Topic
Kübler-Ross change curve
Very weak Very weak
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross described five stages of grief in On Death and Dying (1969), based on terminally ill patients: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Consultants later adapted this into the "change curve", plotting morale or performance over time during organizational change.
Evidence: Very weak. The stages were not empirically validated even for grief, Kübler-Ross herself denied they were a linear sequence, and bereavement research has since largely rejected stage models. The transfer from terminal illness to organizational change is an analogy with no supporting study. It also carries an active harm: labelling a colleague as being 'in denial' converts a substantive objection into a psychological symptom. Prefer bridges-transition-model or satir-change-model.
Use when: helping managers develop empathy for reactions they are experiencing as irrational, and to normalize a performance dip.
Do not use when: predicting behavior, planning interventions, or explaining away disagreement. The evidence does not support it.
The adapted curve
A typical organizational rendering:
- Shock — a brief drop on announcement.
- Denial — "this won't actually happen" or "it won't affect us".
- Frustration / anger — blame, often directed at leadership or at each other.
- Depression / trough — lowest morale and productivity.
- Experimentation — tentative engagement with the new way.
- Decision — the new way is accepted as workable.
- Integration — the new way becomes normal.
The trough is real and is the model's practical value: leaders who expect a straight line from announcement to adoption panic at the dip and either abandon the change or escalate pressure at the worst moment.
The honest caveats
- Kübler-Ross's stages were not empirically validated even for grief, and she later said they were never meant as a linear sequence. Bereavement research since has largely rejected stage models.
- The transfer from terminal illness to a software migration is an analogy, not a finding. Nobody has demonstrated that employees pass through these stages in this order.
- The model is easily used to dismiss legitimate objections: labelling a colleague "in denial" or "at anger" converts a substantive argument into a psychological symptom. This is a real harm, and it is common.
Evidence: very weak. See evidence-based-practice.
Better alternatives for the same job
- bridges-transition-model — same empathy value, better structure, actionable management guidance per phase.
- satir-change-model — explicitly models the performance dip and what ends it.
- immunity-to-change — treats resistance as a rational competing commitment rather than a stage.
Examples by audience
Health care: staff facing a service closure are experiencing actual loss, including of colleagues and of professional identity. Here the grief analogy is closest to legitimate — but the response should still be Bridges' ending work, not stage-labelling.
Software: a team told to migrate to a platform they consider worse are not in "denial". They may be right. Test the objection before psychologizing it.
Executive: the useful executive takeaway is simply that a performance dip is expected, has a duration, and is not evidence that the decision was wrong — nor evidence that it was right.
If you use it
State the caveats when you present it. Use it to build patience and empathy, never as a diagnostic instrument, and never to categorize a named individual in front of others.