From coping with dying to coping with organizational change: the bricolage of the change curve’s evolution

This quote is from a video created by a change management consultant engaged by our university during a recent downsizing initiative aimed at restoring the university to financial sustainability following large deficits. In the email to all university staff accompanying the video, the consultant said that change produces a range of emotions and “the change curve helps us visualise these phases and comprehend the underlying psychology behind our reactions to change”. Understanding the change curve, he said, “can make all the difference in our ability to adapt, evolve, and ultimately thrive in the face of change”. We were intrigued to find about more about the change curve and the research that lies behind it.

The change curve is a model for understanding the different emotional stages that people go through when responding to organizational change. It is derived from a model of dying developed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in the 1960s. Based on interviews with terminally ill patients at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital, Kübler-Ross’ book On Death and Dying (1969) proposed that individuals experience five emotional responses in processing their diagnosis: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Today, the Kübler-Ross Change Curve, a registered trademark of the of the foundation named after her, has become an influential change management model.

Our research builds on a highly cited article by Elrod and Tippett (2002) in this journal. Elrod and Tippett identified 15 models of how people respond to change and transition. Most involved a “transition from normality through some form of disruption and then to a re-defined normality” (2002, p. 285) which was typically graphically represented in the form of a curve. They encouraged leaders to understand this inevitable “death valley” of change, prepare stakeholders for it, and guide those affected by the change to “reach the summit of increased performance on the other side” (Elrod and Tippett, 2002, p. 289). While Elrod and Tippett highlighted variations of the change curve, we were keen to dig deeper into its evolution.

Learning that the change curve has its origin in the study of dying led us to the concept of theory borrowing, the name given to the process through which theories from outside disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and history are imported into the field of management and organization studies to inspire new theories (Oswick et al., 2011; Suddaby et al., 2011). There is an ongoing debate about the legitimacy and quality of theory borrowing in our field (Whetten et al., 2009). Concerns around its validity stem from the “domestication” process borrowed theories undergo where their original meanings are simplified and adapted to address specific organization and management requirements (Oswick et al., 2011). This often leads to borrowed theories being stripped of their original meaning (Gabriel, 2002). For example, critical historical research has examined how Max Weber’s sociological critique of bureaucracy has been lost as he has been reduced to an uncritical advocate of an inflexible, out-dated management idea (Cummings and Bridgman, 2011), and how the pyramid used to represent Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Maslow, 1943), arguably the most famous symbol in management studies, was created by a business consultant seeking to convince clients to maximise motivation for the lowest cost (Bridgman et al., 2019). These examples illustrate a recurring pattern: theories are extracted from their original contexts and reconfigured to serve specific purposes, often losing critical nuance in the process.

As our investigation of the change curve’s evolution deepened, we were drawn to the concept of bricolage, a form of theory borrowing. Bricolage is an everyday French term describing the activity of the handyperson who makes do with whatever materials and tools are at hand to accomplish a task (Cornelissen, 2005; Gabriel, 2002). Lévi-Strauss introduced bricolage in his book The Savage Mind (1966) to contrast two different forms of thinking. The bricoleur represented a mode of thinking that pieced together myths, symbols, rituals and cultural practices from pre-existing elements. This contrasted with the engineer, who represented the Western scientific method. Bricolage is a type of theory creation where the creators utilise whatever materials are available, with the assembly process often invisible to the reader (Boxenbaum and Rouleau, 2011; Linstead and Grafton-Small, 1990). This results in a strategic patchwork style that emphasises intellectual creativity, much like a tinkerer assembles a project from odds and ends (Lévi-Strauss, 1966).

In the remainder of the article, we trace the bricolage of the evolution of Kübler-Ross’ model from a way of coming to terms with one’s imminent death to a managerial tool for leading employees through a planned change initiative. We consider why it developed the way it did and assess the strengths and limitations of this evolutionary journey for change management practice. But first, we explain our research design and approach.

Our research design is to construct an intellectual history, defined by Gordon (2012, p. 1) as “the study of intellectuals, ideas, and intellectual patterns over time”. Intellectual history is well-suited for our purpose because it pays particular attention to the social, economic, cultural and political context in which ideas originate and shift over time (Higham, 1961). It is sensitive therefore, to the implications of the translation of a model from dying to organizational change. There is no prescriptive methodological approach for doing intellectual history – in essence, the researcher should follow the literature trail wherever it takes them (Spector, 2016). We started with Kübler-Ross (1969), the accepted origin of the change curve and moved forward in time. We subsequently learnt that this origin point is not universally accepted, which led us to look back in time – a point we return to later. We looked for adaptations of Kübler-Ross’ model of dying in scholarly and practitioner books and articles, textbooks and in grey literature, such as magazines and websites. We constructed a timeline to map this complex evolution over time and across disciplines. We used Connect Papers software to generate citation networks and graphs of the change curve’s adaptation and maintained a spreadsheet log detailing each source and as assessment of its relevance, as recommended by Saldaña (2016).

As we analysed the data, it became clear that the context and meaning of the model were shifting rapidly. We found Bernstein’s (2004) notion of recontextualization useful for capturing this, a process where knowledge is transformed and adapted as it moves from its original context to a new context, where it is then reproduced and transmitted. Relatedly, we drew on Gordon’s (2012) concept of “trading zones” where ideas broaden in context through cross-disciplinary exchange. Our analysis involved three aspects: mapping the disciplinary trading zones where the change curve was exchanged and transformed; analysing the senders and receivers – the original context (death and dying) and the receiving context (change management) to understand what conceptual elements were preserved, modified or reinterpreted; and identifying the facilitation mechanisms that enabled the change curve to be translated across disciplinary boundaries.

We focused on models with clear links to Kübler-Ross’ model of dying, established through either direct citations of her work (first-degree connections) or citations of literature that referenced it (second-degree connections). We also included models that had no first or second degree connections to Kübler-Ross but very strong resemblances to her model. Books and articles written for practitioners sometimes have few or any citations, making it difficult to show a definitive connection. For example, John Kotter’s eight-step model for transforming organizations (1996) mirrors closely the three-step model of change attributed to Kurt Lewin (1947), but Kotter does not cite Lewin directly. This is the essence of bricolage, with the process of assembly sometimes rendering origins invisible, requiring subjective judgments about origins to be made.

When analysing adaptations of Kübler-Ross’ model (listed in  Appendix), it became clear that some adaptations were more influential than others, so we decided to focus on the most significant evolutions (listed in Table 1). In making this judgement of significance, we considered the strength of its resemblance to Kübler-Ross’ model, the extent of its progression of her model, and its level of influence on change management scholarship. Our measure of influence was its level of citation on Google Scholar, a broader measure of scholarly impact than other citation measures. The most recent of the significant evolutions is from 2011. While there have been other adaptations of Kübler-Ross’ model since then (e.g. Castillo et al., 2016; Hagemann and Cechlovsky, 2024; Leopold and Kaltenecker, 2015), we judged these were yet to demonstrate significant influence. We discuss the limitations of our analytical approach at the end of the article, as well as the opportunities it presents for future research.

Through a process of critical analysis of our data, we concluded that the evolution of the change curve was best understood as occurring within three development periods. The originators period examines Kübler-Ross’ original work and related work done by others during this period. In the transitioners period consultants and academics adapt the model from psychiatry and apply it to a range of different contexts. The translators period is marked by the widespread adoption and development of the model within the field of change management.

As noted earlier, Kübler-Ross (1969) studied the emotional responses encountered by terminally ill patients in a Chicago hospital. Until this time, death had been considered a taboo topic in American society (Leming and Dickinson, 2024). Discussion of death was considered morbid and not an appropriate discussion for children, and dying had become “lonely, mechanical and dehumanised” (Kübler-Ross, 1969, p. 8). This contrasted with Kübler-Ross’ own, more open outlook toward death and dying that she experienced growing up in Switzerland (Corr, 2021). In the first edition of On Death and Dying, what would later become known as Kübler-Ross’ five stages of dying were presented as chapters. A common misconception is that Kübler-Ross was describing the reactions of family members and other loved ones as a way of understanding the grieving process more generally (Kemp, 2018). Her focus was on the emotions of those dying.

While Kübler-Ross’ model became the established foundation of what would later become the change curve, the originality of her work is contested. In On Death and Dying Kübler-Ross said she was solely inspired by Freud’s (1936) framework of how the ego employs defence mechanisms (denial, projection, regression). Parkes (2013), in an article published nine years after Kübler-Ross’ death, disputes this, arguing that she drew on the work of others without appropriate acknowledgment. Parkes says Kübler-Ross was aware of the stages of grief developed by Robertson and Bowlby (1952) in their study of children separated from their mothers, and research he himself published about adults dealing with bereavement (Bowlby and Parkes, 1970; Parkes, 1972). Parkes says Kübler-Ross “became the guru” (2013, p. 94) because she “was the right person at the right time” (p. 96) and was a high self-promoter. What makes this claim interesting is that Parkes wrote the forward to On Death and Dying. The Kübler-Ross Foundation dismisses Parkes’ claim as “completely unfounded and ridiculous”, arguing that if Parkes felt cheated, he would not have agreed to write the forward (https://www.ekrfoundation.org/5-stages-of-grief/5-stages-grief/).

For whatever reason, it was Kübler-Ross’ model that stuck. It was certainly not because of the depth and rigour of her research. Over the years, serious limitations of her stages of dying model have been pointed out, including that it lacks empirical validation, does not account for individual uniqueness, inappropriately conflates description with prescription, and has been problematically misapplied beyond the context of dying without scientific justification (Avis et al., 2021; Corr, 1993, 2011, 2021; Hagemann and Cechlovsky, 2024; Tyrrell et al., 2023). In response, the Kübler-Ross Foundation states that On Death and Dying was “a series of dialogues” rather than a research project. Participants were asked to talk about their experiences so their needs could be better understood by health professionals. Construing it as a research study is mistaken and mischievous, the foundation argues (https://www.ekrfoundation.org/5-stages-of-grief/5-stages-grief/).

The second phase of the model’s evolution took it beyond the context of dying. Kübler-Ross was herself engaged in this transition. In a follow-up book to On Death and Dying five years later, she noted the stages were not necessarily linear and were also applicable to grief, change and loss (Kübler-Ross, 1974). Clearly, she could see the utility of extending the model.

Others also saw that potential. Psychiatrist Walter Menninger (1975) investigated levels of morale experienced by Peace Corps volunteers working overseas, describing stages of enthusiasm, disillusionment, adaptation and acceptance. While Menninger does not explicitly mention Kübler-Ross, his model has striking similarities to hers, and given that his book was published six years after hers, he was most likely aware of it. As well as extending the model to consideration of volunteer morale, Menninger contributed another crucial adaptation – depicting his model as a curve.

Psychologists Adams, Hayes and Hopson (1976) transformed Kübler-Ross’ model into a framework about general life transitions with their seven-phase transition cycle. The shift in context from individuals processing their terminal diagnosis to people handling a variety of life changes was based on their “general hypothesis … that people experiencing transitions will have similar tasks to cope with” (Adams et al., 1976, p. 189). They did not put this hypothesis to the test. The lack of scientific validation was no deterrent for these bricoleurs.

Perhaps the most influential person in the transitioning phase was William Bridges. His 1980 book Transitions became a best-selling guide for coping with major life changes such as losing a loved one, entering a new life stage or changing jobs. Bridges distinguished between change being the external event, and transition being the emotional process of adapting to that change. For Bridges, transition involved a standardised emotional pathway in a three-stage process of ending, neutral zone and beginning (Bridges, 1980).

The third period of the evolution of Kübler-Ross’ model is marked by its widespread translation into the field of organizational change management. In the 1980s, multiple change curves emerged in change management, combining elements from Kübler-Ross and Bridges, often citing her and adopting his process of transition. Deal and Kennedy (1982, p. 175), in their highly influential book on corporate culture, drew on Bridges’ concept of transition to prescribe a mourning ceremony to help employees “believe in the new cultural order” after the retirement of a CEO. Woodward and Buchholz (1987) adopted Bridges’ three-stage transition framework in their book “Aftershock” to offer practical strategies for middle managers to support employees during cultural change. The earthquake metaphor emphasised that culture change can trigger prolonged disturbance, and employees need help to work through the transition. Woodward and Buchholz reflected that while comparing their change model to Kubler-Ross’ death and dying model “seemed a little heavy … in many ways it is identical to it” (p. 66) in that both require people to move through emotional stages to achieve acceptance.

Levy and Merry’s (1986) influential textbook Organizational Transformation drew explicit parallels between grief responses and transformational organizational change. Similarly, organizational development practitioners Perlman and Takacs (1990) asserted that organizational change is like death and requires that we go through depression before employees can let the past die. Employees want to cling to the status quo and “wallow in self-pity” (p. 36), but this can be alleviated by change leaders explaining the rationale for the change and allowing employees to “express their sorrow over the passing of the old way of doing things” (p. 37). While Perlman and Takacs believe Kubler-Ross’ stages were “strikingly similar to those encountered in organizational change” (p. 33), they added five stages to account for change in an organizational context.

While Bridges’ 1980 book centred on personal transitions, his 1991 book Managing Transitions explicitly applied his three-stage model to organizational change. Bridges (1991) states that grieving is an inevitable part of the change process, involving emotional states of anger, bargaining, anxiety, sadness, disorientation and depression. As in his 1980 book, there is no explicit mention of Kübler-Ross, but the resemblance to her stages of dying is strong. By inferring that psychological transitional phases are the same, regardless of the external change, Bridges crystallised Adams et al.’s (1976) generalization that all changes involve a universal emotional pathway. Like others involved in the change curve’s evolution before him, Bridges’ claim was not firmly grounded in empirical research (Leybourne, 2016; Miller, 2017).

A major shift in this translation phase was to connect Kübler-Ross’ exploration of the emotions of dying to organizational performance. Katzenbach and Smith’s (1993) influential book The Wisdom of Teams featured a “team performance curve” delineating an initial dip and subsequent rise in team performance as teams matured. The progressive nature of this performance curve shared similarities with Kübler-Ross’ model, leading to conceptual conflation where performance became correlated with employees’ emotional states. Consequently, models began explicitly linking emotional states to employee performance. For example, Schneider and Goldwasser (1998, p. 42) suggested that “during any transition, performance will inevitably decline before reaching the improved, desired state. The leader’s goal is to keep the duration of this decline as short as possible”. Change consultant Henderson-Loney (1996) created a change curve combining Tuckman’s (1965) team performance model and Kübler-Ross’ stages of dying. Positioning it as a “powerful supervision tool” (p. 3) for her consulting work, there was no empirical validation or academic references.

Elrod and Tippett (2002) combined Katzenbach and Smith’s (1993) findings with other change curves. Elrod and Tippett’s earlier research (1999) had noted a performance dip caused by resistance to change. Their concept of the “death valley” was an allegory that re-established the emotion-performance connection by recombining “valley of despair” terminology from performance literature with the death aspects from Kübler-Ross’ original model. This helped reinforce the point that an individual’s lack of morale was linked to drops in performance during organizational change, which was then regained as they began to accept it.

Continuous extrapolation and theoretical drifts have resulted in variations of the change curve that have taken it a long way from its historical antecedent – Kübler-Ross’ five emotional responses to processing a terminal medical diagnosis. Elements have been selectively borrowed, recombined, and repurposed across different disciplines. This theoretical borrowing represents an overarching pattern of bricolage, where various “bricoleurs” (mainly consultants acting as improvisers) adapted Kübler-Ross’ model in ways that served their and their client’s specific needs and contexts.

This is not unusual, nor necessarily problematic. Ideas never remain in their original form – to be shared and utilised they need to be reproduced, represented and translated. Textbooks are an example of this – they are hundreds of pages long but cannot include everything. Theories need to be simplified, and meaning and context is lost in the process (Stambaugh and Trank, 2010). That the change curve’s origins are contested – whether Bowlby, Parkes or others got due credit for their contribution to development of the model – is also not unusual. Ideas build on already-existing knowledge, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to untangle all the ideational threads.

The bricolage of what we now call the change curve has produced something of value. Most organizational theories are not easily applied in practice and, therefore need to be adapted (Gabriel, 2002). There can be a gulf between change management theory developed by academics and change management practice (Anderson and Anderson, 2019; Greenway et al., 2019). The change curve can be seen as an effort to bridge this academic-practitioner gap (Bartunek and Rynes, 2014). Its continued growth and popularity suggest the change curve is meaningful to change recipients, helping them make sense of their experiences, and providing comfort, reassurance and hope through planned change processes. Moreover, the sheer number of variants of the change curve suggest it is a model that has utility across multiple contexts for those who have adapted and applied it.

There are, however, some problematic effects of the change curve’s evolution. We have mentioned the first already – the lack of empirical validation of the model, right from its beginning in Kübler-Ross’ original work. Elrod and Tippett (2002, p. 285) identify that almost all the 15 variations they identify transition through the “death valley”, leading them to conclude that “this appears to be the crux of the human change process”. Their claim to have discovered the essence of emotional responses to change relies more on there being so many similar variants of the model rather than on rigorous empirical research.

The change curve is the product of bricoleurs, mainly consultants, rather than engineers, to use Lévi-Strauss’ distinction. This is problematic because of the commercial imperative that underpins change management as a field of practice. There is monetary value in a model that can assist consultants and managers with implementing change in organizations. This probably explains why the Kübler-Ross Change Curve is a registered trademark of the Elisabeth Kübler-Ross Foundation. Many of those who adapted her model of dying had no need to test the solidity of those foundations. It served their purpose. In this section, we identify two further negative effects of how the change curve has evolved.

The first is a universalization and linearization of emotional responses to change. Kübler-Ross stated that her stages are not universal or linear, and that most of her patients “have exhibited two or three stages simultaneously and these do not always occur in the same order” (1974, pp. 25–26). Adams et al. (1976, p. 9) overgeneralised her model with the claim that all changes “will trigger a cycle of reactions and feelings that is predictable” creating progressive logic and a sequence-based understanding of change (Renger, 2002). As a result, later models depicted an increasingly linear progression of change that individuals would experience. Bridges’ (1980) three-stage model is an example of this, defining internal emotional changes universally, positing that all transitions trigger a predictable psychological journey.

Framing emotions in this way underplays the multiplicity of physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs experienced during change (Hall, 2014; Wortman and Silver, 1989). Assuming universal and linear emotions during organizational change can have tangible negative effects on employees and their organizations. If employees’ emotions do not conform to the model, it might lead them to believe that their thoughts are invalid. Denying authentic feelings may also suppress intuition and lower an individual’s ability to use their emotional intelligence, which when ignored has been associated with unresolved emotional issues in organizations (Huy, 2002). It could also cause cognitive dissonance, where individuals encounter psychological discomfort by experiencing simultaneously opposing thoughts (Atingdui, 2011).

There are models that take more nuanced approaches to emotional and behavioural change. For example, Stroebe and Schut’s (1999) dual processing model and Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1983) transtheoretical model recognise that grief oscillates between different emotional states rather than progressing linearly. It is interesting that these models have not made the same impact as the change curve in the field of change management. This could be due to their more nuanced nature, preventing them from being simplified into an easy-to-use, prescriptive change management tool.

Models enable us to understand phenomena more deeply, but they also have their blind spots. By providing one interpretation of what is causing a particular phenomenon, attention can be diverted from other potential causes. With all psychological models, there is the danger of “psychologizing” – attributing a psychological cause where there might be none.

With the change curve, the effect of this can be an overly narrow interpretation of employees’ resistance to change. Employees might be resisting because they genuinely believe, and have good reason to believe, based on their experience and knowledge, that a proposed change is unnecessary or poorly conceived. It might be that the change has been driven by the self-interest of the change leader, perhaps to be seen to be a “leader”, given the dominant understanding of leaders as being those who transform organizations, as opposed to managers, who cannot or will not change (Zaleznik, 1977). It is possible that resistance is an ethical response to a proposed change that might be unethical, or even illegal (Chaleff, 2015).

If change leaders apply the change curve, they might dismiss these concerns by concluding employees are merely in the denial phase (Kampen and Henken, 2014). In effect, the model becomes unfalsifiable, with any resistance taken as evidence of employees being in denial. If employees accept the change curve logic without question, they might self-censor, suppressing their negative thoughts and feelings because it does not conform to the model. Or they might reframe legitimate concerns as irrational feelings, causing them to experience unnecessary emotional distress from catastrophizing their negative emotion (Leybourne, 2016; Tyrrell et al., 2023). Thus, the change curve makes it more likely that employees will suppress genuine and valid feelings, enforce negative thought loops, and elicit destructive emotional patterns.

This overly narrow treatment of resistance is not unique to the change curve. Change management research and teaching have been criticized for adopting a one-sided view of change, sometimes described as a “pro-change bias” (Grey, 2003; Sturdy and Grey, 2003). Change is assumed to be necessary and good for the organization, with not changing seen as bad. This pro-change bias shapes the interpretation of resistance to change. Popular frameworks for managing resistance to change, such as Kotter and Schlesinger’s (1979) classic framework, reprinted in Harvard Business Review in 2008 because of its continued influence, assume that those leading the changes and their change agents are rational; therefore, resistance is seen as irrational and dysfunctional. All resistance is regarded as something that needs to be managed or overcome (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Sturdy and Grey, 2003). This denies the possibility that resistance can be a positive contribution to change by providing important feedback (Ford, Ford and D’Amelio, 2008).

A possible explanation for why the change curve does not account for that possibility emerges from an understanding of its intellectual history – specifically, its origins in the study of dying from a terminal illness. Death is an inevitable and beyond our control. We cannot avoid it, so it is psychologically comforting if we can come to an acceptance of that fact. In contrast, most planned organizational change initiatives involve choices from a range of options, including sticking with the status quo. When change leaders provide employees with the change curve to help them manage the emotions of change, it reinforces the view that employees should accept the change, whatever their reservations might be.

The downsizing process at our university resulted in the loss of 230 full-time equivalent roles, involving both voluntary and forced redundancies. The second author was a head of department where cuts were made. He liaised with those who designed and implemented the change process, as well as those affected by it. The use of the change curve by the management consultant was well intended. The consultant acknowledged that the change process had triggered strong emotional reactions amongst staff and believed the change curve would help them process those emotions. However, through discussions with affected staff, it became clear the change curve had unintended consequences. Some found the prescriptive nature of it problematic – that a consultant knew better than them what they were thinking and feeling. Some staff felt the scale of the downsizing was unnecessary and would damage the university’s future health. Their resistance was rational (from their perspective) as well as emotional, but the change curve could not account for this. Staff found it patronizing to be told that, as proven by the change curve, they would eventually come to accept the change and be committed to it. This felt disconnected from the reality of redundancy being career-ending for some academic staff. So, while sharing the change curve with staff was well-intended, it generated cynicism towards the change and how it was being implemented.

The video created by the consultant stated that “the change curve is a process that we all go through while encountering major change in our lives”. Having delved deeper into its origins in Kübler-Ross’ model, we are not convinced. Based on her research, it is a stretch to say that all terminally ill people go through the process, let alone all employees in an organizational restructure. The video said that “the change curve is based on research that has been done by others”. It turns out that there has been little high-quality scientific research to validate the existence of the change curve. Rather, it is a bricolage that serves the interests of those who have contributed to its creation and evolution – especially consultants, who can offer this tool to their clients to help employees to accept the changes that have been designed and implemented from above.

We have traced the evolution of the change curve from its origins in understanding death and dying to its widespread adoption as a change management tool. The change curve’s development exemplifies a theoretical borrowing pattern of bricolage. This process of assembly, where disparate elements are woven together into a seemingly coherent model, obscures problematic aspects of its construction. This construction has privileged utility and marketability over scientific validity. In turn, this led to a series of ephemeral change curves rising and falling as bricoleurs capitalised on shifting trends.

Our study contributes to a growing interest in critical historical analyses within management and organization studies. Variously described as a “historic turn” (Clark and Rowlinson, 2004), or an increased “sensitivity to history” (Suddaby, 2016), critical historical research recognises the importance of historical context and processes (Coraiola et al., 2021; Mills et al., 2014; Rowlinson et al., 2014). Specifically, our article contributes to the emergent stream of research on the origins of management ideas (Williams and Deal, 2025). It is also the first analysis of the evolution of Kübler-Ross’ model of dying into a well-established change management tool using the lens of bricolage.

The change curve is a tool that can help people make sense of their emotional responses to planned change. The model is relatable and provides practical strategies for leading people through change. Our intellectual history of its evolution from Kübler-Ross’ model of dying has highlighted some problematic aspects that we recommend practitioners be mindful of when using it. In some situations, the change curve might do more harm than good. The narrow assumptions it makes about change can result in it being an oversimplification of reality, and patronizing of employees, and can therefore foster resistance and cynicism amongst change recipients.

We believe there is unrealised value for change management practitioners in Kübler-Ross’ On Death and Dying. As Corr (2021) notes, one of Kübler-Ross’ greatest contributions was to “awaken society’s sensitivity to the needs of the dying person” (p. 709). She illustrated the importance of medical professionals actively listening to patients, genuinely taking an interest in them and letting them know that their thoughts and feelings were valued. These are all useful lessons for change management practitioners that have been lost in the ways in which the change curve has evolved. So, a more genuine approach, drawing on Kübler-Ross’ work, would be to guide employees through change in a way that encourages them to understand and analyse their emotional responses without presenting a prescriptive and universal series of stages. If employees are taught valuable skills for dealing with change authentically, they can navigate transitions based on genuine experiences rather than needing the next new change framework.

The lesson about being sensitive to the needs of the change recipient has value for the field of change management as a whole. We might also return to the origins of research on resistance to change. Coch and French (1948), in their landmark study, which Kurt Lewin was involved in, concluded that change is more likely to succeed when those affected by the change are meaningfully involved in its design and implementation. Sadly, that is something either forgotten or ignored by popular change models. Perhaps if we took that notion more seriously, rather than viewing resistance as an inevitable emotional response that people need to work through to embrace and accept change, then organizations might see more success in their planned change interventions.

There is no complete account of the evolution of Kubler-Ross’ model into the change curve. Following the evolutionary path across multiple disciplines and across scholarly and popular literature was a complex task. Creators adopted some elements but not others and put them together in myriad ways – which is why bricolage was such an appropriate conceptual lens for understanding its evolution. There might be adaptations of Kubler-Ross’ model that we have not identified. We also acknowledge that our narrative of its historical evolution, like all histories, has an element of subjectivity. In interpreting the data, we saw it evolving in three distinct periods – others might see other patterns. Therefore, we would welcome further research on this topic, including further empirical study of the use of the change curve in organizational settings.

Beyond the change curve, our application of the notion of bricolage creates opportunities for further research on the evolution of other change management models. For example, it has been noted that a tiny fragment in Kurt Lewin’s writing was picked up by others after his death and used to develop “his” change as three-step model, which is a foundation of many other popular change models (Cummings et al., 2016). A bricolage analysis would illuminate this evolution.