Here, the shift is a change in process, perhaps associated with implementing productivity changes. Much that has passed for Total Quality Management during the years of its popularity could be seen within this type of change. In simple terms, there was the way the production process was organized before the change. the plan embodying the new method of production. a period of transition during which new procedures and equipment would be put in place. and the final new procedure reinforced by training and reward which would supersede previous practice and bring about the newly expected yields anticipated by the change in the first place (Burnes 2000, p. 254). Devolving a plan of action for such change underpins many different planned change schemas. They often involve steps that are offered to the prospective manager of change and relate quite well to problem-solving schemas, too.Too often signals for change occur without leaders noticing. Or leaders may receive a signal for change and act on it without fully understanding its implications, or worse, without appreciating what change in the organization the signal is requiring. These shortcomings limit leaders’ ability to define the change needed and the outcomes for it. How do leaders explore these signals and accurately interpret their meaning? How can they be more certain that they are asking their organizations to change in the ways that are really needed?This is why we need to explore the different change theories and compare them. These theories are critical for leaders to understand what drives change. It is essential that leaders comprehend the entire breadth of today’s drivers for change and be able to respond to each of them appropriately, not just for today, but for the organization’s future success.In Lewin’s view, implementing change is a three-step process: (1) unfreezing the organization from its present state, (2) making the change.