| Course | BU 427 Change Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Change model comparison |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 427 Unit 2
Tell the Whole Staff First or Tell Nine Meter Readers First: A Change Model Comparison of Kotter and Bridges Run Across One Composite Utility's Move to Automated Meters
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 427: Change Management
Instructor Name
January 28, 2026
Tell the Whole Staff First or Tell Nine Meter Readers First: A Change Model Comparison of Kotter and Bridges Run Across One Composite Utility's Move to Automated Meters
The Situation
Cedar Prairie Municipal Utilities, the composite Wisconsin utility described in the change driver brief, faces a fixed date: its handheld meter reading system loses vendor support in December 2027. In January 2026 the utility commission approved in principle a plan to replace manual reading of about 14,800 electric and 11,200 water meters with automated meters that report over a radio network, installed district by district over 18 months. The general manager has promised no layoffs. The nine meter readers will become four meter service technicians, three will move to other roles and two are expected to retire. Customers will stop receiving estimated bills, and billing and customer service staff will answer new questions about hourly usage data.
Two well-known models are run across this same situation below: Kotter's eight-step process and Bridges's transition model. Each is applied stage by stage, asking what it says is happening, what it would have the general manager do next and what it treats as the main obstacle.
Kotter's Eight Steps Applied
Kotter (1996) lays out eight steps that leaders take in order. They begin with urgency and a team of influential people to steer the effort, move through a picture of the future repeated until everyone knows it, the removal of obstacles and some early visible gains, and end only when the new way is built into how the organization normally behaves. His central warning is that most failures begin at step one, when leaders underestimate how much urgency is needed to move an organization.
Applied to Cedar Prairie, the model would have the general manager start with urgency across the whole utility. The vendor deadline, the 1,940 estimated bills of January 2026 and the rising meter failure rate would be presented at an all-staff meeting. A guiding coalition would follow, perhaps the operations manager, the customer service supervisor, a respected meter reader and a commissioner. The vision, accurate bills every month without anyone guessing, would be communicated repeatedly through every channel. Short-term wins would come from the first district installed: a month without estimated bills, or an outage detected before any customer phoned. In Kotter's view the main obstacle is complacency: an organization comfortable for decades that does not believe it must change.
Bridges's Transition Model Applied
Bridges and Bridges (2016) draw a line between the change itself, something that happens to an organization on a date, and the inner transition each person makes afterward. That transition moves from letting go of the old role, through an uncertain in-between stretch they call the neutral zone, to a fresh start in which the person accepts the new role as their own. Their central warning is that organizations announce beginnings without managing endings, so people are asked to embrace something new before they have been allowed to let go of something old.
Applied to Cedar Prairie, the model shifts attention from the whole utility to the nine readers. For most staff the automated meters are a technical change with little personal ending. For the readers, the ending is large: routes walked for years, customers who know them, a job defined by being out in the city. The model would have the general manager begin by meeting the readers, saying exactly what ends and what does not, and acknowledging the loss rather than selling the benefits. The neutral zone, the 18 months when some districts are automated and others are not, would get temporary structures such as a weekly check-in and a clear schedule of who trains for what. The new beginning would be marked when the first readers start as technicians. In Bridges's view the main obstacle is unmanaged loss, not complacency.
Where the Models Diverge
The two models agree on a great deal: communicate often, involve respected staff and mark early success. They disagree on the first move. Kotter would open with urgency for everyone, an all-staff meeting setting out the deadline, the complaints and the costs. Bridges would open with endings for the few, a meeting with the nine readers before anyone else hears the plan.
The difference matters here. At an all-staff meeting built for urgency, the readers would hear their jobs described as the source of estimated bills and wasted time, in front of colleagues, with the future of their roles as a side point. Urgency is not what the readers lack; they have heard the rumor since November and are already anxious. What they lack is information about what happens to them. Opening with urgency would harden the resistance of the group whose cooperation the installation depends on, since readers know which meters are hard to reach, which yards have dogs and which customers will refuse entry.
The Models Against Shared Criteria
The table condenses the applied work above.
| Criterion | Kotter's eight steps | Bridges's transition model |
|---|---|---|
| Unit of attention | The organization as a whole | Individuals and small groups losing something |
| Pace | Driven by urgency; faster | Set by how people move through the ending; slower for the most affected |
| Role of employees | Coalition members and audiences for the vision | People in transition whose losses need acknowledging |
| Main obstacle | Complacency | Unmanaged endings |
| What counts as success | The new approach anchored in the culture | People working in their new identity |
| First move at Cedar Prairie | All-staff urgency meeting | Meeting with the nine readers |
Which Model Fits and What It Will Miss
Bridges's model should lead at Cedar Prairie. The change is technically large but personally concentrated: most of the 71 employees will notice little, while nine people will see their work transformed. The organization is not complacent, since managers, billing staff and the commission already see the problem, so manufacturing urgency adds little. Managing the readers' ending is what decides whether the installation runs smoothly.
The choice has a cost. Bridges's model says little about building the coalition needed to hold the commission's support through an 18-month project, or about using short-term wins to keep council members and customers patient when the first districts go live. Those are Kotter's strengths, and Appelbaum et al. (2012) found that while the model as a whole has seldom been tested directly, research supports many of its individual steps. The practical answer is to lead with Bridges for the people and borrow Kotter's coalition and short-term wins for the politics. The utility, its staff and its decisions are composites written for this course.
References
Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211253231
Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. (2016). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (4th ed.). Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
What the BU 427 Unit 2 instructions ask for
The second BU 427 unit usually asks students to compare two or more change models, such as Lewin, Kotter, ADKAR or Bridges, by applying them to one organizational situation. Typical requirements include a brief description of the situation, an explanation of each model with a scholarly citation, an application of each model to the case, an analysis of where the models agree and disagree, and a justified choice. Instructors warn against long theory summaries; the application is where the points are. A comparison table is common. Papers for this unit are usually three to five pages under APA 7. The strongest identify a specific decision on which the models give different advice and explain why that difference matters in the chosen case.
How this BU 427 Unit 2 example is built
The sample fixes the situation first: a vendor deadline, commission approval, no layoffs, nine readers becoming four technicians. Kotter's steps are then described in a few lines and applied to Cedar Prairie, from an urgency meeting to short-term wins in the first district. Bridges's model follows, with its ending, neutral zone and new beginning mapped onto the readers' experience. A divergence section isolates the first move and explains why an urgency meeting would harden the readers' resistance. A six-row table condenses the comparison. The closing section chooses Bridges for this situation because losses are concentrated and complacency is low, then names what Bridges misses, commission support and short-term wins, and borrows those pieces from Kotter.
BU 427 Unit 2 rubric: what full points look like
Grading criteria for the model comparison typically cover accurate description of each model, application to the situation, analysis of similarities and differences, a justified selection, and scholarly writing with APA. Description earns credit for accuracy and brevity, not length. Application is often the heaviest criterion, rewarding papers that show what each model would have a manager do at each stage in this specific case. The analysis criterion pays most for a clearly identified divergence with consequences explained. Selection scores highest when it rests on features of the situation, such as where losses fall or whether urgency already exists, and when it states what the chosen model will overlook. Citations to the original model sources strengthen the description criterion.
BU 427 Unit 2 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common weakness here is summarizing each model at length and adding a paragraph of application at the end. Another is applying each model to a different example, which makes comparison impossible. Students often conclude that both models are useful without identifying any decision on which they differ. Some choose a model because it is popular rather than because it fits the situation. Others present a choice without any cost, as if the selected model covered everything. Tables are sometimes placed before the analysis and repeat definitions instead of condensing an argument. Finally, citing a website summary rather than Kotter's or Bridges's own work weakens the description and can cost points on sources.
Get a BU 427 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Attach the Unit 2 instructions with your BU 427 rubric and the models the assignment names. We write a custom example that fixes the situation first, applies each model stage by stage to identical facts, locates one real divergence and names what the chosen model will miss. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 427 papers and business management samples
- BU 427 Unit 1: Change driver brief
- BU 427 Unit 3: Readiness assessment record
- BU 427 Unit 4: Force field analysis
- BU 427 Unit 5: Communication sequence plan
- BU 427 Unit 6: Resistance source analysis
- BU 427 Unit 7: Rollout phasing plan
- BU 427 Unit 8: Change case file
- BU 421 Unit 2: Process flow documentation
- BU 423 Unit 2: Customer problem validation record
- BU 106 Unit 2: Forms of ownership paper
- BU 217 Unit 2: Legal environment paper
BU 427 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which models should I compare?
Whichever the instructions name. Where the choice is left to you, take two that genuinely differ in their assumptions about people. A staged organizational sequence and a model built around individual transition will disagree in useful ways. Two similar staged models produce a comparison with nothing in it. Cite each to the source your course supplies rather than to a summary website.
Do I have to say one model is better?
You have to choose one for this situation, which is a narrower claim and easier to defend. A model suiting a slow regulatory change may be wrong for an urgent one, and saying that is the comparison working properly. What loses marks is a conclusion that both have merits and the manager should combine them, offered with no account of what combining them would involve.
How much theory description is enough?
A few lines each, cited, and then straight into the case. Markers in many sections read the descriptive passages quickly and grade the application closely. If half the document is still explaining what a model says by the time the situation appears, the balance is wrong and the applied criterion has nowhere left to score.
Where can I find a free BU 427 Unit 2 sample paper?
A complete BU 427 Unit 2 change model comparison is published free above, with both models applied to one case, the divergence analysis and annotations. For a different pair of models or situation, share your prompt and a custom comparison is prepared free, typically within about 48 hours.
Which change models work best for BU 427 Unit 2?
Any two that give different advice on the same case. Kotter and Bridges suit a situation where losses fall on a small group, as in the sample. Lewin and ADKAR or Kotter and ADKAR also work, provided the paper finds a real point of disagreement.