I typically do not use the term “change management” (unless I’m working with a partner who wants or needs to use it). “Managing” change implies order, planning & stability; the ability to forecast, direct & deliver outcomes. Yet very few change or transformation plans deliver what they set out to deliver, in the predicted timescales. We no longer operate in a stable world where we undertake a change project and move back to equilibrium. Our environment moves faster, acts in more interconnected ways & is full of ambiguity. Change is relentless & continuous. We need to focus on building adaptive capacity & creating a collective process, not on "managing" change as a discrete, manageable task. Michael Hudson talks about shifting from “change management” to “change fitness”. He sets out three core leadership practices for enabling change: 1. Continuous sensemaking: This involves incorporating five minutes of sensemaking into existing team routines, understanding what is different or changing. Over time, this practice builds "complexity capacity" & the ability to hold onto multiple, often contradictory realities without becoming overwhelmed. 2. Strategic energy management: Treating people’s energy as a finite resource that needs to be deliberately managed, like any other resource. 3. Learning from navigation, not just success: Shifting from an outcome-focus to process-focus builds the ability to prevail in situations where the path forward is unclear. forbes.com/sites/michaelhuds… Via @Forbes. Graphic from @corp_rebels.

Energy is a topic that has been growing in traction in the field of organisational & system change. I describe energy as the vitality that enables the system and the people in it to work together in a cohesive way, develop, grow and improve. Most change initiatives don’t die because of a lack of planning. They die because the energy for keeping them moving forwards gets shifted elsewhere or gets exhausted. Leaders play a critical role as enablers of this vital resource for change. Energy becomes exponentially more important as the kinds of change initiatives we engage in get more more complex, covering bigger systems. The amount of energy it takes to create coherence & cohesiveness in cross-functional, cross-organisational change is substantial. If we don’t build in a focus on energy, the system gets pulled apart by factors like conflicting objectives, gravity, friction & information decay. A framework I find helpful is to contrast the “anatomy” & “physiology” of change. We need to work with & sustain a focus on both for the long term. This post is inspired by a fantastic piece by Miguel Pantaleon in @medium: medium.com/@MiguelPantaleon/….

A new study looked at how using AI assistants like ChatGPT for writing tasks impacts the brain & thinking skills. It focussed on students writing essays but the findings have implications for workplace leaders. The researchers found that people who used AI used their brains less, created work that was “shallow” & “soulless”, remembered less & had less ownership of their work. Starting a piece of work with AI created a “cognitive debt” – people get short term benefits like more efficient writing but pay a price in reduced creativity & a mental laziness that sticks around & makes it harder to think critically later on. Even when peopled stopped using AI, their brain engagement stayed lower. People who started the work unaided by AI produced more original content with wider vocabulary & critical analysis. They retained stronger cognitive engagement even when later using AI. Implications: actions for workforce development 1. Prioritise critical thinking & problem-solving training: ensure people regularly engage in tasks that require independent thought & reasoning without AI assistance. 2. Encourage hybrid workflows: human first, AI second. 3. Implement continuous upskilling & reskilling: as AI rapidly changes job requirements, ensure people stay adaptable, resilient & capable of meeting evolving demands. 4. Use AI judiciously & monitor cognitive impact: regularly assess how using AI affects people’s engagement, learning & critical thinking & adjust policies to avoid undermining core human skills. Original article: arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 via @PietroMicheli13 Summary & graphic from @IFLScience iflscience.com/this-is-your-…

Workplaces where people are engaged do significantly better in productivity & performance. If we want to build better staff engagement, we need more conversations, not "engagement campaigns". Too often, leaders who want to improve staff engagement build “campaign-style” interventions: analysing levels of engagement, having listening sessions, broadcasting messages & creating dashboards. Yet engagement isn’t a tool or a project - something you can "install" top down. It’s a daily, ongoing practice, rooted in the rhythms of conversation. The single force that shapes day-to-day engagement more than any other is line managers. (In the NHS, it is the frontline leaders, around band 7 level, who line manage >60% of the NHS workforce & who have an outsized influence on NHS productivity & performance). Consistent, authentic dialogue between managers & teams creates the psychological safety people need to speak up, take risks & challenge the status quo. If we want better engagement, we need to support front line leaders to develop skills for conversation-based leadership & build in routines that enable regular conversations to happen: medium.com/@kylejones_47003/…. By Kyle Jones on @Medium, via @LauraJYearsley.