Assumptions underlying CHRIIS

I have developed the model quite a bit since its origin and added a second “I.” But why develop and share yet another model? Because I have recognized that in developing CHRIIS I have made different assumptions than others, particularly different assumptions than those made in typical models of planned change in organizations.

Models of planned change, like Kotter’s (2014) 8S model, Lewin’s (1947) process of unfreeze, change, and freeze, and Rogers’ (2003) model of diffusion of innovations all appear to assume such things as the following:

People resist change.

People avoid challenge.

The future is determined mostly by others.

Extrapolating from these, models of change often also appear to assume that:

Only special people are creative.

Experts/leaders should make the big decisions.

Change necessarily means a loss of identity.

It is ethical to bring about change in and for others.

Instead, like many of my colleagues working in systemic design, I have assumed the following:

People do not resist change; they resist change that is imposed on them.

People relish challenges that are aligned with their values and potentially enhance their self-worth.

We can meaningfully impact our own future.

All of us can develop our creativity through intentional practice.

People have a fundamental right to participate in decisions that affect them.

Change can mean simultaneous transformation and deepened identity.

It is ethical to design with others; even more so to design within.

There are circumstances where typical models of change can be applied productively and where the former assumptions are reasonable; see Dormant's (2011) Chocolate Model of Change for a very useful synthesis. My experience is that tools like CHRIIS, based on the latter assumptions, promote more beneficial, lasting change by helping groups engage in self-design and create their own futures.