Change Management in OD, and the MS3 Model of Change

In academia, Organization Development (OD) is defined as “a system-wide application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organizational effectiveness.”* As practitioners, we recognize that OD is an intervention-driven, planned, and managed process of change.

We are also aware that change management is an integral element of OD. However, OD is not merely change management: “Organization development can be distinguished from change management and organizational change. OD and change management both address the effective implementation of planned change. They are both concerned with the sequence of activities, the processes, and the leadership that produce organizational improvements. They differ, however, in their underlying value orientation. OD’s behavioral science foundation supports values of human potential, participation, and development in addition to performance and competitive advantage. Change management focuses more narrowly on values of cost, quality, and schedule. As a result, OD’s distinguishing feature is its concern with the transfer of knowledge and skill so that the organization is more able to manage change in the future. Change management does not necessarily require the transfer of these skills. In short, all OD involves change management, but change management may not involve OD.”*

So, how do we manage this planned process of change with behavioral science? Here’s my application, which I call the “MS3 Model of Change” (MS3 stands for Move, Shake, Shift, and Shape):

MS3 Model of Change

In the simplest terms, change is a move or transition from one state to another. The visual I use to describe “Move” shows the current state, denoted as A, and the alternate state, denoted as B, with the change between the two symbolized by a curved arrow.** I suggest considering the process of Move as occurring in three phases: Shake, Shift, and Shape.

In the narrow sense of change management, the primary focus is on the middle Shift phase. However, the behavioral science significance of OD encompasses all three phases—Shake, Shape, and Shift. This is where the OD approach to change management makes the difference:

• Shake: Change won’t happen unless there is awareness, a recognized need, and a genuine desire for transformation. These factors are essential for creating readiness for change. If they are already present at the point of intervention, that’s great—we can transition smoothly into the Shift phase. However, this is rarely the case. Human nature is inherently apprehensive about change; we tend to resist, avoid, and even deny the need for it. Therefore, the Shake phase is critical. It involves dialogue and gentle nudging, disrupting the status quo and prompting the client to confront the realities that necessitate change. This might involve questioning existing practices, challenging deeply held beliefs, or exposing the consequences of inaction. The goal is to create a sense of urgency and readiness, paving the way for a more receptive Shift.
• Shift: Change is complex, and the shift from state A to B is seldom a straightforward path. De-learning old ways of doing things and re-learning new skills and behaviors is challenging and uncertain. During this transitional phase, the client may exist in a prolonged state of vulnerability. The Shift phase requires careful navigation through uncertainty and complexity. The interventionist needs to be well-prepared to take a responsive and adaptive approach (hence “Agile OD”), ensuring that the client not only moves but moves in the right direction—toward a more sustainable and desirable state B.
• Shape: Change can reach the end of a cycle, but this aspect doesn’t always receive the attention it deserves. Organizations—and individuals—are systems that naturally seek equilibrium. The organization was in equilibrium in the previous state A. When an effort is made to shift to state B, a disturbance (change) is introduced, pushing the system out of its stable state. This disruption necessitates adaptation and transformation as the system seeks to restore order, ideally settling into a new equilibrium in state B. However, this new equilibrium is vulnerable and prone to reverting to the previous state, due to residual influences from state A. The new equilibrium of state B is like a sapling; it can easily be overgrown by the forest of old habits, established routines, and entrenched behaviors deeply rooted in the organization’s culture. Therefore, it’s important to shape the right conditions so that the new equilibrium can grow and sustain—through consistent reinforcement, protection from competing influences, and the gradual clearing of the old forest.

Uses of the MS3 Model of Change

The underlying concept of the MS3 Model of Change is nothing new. Essentially, my model is a derivative of Kurt Lewin’s 1947 three-step change model of “Unfreezing, Moving, and Refreezing.”*** The small adjustments I made were (1) defining and setting the objective of change as the Move from state A to B, (2) describing my version of Move as encompassing all three phases rather than just the one step of Moving in Lewin’s model, (3) choosing different terminology, and (4) making use of visuals.

I made these small tweaks and adjustments over time based on my real needs and practical application of OD. Because of that, I find the model very practical.

The model is useful in several ways:

As an Education and Dialogue Tool: The MS3 Model makes change, which is inherently complex and overwhelming, easier to grasp, enabling gentle education and meaningful dialogue with teams, leaders, and stakeholders. By breaking down change into Shake, Shift, and Shape, the model turns the complex process into something clear and approachable, helping to generate a shared understanding of the steps involved and the goals to be achieved.

In one case, I worked with a client struggling to get employees to adopt new productivity tools, including an online Kanban board, as part of their push for organization-wide agility. I asked, “Is the goal to move people from (A) not using Kanban to (B) effectively using Kanban with the new software?” This question not only clarified the objective but also sparked a deeper conversation about the real barriers to adoption. The client realized that the challenge wasn’t just about learning a new tool—it was about inspiring a shift to new ways of working, their original objective, which hadn’t been fully addressed. Using the MS3 Model, we recognized that the Shake phase—where awareness and readiness are cultivated—had been insufficiently emphasized. This realization led to a more targeted effort in positioning the tools as enablers for the original objective.

As a Planning and Designing Tool: Change is inherently complex and full of uncertainties, which means traditional linear planning methods, such as sequential planning with Gantt charts, are inadequate. These methods assume a predictable and stable environment, which is rarely the case in real-world change. Instead, managing complex change requires adaptive planning—a more flexible, iterative approach that allows for adjustments as new information and challenges emerge. Adaptive planning embraces the reality that change is non-linear and that plans must evolve to remain effective.

Rather than trying to predict every step in advance, the MS3 Model encourages planning that is responsive to feedback and evolving conditions. Each phase—Shake, Shift, and Shape—requires different types of interventions, tailored to the specific needs of that stage. The Shake phase might involve activities to build awareness and readiness, such as workshops or communication campaigns. The Shift phase could focus on hands-on training, pilot projects, or incremental rollouts to support the transition. In the Shape phase, interventions might include reinforcement mechanisms like feedback loops, recognition programs, or policy adjustments to ensure that new behaviors and practices are sustained. By guiding the design of these interventions, the MS3 Model ensures that each action is purposefully aligned with the change goals and adapts as needed throughout the process.

As an Inspect and Adapt Tool: Managing a change program can often leave change agents feeling disoriented, asking themselves, “Where is this going? I’m lost!” The complexity and unpredictability of change can make it difficult to maintain a clear direction. The MS3 Model helps address this by providing structured checkpoints throughout the Shake, Shift, and Shape phases, allowing key personnel to assess the current state of the initiative. This regular inspection reduces the sense of overwhelm, enabling a clearer understanding of what’s happening and where things stand.

Once bearings are restored, the model supports making informed decisions about the next best course of action. Just as a navigator adjusts their route based on the latest information, the MS3 Model encourages continuous adaptation to keep the change process on track. Whether it’s revisiting the Shake phase to address gaps in readiness or adjusting the approach during the Shift phase to better support the transition, this inspect-and-adapt approach ensures that the change effort remains flexible and responsive. The ability to reassess and recalibrate at each stage is crucial for successfully navigating the complexities of change and ultimately achieving the desired outcomes.

The Reframing Effect

Organizational change programs are typically year-long journeys, if not longer. I find that the MS3 Model of Change serves as an effective systems tool, helping to maintain this broad perspective and manage the complexities of the journey. It provides a structured container for addressing the intricacies of the behavioral science aspects of change, which are often the most challenging to navigate. By breaking down the process into manageable phases, the model keeps all parties aligned and committed to the full journey, from start to finish.

I consider the simplicity of the MS3 Model to be one of its greatest strengths—it cuts through complexity, keeping everyone on track and motivated, even when the path forward seems daunting. I’ve observed that, because change can be so challenging, clients often feel skeptical or powerless, doubting whether they can actually reach the goal and see the change materialize. By framing the change process in a way that is simple and visually clear, the MS3 Model has a powerful reframing effect. It turns what feels overwhelming into something tangible and manageable, generating a renewed sense of confidence and belief that the change can actually succeed. This shift in perspective not only increases the probability of success but also empowers clients with the courage to see the change through to completion.

Footnotes

1. *Source: Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization Development & Change (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
2. **The “Move” visual is akin to ORSC‘s “Edge Model”, where state A in ORSC terms is “primary identity,” state B “secondary identity,” and the curved arrow is what they describe as “edge behavior.” ORSC is a registered trademark of CRR Global.
3. ***Source: Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics.

success but also empowers clients with the courage to see the change through to completion.

Found this article useful? Then you might enjoy joining our next Mental Model Dōjō session! Sign-up from here: https://agile-od.com/events