# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2021-2022, we are introducing the Universal Learner Passport, a way for students to show what they have achieved and present their competences to universities and employers.

Interested in our school? Find out more at www.ecolint.ch.

Our Admissions Office is available to answer your questions, by email at admissions@ecolint.ch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Model for Managing Complex Change is widely used in Change Management presentations and articles around the web, as it outlines required elements fo change, and possible negative outcomes. What's interesting is that it is often referenced by a second-hand source: Timothy Knoster used the model in the TASH conference in 1991, and since many sources refer to this model as the " Knoster Model ".

However digging a bit deeper, I found out that the model is referenced in a book about education "Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education: Piecing the Puzzle Together" published in 2000, which references as original source a model copyrighted in 1987 by Mary Lippitt, "The Managing Complex Change Model". Another Author is sometimes referenced, D. Ambrose, also from 1987, and in any case part of the Enterprise group.

In any case, I decided to refer here to this as the " Lippitt-Knoster" Mode l, as these are the two more broadly used names.

The Lippitt-Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change

According to the model, there are five or six elements required for effective change: vision, consensus, skills, incentives, resources and an action plan. If anyone of these elements is missing, the change effort will fail, with varying Negative Change outcome. Let's see both in detail.

The Key Components of the Lippitt-Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change

Initially, there must be a vision. Why is change needed? We have already seen how much the Why is important. Is the vision shared and are people buying in? Are there measurable, achievable goals? A lack of vision leads to confusion. When the team asks questions such as "Why should I do this?" or "What are they thinking?" they may not realize the overall vision for change.

An additional element: Consensus

Apparently, in the presentation done by Knoster, this element was added: Consensus. The idea is that a leader cannot assume they have the power to push through change without gaining a consensus. The fact that this element is not present always, is probably linked to the fact that Knoster applied the model to an educational context. I do think however that in a world marked by much flatter and self-directed organisational models, the underlying concept of "buy-in" is critical, which is why I present the model complete with this element.

The next necessary element is skills. What skills are needed? Do staff members have expertise or training in what they are being asked to do? If not, will it be provided from someone they trust? Feeling as if skill or training is lacking may lead to anxiety.

Incentives

Employees typically also need incentives to make a change. How will it benefit them? There is nothing worse than feeling as if time is being wasted. Everyone must see the value in the change before it can happen. Incentives is the piece that can either build consensus or build resistance among staff. Incentives can be tangible such as monetary, or intangible such as personal achievement or prestige. And it's important to create them with consistency and direct linkage to the vision.

Resources are also important to change efforts and can be physical or emotional. We often hear comments such as "They want us to do more with less" or "They don't support me." A lack of resources leaves people frustrated. What resources are readily available? Are they appropriate? Are there in-house people who are resources? Is the distribution of resources fair? What resources are needed and how will you get them?

Action Plan

The final element required for change is an action plan. The action plan for change should be clear and developed by a representation of all stakeholders. Without it, staff may feel as if they are running in place and not moving forward. They feel like they are going round and round without any clear direction even though they are working diligently. Without a plan, gaining traction and moving forward is impossible.

The possible negative change outcomes

If you have consensus, skills, incentives, resources and an action plan but you don't have a vision - that guiding force behind what you're trying to do - you will not end up with change. You will end up with confusion because there won't be a guiding star during the Change process.

If you have the vision, skills, incentives, resources and action plan, but you don't have Consensus - the buy-in into change by the key stakeholders of the organisation-you might end up in a situation where open sabotage of change can happen.

f you have a vision, consensus, incentives, resources and an action plan, but leave out the skills necessary (i.e.communication, public speaking, political or advocacy) to effect the change you seek, you will be left with anxiety among your team members. If you have people who are unprepared to do the work, it doesn't matter if they have a great vision and buy-in, they will feel anxious to fail.

Resistance

If you have the vision, consensus, skills, resources and action plan, but leave out the incentives - the types of things (rewards, recognition, celebrations) that keep key community stakeholders engaged - you might have changed, but it will be slow and generally marked by a high degree of resistance. People will simply try to stick to the old ways of doing.

Frustration

If you have the vision, consensus, skills, incentives and action plan, but leave out the resources (money, people, time, equipment), you will end up with frustration because you've got a plan, and you know how to accomplish it, but you don't have the resources to get the job done.

Treadmill or False Starts

If you have the vision, consensus, skills, incentive and resources, but no action plan - a plan broken down into steps that people can take and accomplish in small bits - you will end up with a situation that resembles a "treadmill": you are running, but you're not moving ahead. Other definitions of this Negative Change Outcome use the concept of false starts, as sometimes people will start the change process, but will have to go back due to a step being missed for example. Both definitions show that results will be of slowness.

What's Good About the Model

The Lippitt-Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change is an excellent tool both to plan Change, as well as to diagnose issues when a project is already happening. It provides a consolidated map of all the elements needed, and I particularly like the focus on Incentives, as these are way too often missed in many alternative models.

What's Bad About the Model

There's nothing inherently bad about the Model for Managing Complex Change, except that it does not provide a sequence of the elements that are needed. Compared to Kotter's model, for example, it lacks the direction or phasing of the various elements.

Conclusion

Knowing the Lippitt-Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change gives a clear advantage as it allows to truly understand the importance of every element that is needed for Change to be successful. It also gives a clear understanding of the Negative Change outcomes in case any element is missing. Using it as a "map" that ensure consistency and coherence is a must in any change process, as it creates the right mindset for success.

This post belongs to a series of articles related to Change Management. An introductory article: Change Management: The 10 Best Approaches & Models is available, containing links also to all other posts of the series.
I'd like to thank Dr Anke Dählmann from TU Delft for pointing out misspelling and corrections to this article.

Cover Photo by John Barkiple on Unsplash

Digital Knowmad | Multipotentialite | HR Leader | Transformation Agent | Future of Work thinker | On a mission to re-embed Human into HR.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Models: The Lippitt-Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change | Sergio Caredda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Model for Managing Complex Change is widely used in Change Management presentations and articles around the web, as it outlines required elements fo change, and possible negative outcomes. What's interesting is that it is often referenced by a second-hand source: Timothy Knoster used the model in the TASH conference in 1991, and since many sources refer to this model as the " Knoster Model ".

# data[].attributes.body
https://ideas.ted.com/the-future-is-coming-6-ways-it-will-change-everything/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From machine intelligence to post-subsistence economies, Google's Blaise Agüera y Arcas lays out 6 (okay, 7) ways everything is set to change.

How will our minds be blown in the next 30 years? Well, that's quite a long time, given the acceleration in history. Still, I'll be brave and make six hypotheses.

1. Machine Intelligence

I think that just as the Internet has been such a great driver of change across so many spheres over the past 20 years, we will see machine intelligence in the same role over the coming decades.

Today, we are as an intelligent species essentially singular. There are of course some other brainy species, like chimpanzees, dolphins, crows and octopuses, but if anything they only emphasize our unique position on Earth - as animals richly gifted with self-awareness, language, abstract thought, art, mathematical capability, science, technology and so on. Many of us have staked our entire self-concept on the idea that to be human is to have a mind, and that minds are the unique province of humans. For those of us who are not religious, this could be interpreted as the last bastion of dualism. Our economic, legal and ethical systems are also implicitly built around this idea.

Now, we're well along the road to really understanding the fundamental principles of how a mind can be built, and Moore's Law will put brain-scale computing within reach this decade. (We need to put some asterisks next to Moore's Law, since we are already running up against certain limits in computational scale using our present-day approaches, but I'll stand behind the broader statement.) When we reach this point, we will find ourselves no longer alone. It's difficult to overstate the importance that moment will have in our future history.

It may well result in further nonlinearity in the "rate" of history too, since minds and what we've dreamt up with them have been the engine behind history and its acceleration.

2. Gender Selection

For many thousands of years we've lived in a male-dominated society. I don't think that we're shifting toward "female dominance" so much as I think that the whole idea of dominance is a male paradigm, and that it is this paradigm that is being selected against - by increasing population density in the urban cores, increasing education, larger working groups, increasing collaboration, rising technological leverage, global trade and so on. It may be difficult to imagine this now, when the vast majority of the world's capital is still in the hands of men and many of the STEM fields (which are also among the highest-paid) are still overwhelmingly male, but I think that men - and especially "manly men" exhibiting many of the classical correlates of high testosterone - will be at a distinct disadvantage in 30 years time. This represents a profound upset of the patriarchal system that has defined virtually all of recorded history, so ... it'll be a big deal.

3. Post-subsistence Economics

As machine intelligence, robotics, and technological leverage in general increasingly decouple productivity from labor, we will continue to see unemployment rise even in otherwise healthy economies. The end state is one in which most forms of human labor are simply not required. In 30 years, if not sooner, we will be facing this unprecedented situation - and whether it's heaven or hell depends on whether we're able to let go of capitalism, economic Darwinism and the Calvinist ethics that implicitly underlie these systems. Without a change, of course, we will see mass unemployment drive a radical acceleration of the already dramatic imbalance between the very wealthy few and everyone else, leading to ugly conditions in the cities and ultimately violent uprising.

On the other hand, if we are able to set aside our Calvinism, we will realize that given the technological efficiencies we have achieved, everyone can live well, with or without a job. Capitalism, entrepreneurship and other systems of differential wealth creation could still function on top of this horizontal base; but everyone must be fed and housed decently, have access to free health care and education, and be able to live a good life. I assume the nation-state will still be a relevant legal and economic construct in 30 years (though I'm not sure, as corporations or possibly other structures will complicate the picture); my guess is that we will see both paths taken in different parts of the world, leading to misery and war in some, where either the benefits of accelerating technology are slow to penetrate or Darwinian economics are left unchecked.

4. Self-modification

We're rapidly figuring out not only how the brain is engineered, but also the body. Of course this implies greater mastery over mechanisms of disease, but more broadly, as biology becomes first understood and then engineered, Nature becomes open to profound and rapid modification. I don't doubt that we will be able to alter aging mechanisms, "fix" various bugs in human "design", make novel organisms and ultimately modify our own natures. As we reach the end of the 30 year period it's hard for me to imagine that people won't begin to explore these capabilities, which seems likely to lead to accelerated speciation. Machine intelligence and bioengineering will both demand that we rethink our legal and ethical foundations in a variety of ways.

5. Space

The world's space programs have been essentially dormant for decades, as we've focused inward on developments like computers and the Internet, biology and neuroscience. But as our fundamental technical capabilities improve, barriers to space exploration do begin to come down; what was once a heroic effort requiring the full brunt of the resources of the richest countries on Earth will come within reach of companies and (initially, rich) individuals. We've seen only the first stirrings of this with undertakings like SpaceX and Moon Express.

At some point our grasp of materials science and nanofabrication will become sufficient to build a space elevator, at which point our world will expand a great deal as the energetic cost of escaping Earth's gravity well goes to near zero, as many science fiction writers of the 20th century imagined. While I'm unsure of whether the space elevator will happen within the 30 year period, I'm confident we'll see this within our lifetimes.

6. Sexual and lifestyle freedom

In 30 years, I think that not only will the more progressive places in the world have finished reconciling themselves to the wide spectrum of sexual orientation and expression, but also to a wide variety of life configurations beyond the nuclear family built around a single lifelong pair-bond. There are many forces contributing to this shift, and I suspect that an empirical case can be made for this in much the same way as for the gender ideas above. This is the least developed of my six ideas, but one that I think will have profound implications.

Bonus: Energy

One thing I'm leaving off the list above is the potential availability of very cheap, very abundant energy at some point in the future. Many aspects of our outlook are conditioned on the premise that energy is limited and expensive. As a thought experiment, one can ask, "what if energy in virtually any amount were free?" This could imply an end to drought anywhere via desalination of seawater; it could allow us to enact climate controlling interventions on a massive scale, engineer materials that are currently cost-prohibitive, or let us get into space easily even if we continue to do it the hard way.

(Although freely available energy could let us save great ecosystems currently under dire threat, without great care it could also lead to disaster through chemical, thermal, biological and noise pollution on an unprecedented scale.)

We know that in principle vast amounts of energy are available to us through nuclear processes, so in principle an innovation could come along at any time that lets us tap safely into this energy. That would change everything. However, there is no trend or indication that suggests a timeline for such a development - it could happen next week, or still be a pipe dream a century from now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The future is coming. 6 ways it will change everything

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How will our minds be blown in the next 30 years? Well, that's quite a long time, given the acceleration in history. Still, I'll be brave and make six hypotheses. I think that just as the Internet has been such a great driver of change across so many spheres over the past 20 years, we will see machine intelligence in the same role over the coming decades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Getting to Learner-Centered

At Education Reimagined, we have always highlighted the importance of recognizing learner-centered education , first and foremost, as a paradigm shift. And, it's no accident that we do. Our best articulation, so far, of that paradigm shift can be found in our vision document:

The learner-centered paradigm for learning functions like a pair of lenses that offers a new way to look at, think about, talk about, and act on education. It constitutes a shift of perspective that places every learner at its center, structures the system to build appropriate supports around him or her, and acknowledges the need to adapt and alter to meet the needs of all children.

The learner-centered paradigm changes our very view of learners themselves. Learners are seen and known as wondrous, curious individuals with vast capabilities and limitless potential. This paradigm recognizes that learning is a lifelong pursuit and that our natural excitement and eagerness to discover and learn should be fostered throughout our lives, particularly in our earliest years. Thus, in this paradigm, learners are active participants in their learning as they gradually become owners of it, and learning itself is seen as an engaging and exciting process. Each child's interests, passions, dreams, skills, and needs shape his or her learning experience and drive the commitments and actions of the adults and communities supporting him or her. (" A Transformational Vision for Education in the US." Education Reimagined, 2015. Page 5.)

Learner-centered education isn't the newest way to "do" education. Nor is it a new "to do" list or set of activities to add onto your work. Because it is a paradigm shift, it actually offers a new worldview and demands a mindset shift. It becomes a new way to...well, be. And, that changes everything.

Talking Across Paradigms

A couple of weeks ago, we heard the paradigm shift equated to the shift between classical and quantum physics. If you know anything about physics, you know that these are two wholly different ways of seeing the world: two paradigms. Depending on which you are in, you ask different questions, make different assumptions, use different means of measurement, and relate to yourself and your role in the inquiry differently. In essence, everything changes-including what you say the universe is made of!

Despite all of this, both understandings of physics use similar words, such as "gravity." But, the "gravity" of classical physics and the "gravity" of quantum physics point to such different phenomena as to be mutually unintelligible. In classical physics, gravity is a "force" that is calculated by a ratio of the mass of and distance between objects. In quantum physics, on the other hand, gravity is a curvature in the space-time continuum caused by objects with mass-not a "force" at all.

So, you can see the difficulties that might emerge if you were to try to talk across paradigms. You may be using the same words and think you are talking about the same thing-failing to realize that you aren't even in the same universe as the other person.

We believe the same thing occurs for the five elements of the vision: competency-based; personalized, relevant, and contextualized; learner agency; open-walled; and socially embedded. For example, in a school-centered paradigm, when someone says "personalized," they mean that you meet the child academically where they are in a subject and move them along a predetermined path to proficiency. In a learner- centered paradigm, on the other hand, "personalized" means that you co-create learning pathways with the child sitting in front of you-seeing them as a whole child and valuing their interests, passions, concerns, brain wiring, language, circumstances, family, and culture.

This means that an adult "personalizing" learning in a learner-centered paradigm will do things that would never occur to an adult in a school-centered paradigm, and vice versa. In each, they will start with different first steps, ask different questions, develop different tools, have different assumptions, and request different parameters for their learning environment. Just like in physics, despite using the same words, totally different realities are at work.

Working in a New Paradigm

This is an important distinction to notice: The five elements can be implemented in both a school-centered and a learner-centered paradigm. But, they will look and feel drastically different. This is because, if you haven't shifted your view of the purpose of education, the learner, how learning happens, and the role of the adults, you will see the five elements as a means to make the current model of education run more efficiently.

And, when you start from a place of seeking efficiency, you get the current system on steroids. "Competency-Based" becomes self-paced learning. "Personalized, Relevant, and Contextualized" loses the last two qualifiers and becomes kids in front of computers receiving the academic "program" designed to move them from point A to point B in a school curriculum. "Learner Agency" becomes allowing kids to choose how they want to present what they learned about Eskimos to the class-book report, diorama, or podcast. "Open-Walled" becomes flipped classrooms. "Socially Embedded" becomes 20-minute advisory periods for kids to make sense of their course work and life trajectory in collaboration with other learners.

These are all predictable outcomes that emerge when implementing the five elements in a school-centered paradigm. Why are they so predictable? A paradigm is a closed set of beliefs, and these underlying beliefs or assumptions set the boundaries for what can be seen from that paradigm. So, in the case of the school-centered paradigm, it is a closed set of beliefs about kids, how they learn, what they are to learn, how to measure their learning, what education is, and how it should be done.

If you dig a bit into the Industrial-era model for education, you can unearth some of those assumptions that drive us to redesign the current system again and again: There is an average learner. If you teach one way, you will reach 70-80% of kids. Education is done to kids. The job of the whole system is to move students from (pre-) kindergarten to 12th grade. These create a mindset that focuses on the "system" itself and poses the challenge: how can we build "schools" to efficiently educate lots of kids at once and deliver them from PK/K to 12th grade successfully? Coming from here, standardization is the most obvious, logical answer, as it creates an avenue for all kids to know the same things and be able to demonstrate their knowledge equally well in the same way at the same time.

Some of the underlying assumptions of the learner-centered paradigm, on the other hand, are that the work of education is learning; education is done by and with the learner; and there is no average learner. These assumptions create a mindset that demands the creation of a system that adapts to the individual learner-leveraging their strengths and passions and recognizing their challenges and circumstances.

From this angle, you can see that these two models are not good or bad, right or wrong. They are just different-created out of different ways of seeing the world. You can also see that if you can't overlook the paradigm or mindset, you miss something vital. Tools, programs, interventions, games, or whatever you give people will be heard in the paradigm they are in.

We would love to hear from you: How do you recognize when someone is in a learner-centered paradigm? Are there questions they ask, things they do, or ways they talk that give them away?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's a Paradigm Shift. So What? - Education Reimagined

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Getting to Learner-Centered At Education Reimagined, we have always highlighted the importance of recognizing learner-centered education , first and foremost, as a paradigm shift. And, it's no accident that we do.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620302991

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change.