of the UK Public Sector

The UK public sector is undergoing a period of profound and continuous modernisation.

Change is a constant, driven by the dual pressures of rising citizen expectations and persistent
budget constraints, alongside rapid technological advancement and frequent shifts in
government policy. This transformation manifests in numerous ways, from the
implementation of large-scale digital systems and the redesign of public-facing services to the
complete restructuring of government departments and local authorities.

Case Study Analysis

The choice and application of change management models in the UK public sector reflect its
unique operational context.
  Widespread Adoption of ADKAR: The Prosci ADKAR model has gained
significant traction within UK government. An examination of the government's
Digital Marketplace, a platform for public sector procurement, shows numerous
approved suppliers explicitly offering change management consultancy and
practitioner services based on the ADKAR framework. These services are marketed to
a wide range of public bodies, including central government departments, defence
organisations, and local councils, with the stated aim of managing resistance,
maximising the adoption of new systems, and improving operational processes.
 ADKAR in a Welsh Public Body (WAVE Project): A detailed case study from
Wales provides a concrete example of ADKAR in action. A Local Health Board, as
part of a project to tackle gender pay inequality, used an adapted ADKAR model to
guide its change management process. The public sector context presented specific
challenges, including the high sensitivity of pay data and the constraints of operating
within "All Wales" systems that limited local autonomy. The model was adapted
accordingly: the

Awareness stage was handled with extreme care; the Desire for change was cultivated
by forming a core team of highly committed individuals; and direct, hands-on support
was provided to build Knowledge and Ability through targeted workshops and
training. This case demonstrates how a structured, people-centric model can be
tailored to navigate the specific complexities of a public sector environment.

 The Rise of Co-Creation in Local Government: Alongside structured models, there

is a growing movement towards more participatory approaches. The Design Council's
"Design in the Public Sector" programme has worked with over 90 local councils to
embed design thinking and co-creation into their work. A powerful example comes
from Staffordshire, where the council co-designed a new approach to early years
services in collaboration with families, service providers, and local partners. This
participatory process led to a 300% increase in engagement and, crucially, enabled the
council to identify and support 155 previously "hidden" vulnerable children. This
highlights a significant shift from delivering services

to citizens to designing services with them.

Sector-Specific Dynamics and Challenges

The public sector operates within a unique context that profoundly shapes how change is
managed.

 Bureaucracy and Process: Public bodies are often characterised by established

bureaucratic structures and processes. An independent review of the Public Sector
Equality Duty (PSED) criticised the tendency for public bodies to engage in "useless
bureaucratic practices" and "red tape" that create administrative burdens without
advancing equality. Change initiatives must be robust enough to navigate and reform
this culture.
 Political Instability: Unlike a private corporation with a stable board, the public
sector is subject to the electoral cycle and shifting political priorities. This makes the
long-term stability required to truly "refreeze" a change, in Lewin's terms, almost
impossible to achieve.
  Accountability and Legal Scrutiny: Public sector bodies operate under a high
degree of public and legal scrutiny. Their decisions are subject to procurement
regulations, Freedom of Information requests, and, critically, legal challenge through
judicial review. This high-risk environment often fosters a cautious, risk-averse
culture.
 The Duty to Engage: While all organisations benefit from stakeholder engagement,
for UK public bodies, it is a legal requirement. The PSED mandates consultation and
engagement with affected groups, particularly those with protected characteristics, as
an integral part of the decision-making process.

The evidence from these case studies and challenges points to a fundamental collision of two
distinct philosophies in modern UK public sector transformation. On one hand, there is the
widespread adoption of structured, process-driven models like ADKAR. This is driven by the
public sector's inherent need for clear, repeatable processes, risk management, and auditable
trails, which is why such models feature prominently in government procurement
frameworks. On the other hand, there is a burgeoning movement towards co-creative, citizen-
centric design methods. This is driven by a growing recognition that traditional, top-down
service delivery models are often inefficient, ineffective, and fail to meet the real needs of
diverse communities.

These two approaches are philosophically opposed. ADKAR is designed to manage the
adoption of a pre-determined change, focusing on guiding individuals towards a defined end-
state. Co-creation, in contrast, is a process of discovery, involving citizens and front-line staff
in defining what the change should be in the first place. This presents a critical strategic
choice for public sector leaders: are they managing the implementation of a known solution,
or are they managing a process of collective problem-solving?

The reality is that the modern public sector must do both. A mature change capability,
therefore, cannot rely on a single model. It requires a "bimodal" or hybrid approach: using
structured, process-driven models like ADKAR for implementing well-defined changes (such
as a new IT system), while employing participatory and co-creative models for tackling
complex, wicked problems where the solution is not yet known (such as redesigning a social
care service).

Part III: The Equality Imperative: A Critical Gap

Analysis
The successful implementation of change in the UK public sector cannot be measured by
efficiency and adoption rates alone. It must also be measured against a stringent legal and
ethical framework designed to promote a fairer society. The Equality Act 2010, and
specifically its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), is not an optional extra or a "tick-box"
exercise; it is a binding legal requirement that fundamentally reframes the nature of public
sector transformation. This section establishes the core tenets of this legal duty and then uses
it as an analytical lens to conduct a critical gap analysis of the foundational change
management models. This reveals a significant and often overlooked friction between the
operational logic of traditional change theory and the legal obligations of public bodies,
exposing inherent weaknesses that can lead to discriminatory outcomes and legal
vulnerability.
Section 6: The UK Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty
(PSED)

The Equality Act 2010 stands as a landmark piece of UK legislation, consolidating over 116
separate statutes and regulations—including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race
Relations Act 1976, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—into a single, unified legal
framework. Its primary purpose is to simplify and harmonise equality law, making it easier to
understand and apply, with the overarching goal of creating a fairer society, improving public
services, and helping businesses perform well. The Act prohibits unlawful discrimination,
harassment, and victimisation in relation to nine "protected characteristics": age, disability,
gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion
or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

A cornerstone of the Act is the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), detailed in Section 149.
This duty applies to all public authorities, a broad category that includes central government
departments, local authorities, the NHS, schools and universities, and police forces. It can
also extend to private or voluntary sector organisations when they are carrying out public
functions, such as a private company running a prison or a housing association providing
social housing.

The PSED is a positive duty, which means it requires public bodies to be proactive in their
consideration of equality, rather than simply reacting to discrimination after it has occurred. It
is a forward-looking duty that must be integrated into the very fabric of decision-making and
policy development.

The Three Aims of the PSED: The 'Due Regard' Test

The PSED legally compels public authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have "due
regard" to the need to achieve three specific aims:

1. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other

conduct prohibited by the Act. This is the baseline duty to prevent illegal
discriminatory acts.
2. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected
characteristic and those who do not. This goes beyond simply preventing negative
treatment. It requires public bodies to think about how they can actively create a more
level playing field. This includes taking steps to remove or reduce disadvantages,
meet the specific needs of different groups, and encourage the participation of
underrepresented groups in public life. Critically, the Act clarifies that advancing
equality of opportunity can involve treating some groups more favourably than others
to address existing disadvantage.
3. Foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected
characteristic and those who do not. This aim focuses on community cohesion,
requiring public bodies to consider how their decisions can tackle prejudice and
promote understanding between different groups.

'Due Regard' in Practice

The term "due regard" is a legal standard that implies a conscious, rigorous, and substantive
consideration of the three aims. It is not a mere "tick-box" exercise or a "rubber stamp" to be
applied after a decision has been made; it is a legal requirement that must be fulfilled before
and at the time of the decision. Public bodies must be able to provide evidence that they have
properly considered the potential equality impacts of their actions. This is often done through
the creation of records and the completion of Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs), which
analyse how a proposed policy or change will affect different protected groups. The level of
regard must be proportionate to the relevance and severity of the potential impact. Failure to
demonstrate 'due regard' can lead to a decision being overturned in court through a judicial
review.

The Specific Duties

To support compliance with this general duty, a set of "specific duties" are also in place.
These require listed public bodies to take concrete steps, such as publishing relevant equality
information at least annually and preparing and publishing specific, measurable equality
objectives at least every four years. These actions are designed to increase transparency and
accountability.

The existence of the PSED fundamentally alters the landscape of change management for any
UK public body. It elevates the process from a purely operational or strategic exercise,
concerned primarily with efficiency and successful implementation, to one that is bound by
legal and ethical obligations. Traditional change models, developed largely in a corporate
context, are primarily designed to overcome resistance and achieve a pre-defined
organisational goal. Their metrics of success are typically speed, budget adherence, and
adoption rate. The PSED, however, introduces a different and non-negotiable set of success
criteria: fairness, the advancement of equality, and the elimination of discrimination.

Crucially, the PSED mandates a specific process of consideration—'due regard'—that must

precede and inform any significant decision, including the decision to initiate and the plan to
implement a change. This means that a change initiative can be deemed "successful" by the
standards of a traditional change model—for example, a new system rolled out on time and
under budget—but still be declared unlawful if the PSED process was not correctly followed.
The judicial review against Bristol City Council, which quashed a £5 million cut to special
educational needs funding due to inadequate consultation with affected families, serves as a
stark example of this principle in action. For UK public bodies, therefore, the PSED is not an
"add-on" to a change management framework; it is the foundational legal context within
which any such framework must operate. Any model that cannot be adapted to accommodate
this mandatory duty is inherently unfit for purpose in the sector.

Section 7: A Critical Evaluation: Where Traditional Change Models

Contravene the Equality Duty

When the foundational change management models are placed under the legal and ethical
scrutiny of the Public Sector Equality Duty, significant points of friction and contradiction
emerge. Their core logic, developed for different times and different contexts, often runs
counter to the principles of 'due regard', consultation, and systemic fairness mandated by the
Equality Act 2010. This analysis exposes the inherent gaps in these models and highlights the
risks public bodies face when applying them without critical adaptation.
7.1 The Tyranny of Urgency vs. The Necessity of 'Due Regard'

A direct conflict exists between the ethos of some change models and the procedural
requirements of the PSED. Kotter's model, for instance, begins with the explicit step to
"Create a Sense of Urgency". This often translates into creating a "burning platform"
narrative, designed to overcome complacency and galvanise rapid, decisive action. While this
may be effective in a corporate crisis, this approach is fundamentally at odds with the PSED's
requirement for conscious, deliberate, and often time-consuming 'due regard' and consultation
that must take place

before a decision is made and action is taken.

The process of paying 'due regard' is substantive. It requires gathering evidence, analysing the
potential impact of a proposed change on various protected groups, consulting with those
who may be affected, and genuinely considering alternatives. This cannot be done in a
climate of manufactured urgency. Indeed, academic critiques of diversity and inclusion
initiatives have identified that rushing into action due to a "manufactured sense of urgency" is
a common pitfall that undermines the efficacy of equity work, precisely because it bypasses
the perspectives of those most impacted. An independent review of the PSED's
implementation found that public bodies too often fall into the trap of "tick-box" exercises
rather than engaging in meaningful consideration—a risk that is significantly exacerbated by
a culture of urgency. Therefore, a public body that prioritises Kotter's "urgency" over the
PSED's "due regard" is at high risk of making a decision that is both procedurally and
substantively unlawful, opening itself up to legal challenge.

7.2 The Assumption of a Homogenous Workforce and the Reality of Differentiated

Impact

Process-centric models like Lewin's and Kotter's were developed in an era when the
workforce was often viewed as a relatively homogenous entity. As such, they tend to treat the
organisation monolithically, and their communication and implementation strategies often
assume a universal, one-size-fits-all message and approach will suffice. These models lack an
inherent, built-in mechanism for prompting leaders to consider how a proposed change will
impact different groups of people in different ways.

This is a critical oversight in the context of the Equality Act. The PSED explicitly requires
public bodies to consider the specific and often different needs of people with various
protected characteristics. Furthermore, the Act provides protection against indirect
discrimination, which occurs when a policy, practice, or rule that is applied to everyone in the
same way has the effect of putting people who share a protected characteristic at a particular
disadvantage.

For example, a change initiative to implement a new IT system (the 'Change' stage in Lewin's
model) could be indirectly discriminatory if the software's interface is not accessible to
employees with visual impairments or neurodiverse conditions. A top-down communication
plan (Kotter's Step 4) might fail to effectively reach employees for whom English is an
additional language or those who have specific communication needs related to a disability.
The models themselves do not naturally prompt the change leader to ask the crucial PSED
question: "How will this change affect women, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME)
staff, disabled staff, or LGBTQ+ staff differently?" Without this prompt, leaders may
inadvertently design and implement changes that, while appearing neutral on the surface,
have a discriminatory impact in practice. Without explicit and rigorous adaptation to include
an "equity lens" at every stage, these models can guide a public body towards a breach of its
legal duties.

7.3 Individual Adaptation (ADKAR) vs. Systemic Adjustment (PSED)

The ADKAR model, with its focus on the individual's journey through change, presents a
more subtle but equally significant conflict with the PSED. While its people-centric approach
appears progressive, its core logic can inadvertently shift the burden of adaptation onto the
individual employee, whereas the PSED places the onus on the organisation to adapt its
systems and structures to be more equitable.

This tension is most apparent in relation to the duty to make reasonable adjustments for
disabled people and the broader duty to advance equality of opportunity. The social model of
disability, which increasingly informs disability rights law and policy, posits that a person is
"disabled" by societal barriers, not by their impairment. The responsibility, therefore, lies
with society and its organisations to remove those barriers. The ADKAR model's focus on an
individual's

Ability can inadvertently align with the outdated medical model of disability, which locates
the "problem" within the individual.

If an employee with a disability struggles with a new process, ADKAR's diagnostic

framework might identify a deficit in their 'Ability'. The corresponding intervention would be
to provide that individual with more training or coaching to "fix" their ability gap. However,
the PSED and the duty to make reasonable adjustments demand a different line of inquiry.
The organisation must first ask whether the new process itself constitutes a barrier that needs
to be removed or adjusted. Is the software inaccessible? Is the physical layout of the new
office exclusionary? Is the new flexible working policy indirectly disadvantaging carers, who
are predominantly women?

By focusing on remediating the individual's perceived lack of 'Ability', a public body relying
solely on ADKAR could fail in its primary legal duty to identify and dismantle the systemic
barrier. This not only fails the employee but also constitutes a potential breach of the Equality
Act. The model's focus on individual adaptation can, if not carefully managed, become a
mechanism for reinforcing existing systemic inequities rather than being a tool for
dismantling them.

Part IV: Charting a New Course: Towards Inclusive and

Equitable Change
The critical analysis of foundational change management models reveals significant gaps
when measured against the legal and ethical requirements of the modern UK public sector.
Their inherent top-down structures, assumptions of homogeneity, and focus on individual
adaptation over systemic adjustment present clear risks of non-compliance with the Public
Sector Equality Duty. This does not mean these models must be discarded entirely, but it
does demand a radical rethinking of how they are used. This final part of the report moves
from critique to constructive solutions. It explores emerging paradigms for transformation
that are explicitly designed around principles of participation, co-creation, and equity. It
concludes with a set of actionable, strategic recommendations for public service leaders,
outlining how to build a change management capability that is not only effective and efficient
but also legally robust, equitable, and truly inclusive.

Section 8: Emerging Paradigms for Inclusive Transformation

In response to the limitations of traditional, top-down approaches, a new generation of

change management frameworks is emerging. These models are built on principles of
democracy, social justice, and systems thinking, offering a fundamentally different way to
approach transformation.

8.1 Participatory and Co-Creation Models

Participatory and co-creation models represent a fundamental shift in the power dynamics of
change. They move away from the traditional paradigm where a select group of leaders or
experts design a change and "roll it out" to the organisation, towards a more democratic
process where stakeholders become active partners and co-creators of their own future. The
core philosophy is about working

with people, not just for them, recognising that those who are affected by a design should
have the power to influence it. This involves active collaboration between service providers
and service users at any and every stage of the change process, from initial problem definition
to design, delivery, and evaluation.

This approach is gaining significant traction in UK public services, where the complexity of
social challenges demands more than off-the-shelf solutions. Co-design and co-production
are increasingly being used in healthcare and local government to create more effective and
human-centred services. The case study from Staffordshire, where co-designing early years
services with families led to better outcomes for vulnerable children, is a powerful testament
to this approach. Similarly, the use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) within the NHS
to embed the voices of patients and carers in nurse education demonstrates a commitment to
remediating historical power imbalances and valuing lived experience as a form of expertise.

The principles of participation and co-creation align seamlessly with the aims of the Public
Sector Equality Duty. By intentionally bringing marginalised or underrepresented groups into
the change process as equal partners, these models provide a direct mechanism for fulfilling
the duty to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. They ensure that the
specific needs of diverse groups are not just "considered" as part of an impact assessment but
are woven into the very fabric of the new service or policy from its inception.

8.2 Equity-Driven and Liberatory Frameworks

Building on the principles of participation, a further set of frameworks goes a step further by
explicitly embedding an understanding of systemic oppression, power, and social justice into
the change process itself. These models are not just about creating better services; they are
about creating "liberatory and resilient systems" that actively dismantle inequality.

One such example is the 'Leading for Equity' Framework, developed by the National
Equity Project. This model integrates three core disciplines: Equity (developing a conscious
awareness of systemic oppression), Complexity (recognising that for "wicked problems,"
solutions cannot be known in advance and must be discovered through experimentation), and
Design (using a human-centred approach to innovate). The framework makes a crucial
distinction between traditional "Pyramid Leadership" (a top-down, command-and-control
style suitable for simple or complicated problems) and "Circle Leadership" (an emergent,
collaborative, and learning-oriented style required for tackling complex equity challenges).

Central to these frameworks is the concept of Inclusive Leadership. This is not a passive
state but an active practice involving specific leader behaviours: a deep commitment to
equity, the courage to challenge the status quo, a constant cognizance of one's own biases,
and a commitment to collaboration. Inclusive leaders work to create environments of high
psychological safety, where every individual feels a sense of both belonging and uniqueness,
and is empowered to contribute their perspective without fear of reprisal.

These equity-focused frameworks are supported by a body of academic critique that

questions the efficacy of traditional Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) initiatives. Scholars like
Janssens and Zanoni argue that much of the research on diversity has been trapped within a
corporate logic that views diversity as a resource for the firm, rather than addressing the firm
as a site of inherent inequality. This critique reinforces the need for change models that are
explicitly designed to challenge and transform systems of power, rather than simply
managing diversity within existing structures.

Section 9: Strategic Recommendations for Public Service Leaders

Navigating the complex terrain of public sector transformation requires more than just
selecting a single change model. It requires a sophisticated, hybrid approach that blends
procedural rigour with genuine inclusivity, and a commitment to building a lasting
organisational capability for equitable change. The following recommendations provide a
strategic blueprint for leaders.

9.1 A PSED-Infused Change Framework: Integrating 'Due Regard' at Every Stage

No change management model, however well-regarded, can be applied "off-the-shelf" in the

UK public sector. The Public Sector Equality Duty must be woven into the DNA of the
change process.

Recommendation: Public bodies must formally integrate a PSED review as a mandatory

gateway or checkpoint at each critical stage of any change model they choose to use. This
transforms the PSED from a compliance afterthought into a guiding principle.

Practical Steps:

 Before the 'Unfreeze' or 'Create Urgency' Stage: The process should begin not
with a solution, but with a problem. Before any change is proposed, a preliminary
Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) should be conducted to understand the equality
dimensions of the problem itself. This analysis should explore how the current
situation differentially affects groups with protected characteristics. This evidence
then forms a core part of the "why" for the change, ensuring that the rationale is
grounded in equity from the very beginning.
  During the 'Form Coalition', 'Change', and 'Knowledge & Ability' Stages: The
"guiding coalition" or change team must be diverse and must include either
representatives from affected protected groups or individuals with specific expertise
in equality and inclusion. As the change is being designed and implemented, all key
outputs—including communication plans, training materials, new policies, and IT
systems—must be assessed for accessibility and differentiated impact. This is a
continuous process of asking: "Who might be disadvantaged by this? How can we
mitigate that?"
 Before the 'Refreeze' or 'Anchor Change' Stage: Before a new process is finalised
and embedded, a final, robust EIA must be completed on the proposed solution. The
formal decision to "refreeze" or institutionalise the change must be documented with
clear evidence demonstrating how 'due regard' was paid to the three aims of the PSED
throughout the entire process. This creates an auditable trail that can withstand legal
scrutiny.

9.2 The Hybrid Model in Practice: Blending the Best of All Worlds

Recognising that no single model is a panacea, leaders should adopt a flexible, hybrid
approach that combines the strengths of different frameworks to suit the specific context of
the change.

Recommendation: Develop a hybrid change methodology that blends the structural clarity
of traditional models with the inclusive, human-centred principles of participatory
frameworks.

Practical Steps:

 For Strategic Direction and Accountability: Use the high-level steps from Kotter's
model—such as 'Create a Vision' and 'Communicate the Vision'—to set the clear,
overarching strategic direction and ensure that senior leadership remains active,
visible, and accountable for the change. This provides the necessary top-level
sponsorship.
 For Individual Support and Diagnosis: Use the ADKAR model as a tactical
diagnostic tool at the team and individual level. It is invaluable for understanding
support needs, diagnosing the root causes of resistance, and tailoring interventions.
However, this must always be done with a PSED-filter: whenever an 'Ability' gap is
identified, the first question must be "Is this an individual training need, or is it a
systemic barrier that requires a reasonable adjustment?"
 For Solution Design and Implementation: Use the principles of Co-Creation and
Participatory Design to develop the specific solutions and implementation plans.
While the strategic "what" may be set by leadership (e.g., "we need to reduce hospital
readmission rates"), the operational "how" (e.g., "what should the new discharge
process look like?") should be co-designed with the front-line staff who will deliver it
and the patients and carers who will experience it. This builds ownership and ensures
the solution is fit for purpose.

9.3 Cultivating an Inclusive Change Capability for the Long Term

Ultimately, successful and equitable transformation is not about managing a series of discrete
projects. It is about building a permanent organisational capability for continuous learning
and adaptation.

Recommendation: Shift the organisational mindset from "managing change projects" to

"building an inclusive change capability."

Practical Steps:

 Leadership and Workforce Development: Invest in training and development that

goes beyond project management methodologies. Leaders and managers at all levels
need to be skilled in inclusive leadership, facilitation of difficult conversations,
understanding complexity, and recognising systemic inequality. This builds the
human infrastructure for equitable change.
 Robust Governance and Oversight: Establish clear governance structures where
PSED compliance for all significant change initiatives is explicitly and rigorously
monitored. The body overseeing transformation (e.g., a Transformation Board or
Programme Office) must have access to, and be required to listen to, appropriate
equality expertise.
 Data-Driven Learning Loops: Move beyond tracking simple project metrics
(timeline, budget). Instead, leverage the data required by the PSED's specific duties—
such as workforce demographics and service user outcomes disaggregated by
protected characteristic—to create a continuous feedback loop. This data should be
used to identify where change is most needed, to evaluate the long-term equality
impact of transformations, and to inform the design of future initiatives, creating a
cycle of continuous, evidence-based, and equitable improvement.

Sources used in the report

whatfix.com
whatfix.com
Opens in a new window
whatfix.com
Lewin's 3-Stage Model of Change Theory: Overview - Whatfix
Opens in a new window

whatfix.com
Kotter's 8-Step Change Model (+Advantages & Disadvantages) - Whatfix
Opens in a new window

ebsco.com
ADKAR Change Management Model | EBSCO Research Starters
Opens in a new window

kotterinc.com
8-step process for leading change - Kotter International
Opens in a new window

resonanceglobal.com
What is the ADKAR Model of Change Management? - Resonance Global
Opens in a new window

bitesizelearning.co.uk
Kotter's 8-step change model | Frameworks explained [with diagram] - BiteSize Learning
Opens in a new window

dam.assets.ohio.gov
The Kurt Lewin Change Management Model - Ohio.gov
Opens in a new window

splunk.com
Kotter's 8 Steps for Leading Change in Organizations - Splunk
Opens in a new window

visualsp.com
A Guide to Lewin's Change Management Model - VisualSP
Opens in a new window

visualsp.com
ADKAR Change Management Model for Dummies - VisualSP
Opens in a new window
userguiding.com
Lewin's Change Model - everything you need to know - UserGuiding
Opens in a new window

6sigma.us
ADKAR Model: The Guide to Successful Change Management - SixSigma.us
Opens in a new window

local.gov.uk
The Equality Act and protected characteristics - Local Government Association
Opens in a new window

equalityhumanrights.com
Equality Act 2010 | EHRC
Opens in a new window

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Equality Act 2010: What Do I Need To Know? A Summary Guide For Public Sector
Organisations - GOV.UK
Opens in a new window

theknowledgeacademy.com
Lewin's Change Model in Healthcare with Real Life Example - The Knowledge Academy
Opens in a new window
prosci.com
Change Management in Healthcare - Prosci
Opens in a new window

emersonhc.com
Change Management Case Studies - Emerson Human Capital Consulting
Opens in a new window

whatfix.com
Change Management in Healthcare: Examples, Risks - Whatfix
Opens in a new window

voltagecontrol.com
Mastering Change Management in Healthcare: Strategies, Examples, and Best Practices
Opens in a new window
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Site reports - Establishing and implementing best practice to reduce unplanned admissions in
those aged 85 years and over through system change [Establishing System Change for
Admissions of People 85+ (ESCAPE 85+)]: a mixed-methods case study approach - NCBI
Opens in a new window

core.ac.uk
Applying McKinsey's 7S model within managed healthcare systems (MHS) to assess the
organisation's effectiveness and abil - CORE
Opens in a new window

whatfix.com
The McKinsey 7-S Model Framework, Explained (2025) - Whatfix
Opens in a new window

kotterinc.com
Charting the Course – The Path to Transformation in Education - Kotter International
Opens in a new window

rsisinternational.org
"Application of Kotter's 8-Step Change Management Model and Administrative Strategies
for Effective Curriculum Change in Universities". A Systematic Literature Review -
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science
Opens in a new window

researchgate.net
applying the kotter change management model in high school education: some initial results
in hanoi, vietnam - ResearchGate
Opens in a new window

frontlineeducation.com
Change Management in K-12: Models of Change - Frontline Education
Opens in a new window

exeter.ac.uk
12. Individual Change Journey | Change Blueprint | University of ...
Opens in a new window

iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu
Page 4: Kotter's Model of Change
Opens in a new window
mckinsey.com
Enduring Ideas: The 7-S Framework | McKinsey
Opens in a new window

portal.ct.gov
John Kotter's Eight Step Change Model - CT.gov
Opens in a new window

whatfix.com
ADKAR Model: What Is It and How To Use It? - Whatfix
Opens in a new window

deque.com
Change Management for Accessibility: Lewin's Three-Stage Model ...
Opens in a new window
mdclarity.com
Change Management in Healthcare: Examples, Models, & Pitfalls ...
Opens in a new window

researchgate.net
(PDF) Investigating the Barriers to Change Management in Public Sector Educational
Institutions - ResearchGate
Opens in a new window

proscisingapore.sg
CMC Global - Change Management Case Studies in Singapore - Prosci
Opens in a new window

improvementservice.org.uk
Change Management Case Studies | Improvement Service
Opens in a new window
citizensadvice.org.uk
What's the public sector equality duty? - Citizens Advice
Opens in a new window

blog.anthonycollins.com
New guidance on Public Sector Equality Duty - Anthony Collins Solicitors
Opens in a new window

citizensadvice.org.uk
Who must comply with the public sector equality duty? - Citizens Advice
Opens in a new window

quantive.com
McKinsey 7s Model: Definition & Examples - Quantive StrategyAI
Opens in a new window
ideas.wharton.upenn.edu
Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research -
Wharton IDEAS Lab
Opens in a new window

thestrategyinstitute.org
The McKinsey 7-S Model for Organizational Alignment and Success - The Strategy Institute
Opens in a new window

prosci.com
The McKinsey 7-S Model: Definition, Pros and Cons - Prosci
Opens in a new window

corporatefinanceinstitute.com
McKinsey 7S Model - Overview, Structure and Application, Example
Opens in a new window
researchgate.net
(PDF) Comparative analysis of change management models - ResearchGate
Opens in a new window

consultport.com
The McKinsey 7S Model Explained With a Practical Example - Consultport
Opens in a new window

hrgradcapstone.oucreate.com
A Model for Effecting Change in Organizations Through Inclusive Leadership - HR Graduate
Capstone
Opens in a new window

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Inclusive Leadership and Innovative Performance: A Multi-Level Mediation Model of
Psychological Safety - PMC
Opens in a new window

researchgate.net
(PDF) Models of Co-creation - ResearchGate
Opens in a new window
i2insights.org
Is co-creation more than participation? - Integration and Implementation Insights
Opens in a new window

gu.se
Making Diversity Research Matter for Social Change: New ...
Opens in a new window

strategicmanagementinsight.com
McKinsey 7S Model: The 7S Framework Explained - SM Insight
Opens in a new window

researchgate.net
(PDF) An Analytical Review of John Kotter's Change Leadership Framework: A Modern
Approach to Sustainable Organizational Transformation - ResearchGate
Opens in a new window

userguiding.com
What is Kotter's 8 Step Change Management Model (All you need to know) - UserGuiding
Opens in a new window

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Review of the Public Sector Equality Duty: - GOV.UK
Opens in a new window

corporateclassinc.com
The Inclusive Leadership Framework Explained - Corporate Class Inc.
Opens in a new window

kotterinc.com
The 8-Step Process for Leading Change | Dr. John Kotter
Opens in a new window

prosci.com
ADKAR vs Kotter: Which Change Model Should You Choose? - Prosci
Opens in a new window
theinclusionsolution.me
A Point of View: A Blueprint for Effective Change Management in DEI (Pt. 1)
Opens in a new window

commonslibrary.parliament.uk
A short introduction to equality law and policy - The House of Commons Library
Opens in a new window

gov.uk
Equality Act 2010: guidance - GOV.UK
Opens in a new window
deque.com
Change Management for Accessibility: ADKAR Model - Deque Systems
Opens in a new window

prosci.com
What Is Lewin's Change Theory? Explanation, Pros and Cons - Prosci
Opens in a new window

sergiocaredda.eu
Models: the ADKAR Change Management Model - Sergio Caredda
Opens in a new window

humansynergistics.com
Examining Lewin's Change Management Model | Human Synergistics
Opens in a new window
bstate.com
Lewin's Change Theory: Why it Matters For Organizational Change | B STATE
Opens in a new window

walkme.com
Lewin's Change Management Model: An Overview - WalkMe
Opens in a new window

ruralsupportpartners.com
What is Participatory Change? | Rural Support Partners
Opens in a new window

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Implementing and evaluating co-designed change in health - PMC
Opens in a new window

tsw.co.uk
ADKAR Model - What Is It and How to Use It for Change Management? - TSW Training
Opens in a new window

disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk
The Equality Act 2010 and the Social Model of Disability Rahel Geffen LLM Employment
Law 11 October 2013
Opens in a new window
publicpolicydesign.blog.gov.uk
Design helps governments work with people, not just for them
Opens in a new window

prosci.com
Use the ADKAR Model for Change Success - Prosci
Opens in a new window

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Use of the ADKAR® and CLARC ® Change Models to Navigate Staffing Model Changes
During the COVID-19 Pandemic - PubMed Central
Opens in a new window

designcouncil.org.uk
Design in the Public Sector - Design Council
Opens in a new window
applytosupply.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk
Change Management ADKAR - Digital Marketplace
Opens in a new window

mmuperu.co.uk
Where Next for Co-creating Public Services?
Opens in a new window

applytosupply.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk
Organisational Change Management - Digital Marketplace
Opens in a new window

jprm.scholasticahq.com
Is Anybody Listening? Using Participatory Methods to Co-Create an Impact Measure for
Nurse education.
Opens in a new window

england.nhs.uk
Large Scale Change - NHS Mobilisation Report 180610
Opens in a new window

dl.designresearchsociety.org
A participatory approach to healthcare service improvement focused on staff behavior change
- DRS Digital Library
Opens in a new window

fons.org
Leading the health service into the future: transforming the NHS through transforming
ourselves
Opens in a new window

unison.org.uk
A guide to using the Public Sector Equality Duty to fight local cuts - UNISON
Opens in a new window
gov.uk
Public Sector Equality Duty: guidance for public authorities - GOV.UK
Opens in a new window

hr-inform.co.uk
The Public Sector Equality Duties - | CIPD HR-inform
Opens in a new window

wbg.org.uk
The Public Sector Equality Duty Evidence to Fawcett's Sex Discrimination Law Review -
Women's Budget Group
Opens in a new window

carnegiefoundation.org
Leading for Equity Framework | Carnegie Foundation
Opens in a new window
localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Complying with the Public Sector Equality Duty
Opens in a new window

cardiff.ac.uk
Case Study B - Cardiff University
Opens in a new window
Sources read but not used in the report