Change management has no shortage of models and advice, but does the research that fills our shelves match the work change practitioners do every day? This article draws on Julien Pollack’s 2015 study of the “theory–practice divide” in organizational change, which used scientometric analysis and practitioner interviews to compare how change is talked about across general management literature, specialist journals, and real-world practice. The picture that emerges is a sharp mismatch: academia leans on theories and generalized frameworks, while practitioners focus on local context, people, and project execution.

Pollack’s research employed scientometric techniques. Scientometrics is the quantitative study of science and scientific activity. It applies mathematical, statistical, and computational methods to analyze the production, dissemination, and impact of scientific knowledge. By examining metrics such as publication counts, citation patterns, collaboration networks, and research funding data, scientometrics helps reveal trends, assess scholarly influence, and inform science policy and management.

He analyzed three distinct corpora, each representing a different perspective on change management: general management literature, specialist change management literature, and interviews with practicing change managers. The research found significant differences between the three corpora analyzed.

The emphasis in the academic literature on organizational change is primarily on theoretical issues, generalized models, and frameworks, contrasting significantly with the practitioner’s focus on practical, local concerns. For example, Kotter’s “Eight Stage Process of Creating a Major Change” (1996) is a widely recognized and highly popular model for transforming organizations. It has been hailed as the “most compelling recipe for change management success” and is considered “mainstream wisdom” in how to manage change. Kotter’s work became a must read for organizational leaders planning and implementing change and continues to be a key reference in the field of change management.

Despite its significant popularity and influence, however, the authors highlight a notable lack of empirical research and critical academic analysis concerning the actual effectiveness and application of Kotter’s process. Key takeaways regarding Kotter’s model include:

Takeaway	Description
Lack of Research on Effectiveness	There is a general scarcity of research on how commercial change management practices, including Kotter’s process, work in practice and on their actual effectiveness.
Reliance on Kotter’s Own Data	A comprehensive study by Applebaum et al. (2012) found that much of the supporting evidence for Kotter’s model originates from data compiled only by Kotter himself.
Popularity Over Scientific Verification	The widespread adoption and popularity of the model appear to be based more on its accessibility than on scientific verification of its efficacy.
Limited Academic Case Studies	There are very few academic case studies documenting organizational changes that were actually managed using Kotter’s process. While some studies examine its application (e.g., Joffe & Glynn 2002; Day & Atkinson 2004; Ansari & Bell 2009; Lintukangas et al 2009; Springer et al 2012; Pollack & Pollack 2015), these examinations are often more descriptive rather than critically analytical.
Framework for Discussion or Post-Hoc Analysis	The majority of academic papers that refer to Kotter’s process do not present research on how it can be used to effect organizational change. Instead, they tend to discuss the process within the broader context of organizational change literature or use it as a framework for conducting a post-hoc analysis of an organizational change project (e.g., Yauch & Steudel 2002; Sidorko 2008; Nitta et al 2009; Gupta 2011; Goede 2011; Smith 2011; Casey et al 2012).

The fact that such a prominent approach to organizational change remains largely unexamined by critical academic analysis suggests that this tendency is prevalent throughout the broader change management literature and among the commercialized approaches. This highlights a potential gap where academic research, despite its ability to abstract learning from various practical environments, may not be adequately engaging with the concerns and interests of practitioners – which is essentially to sell services.

Pollack found the following points highlight the distinct nature of the practitioner’s view and approach, which, when contrasted with the academic perspective, illustrate where potential gaps or “shortcomings” for integration with theoretical knowledge might exist.

Limited Reference to Theory and Abstraction

Practitioners, in their conceptualization of change management, do not readily refer to theories about change. Abstract concepts such as ‘theory’, ‘model’, ‘framework’, and ’empirical’ were prominently featured in both academic corpora but were largely absent from the practitioners’ discussions. This suggests a less abstract approach to understanding and discussing change.

Narrower Scope on “Organizational Change”

From an academic perspective, ‘change management’ and ‘organizational change’ are highly connected concepts, with the term ‘organizational change’ frequently appearing in academic literature. However, ‘organization and change’ was not a highly significant concept in the practitioners’ corpus, indicating that practitioners do not regularly refer to change management issues as broader properties of their organizations in interviews. Instead, their focus was more on specific aspects of change projects, such as training or communication.

Emphasis on the Particular and Local Over Generalization

The practitioners’ approach placed a strong emphasis on the particular and local aspects of change initiatives. Significant concepts in their discussions included ‘person’, ‘people’, ‘team’, ‘group’, ‘project’, and ‘program’, suggesting they were less focused on broad organizational issues and more on the specific management issues associated with the people involved in a change process. They highlight the uniqueness of a particular change initiative and its context-dependent issues. When referring to a ‘company’, practitioners tend to focus on its localized history, in contrast to academics who discuss organizations as a general case.

The study’s primary conclusion is that there are significant differences between these three corpora, which strongly supports claims by other researchers of a divide between theory and practice in change management. This significant divide between change management theory and practice is likely due to the fact that the commercially peddled approaches to change management push the application of specific activities and templates to drive change.

It might also be the result of uniqueness of a particular change initiative and its context-dependent issues. When referring to a ‘company’, practitioners often discuss the localized history of an organization to provide context for a specific change they are facilitating, unlike the general academic use of ‘organization’ or ‘firm’.

Academics also frequently use the term ‘organizational change’ and see it as highly connected to ‘change management’. Practitioners, on the other hand, do not regularly mention ‘organizational change’ as a highly significant concept in their discussions, suggesting they may refer to change management as an approach rather than seeing change issues as broader properties of their organizations. These linguistic differences may hamper communication and the dissemination of knowledge between academics and practitioners.

Lastly, despite an abundance of literature offering advice on change management, there is a lack of research on how these practices work and their effectiveness. Popular approaches, such as Kotter’s Eight Stage Process, are often discussed in academic literature as if they have been tested and verified, but their popularity appears to be based more on accessibility than scientific verification of their efficacy. There are very few academic case studies of organizational changes actually managed using widely cited processes such as Kotter and Prosci, and most examinations tend to be descriptive rather than critical.

In essence, the study concludes that while academic literature provides models and frameworks for understanding change management, it does not appear to be directly addressing the concerns of change practitioners who are engaged in the hands-on management and delivery of organizational change projects.

Sources:

Appelbaum, S., Habashy, S., Malo, J. and Shafiq, H., (2012), “Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp: 764-782.

Kotter, J., (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Pollack, J. (2015). “Understanding the Divide Between the Theory and Practice of Organisational Change”. Organisational Project Management, 2(1), 35–52.