Leading Change

Back-to-school brings many beginnings. New students, teams, and supplies create a sense of possibility for the year ahead.

Back-to-school realities also include new platforms, programs, expectations, and plans. When launching new projects, questions may arise such as, “Why are we doing this instead of what we did last year?” or even, “Were any students or classroom teachers asked about this idea?” Leaders may also be wondering why one of last year’s initiatives is thriving while another has struggled to gain traction.

In my previous roles, I was part of several large initiatives and rollouts. There were committees, goals, training, and resources, but I’m still sad to say that some of those initiatives never reached full implementation.

Somewhere along the way, as I prepared to present on the progress of one district initiative, I discovered Grant Lichtman’s model for managing complex change. His Stairway of Successful Innovation builds on the work of Mary Lippitt and Timothy Knoster. Although I had no formal training in change management theory, one glance at the framework helped me identify which conditions were supporting the district rollout and which might be contributing to its challenges.

Exploring the model helped me reconsider what I had interpreted as resistance. Perhaps the teachers were not resistant to the change itself; perhaps some of the conditions needed to support that change were missing.

The next time I was involved in a large organizational initiative, I returned to the Stairway of Successful Innovation to identify gaps in how we were supporting the change. Since then, I’ve used the model with others both to audit what has been accomplished and to examine why a particular initiative struggled or was eventually abandoned.

As leaders juggle new initiatives and plans at the beginning of the school year, Lichtman’s framework offers a practical way to examine the conditions surrounding change before concluding that the problem lies with the people or the initiative itself.

A Familiar Example

As a digital learning consultant, I supported many district technology integration plans. The platforms and devices varied, but so did the conditions surrounding their implementation.

In one small district, I worked with a cohort of educators from different roles and campuses. We met four times throughout the year, with opportunities to apply ideas, complete follow-up work, and reconnect between sessions. When I look back at that experience through Lichtman’s model, several conditions stand out.

Leadership was apparent because the district technology team participated in the learning, established goals, and connected the cohort’s work to longer-term plans.

Inclusiveness was built into the structure. Participants represented different campuses and roles, and they applied to become part of the academy rather than simply being assigned to attend.

Timeline was treated as a condition for learning rather than an afterthought. Instead of relying on a single back-to-school training, the district distributed the learning across the year. I returned to support additional cohorts over several years, gradually expanding the work across the district.

While those three elements stand out most clearly to me, the others were present as well. Participants had repeated opportunities to build skills, access resources, communicate with one another, and apply the learning within their own contexts. Their continued participation helped build commitment, while the district’s larger technology goals provided a shared vision for the work.

Now imagine a different technology rollout: educators receive access to a new platform, attend one 90-minute August training, and are then expected to use the tool throughout the year. Months later, leaders discover that few licenses have been activated and conclude that teachers are resistant or uninterested.

Lichtman’s model offers a more useful diagnosis. Did educators have enough time to develop the necessary skills? Were ongoing resources and support available? Was the purpose clearly connected to classroom needs? Were educators included in decisions about the tool? Did communication continue beyond the initial launch?

A quick review of the framework can shift the conversation from Why aren’t they using it? to What conditions have we created for successful use?

Why This Framework Has Stayed with Me

One reason I continue returning to this framework is its accessibility. It does not require extensive study to become useful. Leaders can scan the grid, consider an initiative, and begin noticing patterns: communication was inconsistent, so people became disconnected; resources were available, but the timeline was unrealistic; a clear vision existed, but educators were never meaningfully included. The model gives language to what might otherwise feel like a vague sense that something went wrong.

Lichtman provides additional descriptions of each element in his original article, but the visual itself offers a practical starting point for reflection.

Years after I first encountered Lichtman’s framework, change management became a more explicit part of my own professional learning through the Learning Forward Academy. We examined change theory as an essential component of implementing and sustaining professional learning, and Knoster’s model was one of the tools introduced. Seeing the original model helped me appreciate why Lichtman’s expansion had resonated with me years earlier. I shared Lichtman’s education-focused expansion with colleagues in my Academy learning group, and it quickly became part of our discussion as well.

As professional learning leaders, we’re often responsible not just for designing learning experiences, but for helping those experiences become sustained practice. That’s where change management becomes leadership work.

That focus is reflected in Learning Forward’s Implementation standard, which calls on educators to understand and apply research on change management, engage in feedback processes, and implement and sustain professional learning. Lichtman’s framework offers one practical way to begin that work.

Like any framework, this model simplifies a complex process. It does not diagnose every challenge or suggest that one missing element always produces the same result. Its value lies in helping leaders notice conditions they may otherwise overlook.

The goal is not to prove that every initiative must be perfectly designed before it begins. Change is rarely that orderly. Instead, the goal is to notice the conditions leaders can influence and refine them before concluding that the people or the idea are the problem.

Audit an Initiative

As leadership teams work through all of the back-to-school programs, plans, and initiatives, evaluating a new or past effort through Lichtman’s model can be a valuable reflection exercise.

Think of one initiative that struggled or one that became meaningfully embedded. Which conditions were clearly present? Which were missing, inconsistent, or simply assumed?

Before the next district, campus, or team rollout, identify one condition that could be strengthened before asking others to take the next step.

Managing Complex Change Reflection Guide

Change is complex, and no framework can capture every variable. What Lichtman’s model offers is a starting point for better conversations. Rather than asking, “Why aren’t people embracing this change?” leaders can begin asking, “What conditions have we created to help this change succeed?” Sometimes that shift in perspective is the first step toward more thoughtful implementation.

---

Kathryn Laster brings over 30 years of education expertise as a math teacher, instructional coach, and digital learning consultant. As an independent consultant, she creates and facilitates transformative learning experiences through intentional, human-centered, tech-infused design, with a goal of normalizing excellence in adult learning design. She is a graduate of the 2025 Learning Forward Academy.

Connect with Kathryn at kathrynlaster.info and at Refined Learning Design.