If you work in change communications, you’ve almost certainly sat through a presentation where someone wheels out the Kübler-Ross curve as though it were unquestionable truth about human behaviour. Shock, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance parade across the slide deck, offering a deceptively simple way to describe how “people react to change”. It’s tidy, familiar and reassuringly linear.

But here’s the uncomfortable reality: the Kübler-Ross model was never intended for use in organisational settings. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross developed it in 1969 to help terminally ill patients and their families understand the emotional journey of receiving a life-ending diagnosis. It was a compassionate tool for navigating unimaginable distress, not a behavioural framework for corporate restructuring, system implementation or merger integration. As frameworks go, it’s a long way from where we need to be in modern transformation environments.

And yet, it persists. As a change communications consultant, I frequently see it referenced as a universal emotional journey, when in practice it can be reductive, misleading and, where misapplied, damaging to psychological safety. Let’s explore why.

Why the Kübler-Ross curve doesn’t map neatly onto organisational change

1. It was built for a completely different emotional context

The first limitation is its origin story. The model is rooted in the experience of terminal illness, which sits in an entirely different place to organisational transition. While workplace change can certainly spark fear, frustration or uncertainty, the emotional experience is not comparable. When leaders adopt the Kübler-Ross curve wholesale, they risk trivialising both the gravity of end-of-life experiences and the legitimate, but qualitatively different, concerns employees have about how change will affect their work and careers.

There’s a distinction between the grief associated with a terminal diagnosis and that associated with shifting to a new digital workflow or adapting to a revised organisational structure. When we conflate the two, we strip away nuance and inadvertently frame normal, rational questions as emotional inevitabilities.

2. It assumes a linear journey that human beings simply don’t follow

One of the biggest challenges in using the curve is its insistence on sequential, universal stages. In reality, employees respond to change in ways shaped by their roles, personal values, perceived fairness and how directly the change impacts them. Some people move straight to curiosity or acceptance, while others oscillate between uncertainty and optimism depending on the clarity of communication they receive. Many never experience “anger” or “denial” at all; others may show initial enthusiasm but later feel apprehensive once implementation begins.

Human behaviour isn’t a straight line – and change certainly isn’t. For any change communications consultant, this truth sits at the heart of audience segmentation, channel planning and messaging. If we assume a universal emotional path, we miss the opportunity to communicate with precision. Tailored messages – delivered at the right moment, through the right channel, to the right group – matter far more than fitting everyone into a neat curve.

3. It encourages lazy diagnosis and discourages genuine listening

Because the change curve presents resistance as an emotional phase, leaders sometimes misinterpret employees’ valid concerns as personal reactions that must simply “run their course”. It becomes all too easy to label a stakeholder group as “in denial” rather than exploring whether the issue lies in unclear rationale, limited involvement, training gaps or a lack of trust.

In truth, resistance is often a sign of weak communication rather than emotional blockage. Patrick Lencioni’s work reminds us that trust is the foundation for team health, while Daniel Pink highlights autonomy, mastery and purpose as core motivators. And Kotter’s 8-Step Model places establishing urgency and building a guiding coalition far ahead of diagnosing emotional states. When leaders hide behind the Kübler-Ross curve, they risk dodging accountability for the communication and leadership behaviours that directly influence employee experience.

4. It can give leaders permission to step back when their engagement is needed most

Another issue is that the curve can inadvertently normalise negative reactions as inevitable, reducing leaders’ responsibility for shaping the journey. If anger or denial are simply “stages everyone goes through”, then why invest in deeper engagement? Why listen meaningfully? Why refine messaging or adapt the pace of change?

Research across behavioural science, organisational psychology and change leadership is clear: transparent communication, early engagement, co-creation, genuine accountability and consistent behaviours significantly reduce negative responses. Most of the reactions predicted by the grief curve aren’t destiny; they’re preventable. As a change communications consultant, I’ve seen that when employees feel informed, supported and involved, the supposed “anger phase” often never emerges.

What to use instead: more robust alternatives

The limitations of the Kübler-Ross curve don’t leave us empty-handed. In fact, the field of organisational change offers several frameworks grounded in robust behavioural insight rather than emotional generalisation. Two in particular consistently outperform grief-based models when applied to business transformation.

1. ADKAR: Practical, diagnostic and aligned with communication strategy

The ADKAR model – Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement – developed by Prosci founder Jeff Hiatt, has become a mainstay of global change practice precisely because it addresses what people need to adopt new behaviours, rather than guessing at their emotional journey.

Its strength lies in its clarity. If a stakeholder group lacks Awareness, the communication strategy should focus on the rationale, urgency and context for change. If Desire is the gap, messaging must emphasise benefits, fairness and personal impact. When Knowledge or Ability are lacking, communications need to be paired with learning, practice and supportive leadership. And if Reinforcement is the sticking point, success stories and visible role-modelling become essential.

ADKAR is appealing to director-level leaders because it is diagnostic, measurable and directly actionable. For communicators, it provides a structured backbone for audience-specific messaging and channel planning — a far stronger basis for strategy than trying to persuade leaders that teams are “between anger and bargaining”.

2. Bridges’ Transition Model: A more realistic psychological lens

William Bridges’ Transition Model offers a far more appropriate emotional framework than Kübler-Ross because it recognises that organisational change triggers a different type of psychological shift. It distinguishes between change, the external event, and transition, the internal process of adapting. His three stages Ending, Neutral Zone and New Beginning reflect the ambiguity, hesitation and eventual reorientation that people naturally move through, often at differing speeds.

Bridges’ model acknowledges the importance of marking endings, supporting people through the messy middle, and celebrating new beginnings. It is fluid rather than linear, human rather than prescriptive, and pragmatic rather than reductive. More importantly, it aligns well with what communicators see in practice: productivity naturally dips in the neutral zone, clarity is essential, and leadership visibility has disproportionate impact.

How modern change communications can move beyond the curve

Director-level programme leaders increasingly expect an evidence-based, audience-centred approach to change. That means moving past the idea that employees follow a predetermined emotional script and instead embracing internal insight, segmentation and two-way engagement. It’s about understanding the real barriers to adoption rather than diagnosing people as “in denial”.

When communications are transparent, strategic and responsive, they pre-empt many of the issues the grief curve predicts. When employees understand why change is happening, feel involved in shaping it, and see leaders modelling the behaviours that matter, they are far more likely to embrace the journey on their own terms.

Final thought

The Kübler-Ross curve deserves respect within its intended context, but its limitations become clear when applied to organisational change. Modern transformations require frameworks that reflect the actual complexity of workplace behaviour, not a grief model designed for an entirely different purpose. ADKAR and Bridges offer more actionable, compassionate and strategically aligned alternatives. Paired with thoughtful, insight-led communication – the kind delivered by an experienced change communications consultant – these frameworks equip leaders to guide their organisations with clarity, empathy and measurable impact.