Stages of Change: How To Know If Your Team Members Are Ready To Act

Change efforts can underestimate how far apart team members are in their readiness to act; this model gives managers a practical framework for diagnosing whe…

Topic: Organizational Design & Change

Why It Matters

One of the most persistent mistakes in change management is treating readiness as binary: either people are on board or they are not. In practice, the gap between a change being announced and a team actually adopting it is not a question of compliance; it is a question of where individuals are, psychologically and motivationally, at any given point in the process. A manager who applies the same approach for everyone in the team is almost certainly wasting effort on some people and missing the critical window with others.

The Stages of Change Model offers a more precise way of thinking about this. Rather than asking "why isn't this person on board yet?", it prompts you to ask "what stage are they actually in, and what kind of support would move them forward from here?" It has wide application: performance conversations, professional development, culture shifts, process redesigns, and personal habit change at work all benefit from this kind of diagnosis before intervention. The stages of change model is equally relevant whether you are introducing a new technology platform, reshaping how your team works together, or supporting an individual through a shift in role expectations.

Before reading further, three questions are worth asking. Is there someone on your team who continues to resist a change that others have already accepted? Have you ever found that a coaching conversation produced little traction despite being technically well-structured? Have you rolled out a change that seemed successful initially, only to watch people gradually drift back to old habits? If any of these resonate, this model is likely relevant to your current situation.

Origin and Underlying Logic

The model was developed by James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente in the late 1970s while researching how people quit smoking. Their central observation was striking: people who successfully changed a behaviour on their own went through a predictable sequence of motivational states before and after taking action. They formalised this into what became known as the Transtheoretical Model of behaviour change, with the Stages of Change as its most practical and widely used component.

The underlying logic is that behaviour change is not an event but a process, and that different stages of that process require different types of support. Applying the same intervention to someone in the early stages of awareness as to someone already taking action is not just ineffective; it can actively reduce motivation by creating pressure before readiness exists. The stages of change model gives managers a way to calibrate their approach to where the individual actually is, rather than where it would be convenient for them to be.

The model connects to several established frameworks. It shares conceptual ground with ADKAR, where the Desire stage maps closely to the transition between Contemplation and Preparation in Prochaska and DiClemente's sequence. It also aligns with motivational interviewing principles and developmental coaching approaches, making it a natural companion for managers who already work with feedback models or structured coaching conversations.

Structure and Application

The Stages of Change Model identifies six stages describing where an individual sits in their readiness to adopt and sustain a new behaviour. The stages are sequential by design, though individuals can move forward and backward between them, and progression is rarely linear in practice.

In Precontemplation, the individual is not yet considering change. They may be unaware that a problem exists, or they may be aware but unwilling to engage with it. Pressure at this stage typically creates resistance rather than movement. In Contemplation, the individual has become aware that change may be needed but remains ambivalent. They can see both the costs and the benefits of changing, and the internal tension between these is the defining feature of this stage. This is where many people remain for extended periods.

In Preparation, the individual has resolved enough ambivalence to intend to act and is beginning to make practical plans, gathering information, building relevant skills, or making small early adjustments. In Action, the individual is actively modifying their behaviour. This is the most visible stage from a manager's perspective, and the one most commonly mistaken for the finish line. In Maintenance, the new behaviour has been sustained over time (typically at least six months), and the focus shifts to preventing relapse and consolidating the habit. In Termination, the change is fully integrated and stable with little to no risk of reverting. In organisational contexts, this stage is less commonly reached for behavioural changes, and most managers work primarily with the first five.

It is important to note that Relapse is a recognised feature of the model, not a failure. A person may move backward from Action to Contemplation, or from Maintenance to Preparation. The model treats this as part of the natural cycle. A manager who responds to relapse with frustration rather than re-diagnosis will typically make the situation worse. The most effective response is to help the individual understand what triggered the return, rather than to restart the process from scratch with added pressure.

The model typically takes the form of a staged diagram, either circular (to reflect the iterative nature of the process) or linear with a feedback arrow. It is most effective as a diagnostic tool in one-to-one conversations, rather than applied at a group level where individual variation is obscured.

If you want to use the stages of change model before reading further, start by identifying one person on your team who is struggling to adopt a change you have introduced. Before your next conversation with them, take five minutes to map where they appear to sit across the six stages based on what you have observed. That single act of diagnosis will reframe how you approach the conversation. The question it surfaces quickly, however, is this: how do you respond differently depending on the stage, and what does that look like in a real management conversation? That is what the deep dive covers.

FAQ

The following questions address common points of confusion and practical queries from managers encountering this model for the first time.

Q: What is the Stages of Change Model, and where does it come from?

A: The Stages of Change Model, also known as the Transtheoretical Model, was developed by psychologists James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente in the late 1970s. Originally applied to smoking cessation research, it has since been adopted in health, coaching, and organisational change contexts. It maps the psychological journey individuals move through before and during behaviour change, from initial unawareness through to stable, integrated adoption.

Q: How does the Stages of Change Model differ from ADKAR?

A: ADKAR describes the outcomes an individual needs to achieve for change to stick: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement. The Stages of Change Model describes the motivational journey an individual moves through to reach those outcomes. The two frameworks are complementary rather than competing. The stages of change model adds particular granularity to the Desire stage in ADKAR, explaining why desire develops gradually rather than appearing all at once following a change announcement.

Q: Does the Stages of Change Model work at team level, or only for individuals?

A: The model was designed to describe individual psychological readiness and is most precise at that level. It can be used as an aggregate diagnostic at team level (for example, estimating the proportion of the team sitting at each stage), but this introduces assumptions that can mislead. It is most valuable in one-to-one conversations where a manager can assess individual readiness directly and calibrate their approach accordingly.

Q: How do I know if the Stages of Change Model is right for my situation?

A: This model is most relevant when resistance or inconsistency within a team is driven by motivational or psychological factors rather than skills gaps or structural barriers. If some people are adopting a change successfully while others with similar skills and similar information are not, the most likely explanation is a difference in readiness. That is the problem this model is designed to help you diagnose and address.

Q: Is relapse a failure in the Stages of Change Model?

A: No. Relapse is explicitly built into the model as a normal part of the change process rather than a deviation from it. Most people cycle through the stages more than once before a change becomes stable. The model treats relapse as diagnostic information: an indication that something in the Action or Maintenance stage needs to be reinforced or rethought, not a signal to restart from scratch or to escalate performance pressure.