Also, very interested in learning more about your wiki effort. I agree with you that there is more similarity than difference among many models of large scale change.

This fits with Kuhn’s description of the anomaly that pushes experimenters to examine more closely what is happening. (What I see missing from the model above (don’t know if Satir discusses it) is the essential need to suspend action and judgment in order to observe more carefully what is happening to causee the anomaly (the result that wasn’t expected IE., the current process didn’t turn out the way it was supposed to).

This close observation is part of the most important change models — the experiential learning model. I really like Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, and Flowers model in Presence (05), which is really Scharmer’s Theory of U. Again, it fits with the above model, with a shift occurring at the bottom of the U, and plans and actions shooting forward from there (similar to the ‘transforming idea’.

I really like this graphical representation of the model. To whom should it be attributed? It would be a very helpful visual for groups undertaking change. Also, I like M Fidddler’s ‘curve-changer’ phrase.

FYI . I’ve been working for a couple of years (in my spare time) on trying to connect all the “proliferation of models” (Senge et al) that disperses knowledge. I think we have so much more knowledge about effective change process, that we realize because it is cataloged away in separate disciplines and professional silos.

I’ve created a matrix connecting these ideas but am just now getting internet savy enough to get these thoughts / info out there. I just started a blog. My goal is to create a wiki for the matrix to which people like you can add your foundation theory and old/new model. Let me know if you’re interested or have any ideas, suggestions (such as ‘are you crazy?). I’m on LinkedIn and will send an invitation, and / or you can email me.

I’m a big fan of Kuhn and think that his initial point of inquiry frequently gets lost — why can’t social scientists create the same kind of structured process for creating big discoveries, and ‘revolutionary’ change’ that is employed in the physical sciences? And many seem to have missed his profoundly important answer. And that is: we in the social sciences do not have clearly organized ’scientific communities” that hold models constant so experiments with them can be compared, and anomalies identified.

Sorry I got so carried away. Thanks for your fine work.

Sometimes I think we simply have to trust that this will occur and it will benefit most folks in the organization after a time… and give our best shot at being the curve-changer. (And then sometimes, I’m not so sure…)