Seeing the Parts to Understand the Whole

"If you could look at this situation from 10,000 ft above, and you could see all of the interrelated pieces of this system, what would you notice?"

When I ask some version of this question in a coaching meeting, it can usually help someone who is deep in the weeds of a challenge to step back and "see" the interconnectedness of the parts functioning towards the whole. People can often get into a more generative state of thinking about challenges in systems as opposed to in a single part, and then determine where their control and influence lies relative to constraints within that system. This allows them to better determine next steps, which can be empowering.

When I'm working with teachers or education leaders, the system we're thinking about can be as small as a table group or a class, or bigger — a department, a school, a district, or even larger scales — each with their own goals, players, resources, and dynamics.

*Shakes fist at The System*

When we're talking about change management – whether that's helping a group of students to work more collaboratively or supporting an organization to execute on an important cross-functional shift, systems thinking can help us understand complex challenges to then better match the solutions that can help us get unstuck.

So how do we support teachers in taking a systems thinking lens? How do we build our own systems thinking muscle?

When Change Isn't Working

Any instructional coach knows this scenario: A teacher tries something new, it doesn't go as planned, and they're ready to abandon it entirely. Or perhaps an administrator wonders why their new schoolwide initiative isn't gaining traction despite lots of training. In both cases, we're witnessing what happens when a change process is missing critical components.

Enter the Lippit-Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change.

Initially developed (by most accounts) by Mary Lippitt and later modified by Timothy Knoster, this model offers a clear lens for analyzing change management challenges at any scale—from a single classroom routine to a district-wide initiative.

The Components of Successful Change

According to the model, successful change requires six key elements:

1. Vision: Clear understanding of what success looks like

2. Buy-In*: Genuine agreement and commitment from stakeholders

3. Skills: Ability to implement the necessary practices

4. Incentives: Motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) to make and sustain the change

5. Resources: Materials, time, or support needed for implementation

6. Action Plan: Concrete steps for moving forward

*Note: Different iterations of this framework exist. I've made a few modifications. The most significant to Knoster's model, which listed "Consensus" is that I changed it to "Buy-in." This wasn't just semantics—it was a deliberate choice to recognize that change doesn't require unanimous agreement. In fact, in schools we cannot wait for consensus to bring about meaningful and necessary change at any scale. But buy-in can exist on a continuum. What matters is sufficient commitment from key stakeholders to move forward effectively. The other content changes I've made to the model are in the footnotes for transparency.

When all six elements are present, you have the conditions for successful change.

But what happens when one component is missing? That's where the model becomes most powerful.

Diagnosing the Missing Piece

Here's where this framework offers clarity—each missing element creates a predictable outcome:

❌ Missing Vision = Confusion ("What are we even trying to accomplish?")

❌ Missing Buy-In = Resistance¹ ("Um...no. I'm not doing this.")

❌ Missing Skills = Anxiety ("I don't know how to do this")

❌ Missing Incentives = Inertia² ("Why should I bother changing?")

❌ Missing Resources = Frustration ("I can't do this under these conditions")

❌ Missing Action Plan = Treadmill (lots of activity but no forward movement); some versions of this framework also list this consequence as "False Starts".

Applying the Model in Coaching

What makes this model particularly powerful for coaches is that it:

✅ Depersonalizes challenges: Instead of labeling teachers as "resistant" or "struggling," we can identify specific systemic gaps.

✅ Normalizes difficulties: The model shows that implementation problems are predictable and solvable, not evidence of failure.

✅ Provides clear next steps: Once you identify the missing component, the path forward becomes much clearer.

✅ Works at any scale: The same analysis works for classroom procedures, grade-level initiatives, or school-wide changes.

Quick Diagnostic Questions

When you encounter a stalled change effort, consider these questions to identify the missing component(s):

🔍 Vision Check: Can everyone clearly describe what successful implementation looks like?

🔍 Buy-In Assessment: Do stakeholders genuinely believe this change is worthwhile?

🔍 Skills Inventory: Do people know how to implement this change effectively?

🔍 Incentive Exploration: Is there meaningful motivation to sustain this change?

🔍 Resource Review: Are the necessary supports, materials, and time available?

🔍 Action Clarity: Does everyone know exactly what steps to take next?

Making It Work

The power of this model isn't just in diagnosis—it's in the focused interventions it enables. Rather than throwing multiple solutions at a problem, you can target the specific gap.

For example, if you identify missing skills as the issue, providing more rationale (vision) or more materials (resources) won't address the core problem. Instead, focused skill development through modeling, practice, and feedback will move things forward.

Using the Model as a Coach

As instructional coaches, we often find ourselves supporting change in contexts where we don't control all the components—like when facilitating professional development sessions planned by others or supporting initiatives that came from administration. The model serves us here too:

Planning PD: You can assess which components are already addressed and which need attention in your session, or at least mitigate for the components that you may not be able to control. If the vision and buy-in have been established elsewhere, you can focus your limited time on building skills and clarifying action steps.

Supporting district initiatives: When working with teachers implementing district mandates, you might notice, for example, frustration stemming from missing resources. Rather than trying to instantly create those resources, you can acknowledge the gap and help teachers prioritize what's feasible now.

Self-assessment: Before launching coaching cycles or team initiatives, use the model to check whether you've addressed all components, preventing predictable problems before they arise.

In reality change is rarely about a single missing factor. But by seeing the parts clearly, we can understand—and improve—the whole system, creating the conditions where meaningful change can take root and thrive.

What change efforts are you supporting that might benefit from this kind of analysis? Which component do you most often see missing in your context?

---

¹ Knoster listed the effect of missing "Consensus" ("Buy-in" in this version) as Sabotage. However, Sabotage seems to denote more active and agenda-driven behavior than what I have experienced people doing across sectors in the absence of buy-in: actively or passively refusing to engage with the change. That is, Resistance.

²Lippitt's model lists the effect of missing Incentives as Resistance. Resistance still seems too active to me. Even in a passive form, resistance requires opposition. However, my experience has been that Inertia is a better descriptor for what tends to happen in the absence of motivation to change: continuing to do things the way we've always done them.