“Experts” & “expertise” can be very dangerous to change interventions. In leading change, it’s better to think like an explorer than an expert. See the graphic below. An “expert” way of thinking can become a loop where knowing a lot turns into strong certainty. That leads us to mainly look for information that backs up what we already know, which then makes us feel confirmed. Experts can become oriented toward being right & getting affirmed, which can make their thinking narrower & more self-sealing over time. An “explorer” way of thinking is a loop focused on learning. It starts with being humble enough to admit we might not have the full picture, then asking questions, staying curious & trying to find out more - so new information keeps shaping our views & change practice over time. One of the greatest dangers in change experts (especially prevalent in external change experts coming into an organisation) is bias. Common biases are: - Confirmation bias: we search for information/evidence that supports what we already think & overlook anything that contradicts this. - “Solutioneering”: We jump quickly to a preferred intervention (new structure, operating model, digital tool etc) before fully understanding the local context & constraints. - ​Authority bias: we can give extra weight to the opinion of the most senior person (or the loudest “expert”) & discount what others (especially people closer to the work) are seeing or can contribute. - Overconfidence effect: we can be too sure we’ve got this under control, so we plan as if the future is predictable & leave too little room for learning & adaptation. - One-size-fits-all / template bias: we over-apply what worked elsewhere (reusing change models, templates & assumptions) even when culture, incentives, capability or demand patterns differ. - Case-study trap: We lean too heavily on successful past engagements & familiar sectors (“this looks just like Y”) & under-sample what is unique about this organisation. In a relatively stable world, expert-led change can deliver results. But as AI accelerates the pace of disruption, the edge shifts from having the answers to staying open to better ones. The most effective change leaders will be those who keep their curiosity switched on, run experiments, learn quickly & humbly adapt when the evidence changes. In other words, the future belongs to explorers - because in an AI-shaped world, agility is likely to beat expert ability when it comes to change. For experts/explorers see Joey Davis: joeydavis.me/posts/unlocking… For more on biases, see the review by @grahamkmann of the work of Rolf Dobelli: grahammann.net/book-notes/th… Graphic adapted from one by @anujmagazine.

Leading change demands deep emotional strength & self-awareness. Leaders of change have to balance an “inner battle” between agency (the need to drive momentum & action towards the vision) & ambivalence (identify risks, invite reflection & apply caution before proceeding). Typically, agency vs. ambivalence isn’t a resolvable “either/or”; it’s a “both/&” tension that leaders of change have to constantly hold & manage. @RonCarucci says we have to consider this tension across five critical dimensions of inner conflict: 1) Voice: Inspiring others with a compelling picture of the future, yet inviting dissent. 2) Ideas: Reframing possibilities with imagination while fostering unity. 3) Passion: Emotionally fuelling the cause of change & encouraging others to make their own connection to the cause. 4) Discontent: Challenging the status quo productively. 5) Conviction: Believing in the need for change but being flexible about the approach. The leaders who succeed at transformation are those who can live with the tension, read the conditions & repeatedly recalibrate that mix without overfocussing on either extreme for long. The author sets out advice to recognise the dimensions, watch for signs that they’re out of balance & use “guardrails” for sustaining balance as a leader of change: hbr.org/2025/09/the-resilien…

Question: How can we build a link to purpose that improves performance for all employees? Answer: Activate the power of frontline (team) leaders in making purpose meaningful in daily work. A study of 57,000 employees across 469 organisations showed that when team leaders have regular conversations with their teams about organisational purpose ("purpose dialogue") it has a significant impact on performance. Commitment grows when people feel the organisation’s wider goals are meaningful, relevant & openly discussed. A 1 point increase (on a 6 point scale) in team-level purpose dialogue boosted team commitment scores by 10%, which in turn led to improvements in team performance, lower turnover & more innovation. Two other factors amplified the impact of purpose dialogue: -Relationship quality: where every team member experienced respect, trust, & fair access to support & opportunities -A sense of agency & control: where teams were felt they were granted real autonomy to act on organisational purpose. Three ways to “operationalise purpose”: 1. Build purpose dialogue into the operational fabric: Make deliberate, two-way conversations about purpose a standard part of organisational routines, role modelled by leaders at every level. 2. Ensure balanced relationships: Support all team members to experience purpose-driven leadership & receive equitable support and recognition. 3. Encourage ownership and initiative: Seek to give teams autonomy in how they achieve strategic objectives, reinforcing accountability and engagement. Sustaining organisational performance is not about grand purpose statements but the everyday work of connecting, engaging & enabling teams around shared goals. Team leaders are critical agents for achieving this: sloanreview.mit.edu/article/…. By @rudyOrg & colleagues @mitsmr

Why superficial, so called "staff engagement" is worse than no engagement at all. This is about "listening sessions" & "engagement workshops" where people put their ideas forward (often on post-it notes) where nothing happens afterwards or "suggestion boxes" that don't get opened often. It allows leaders to say “We asked for employee input” without actually giving up control. It’s engagement without risk. It has a side effect. It erodes trust. People see through the act & resent it. They disengage more. It turns hopeful people into even bigger cynics. Three key questions to ask about any "staff involvement" strategy: 1. What happens to these ideas after this meeting? 2. Who decides which ones move forward? 3. How do we measure if this process is working? Real collaboration isn’t a meeting. It’s a way of thinking & behaviour, role modelled by leaders: - Being open and creating visible feedback loops - Ensuring follow-through & action on the ideas put forward - Distributing decision-making power - Enabling dialogue across the system - Setting accountability goals for collaborative working: medium.com/psychology-of-wor…. By Bette Ludwig @BetteFreelancer.

Change is changing & our methods need to change too. In health & care, Gantt charts are the dominant method for managing projects. Yet in other sectors, there's a big shift away from them. As change gets more complex, project timelines get shorter & more changes & pivots are needed. In @McKinsey research: - 72% of project managers report Gantt charts become outdated within weeks of creation. - Teams spend an average of 4.5 hours per week just updating project timelines. Modern project management favours layered planning, where, say, quarterly plans outline big-picture goals & weekly plans keep track of immediate tasks. How to abandon your Gantt chart & plan big projects without micromanaging dependencies: medium.com/@paco-cantero/why…. By @PacocanteroW.

We have decades of research evidence about how change happens in organisations & systems. Yet mostly, we don't use this knowledge in practice. The biggest misconception is that once people understand change, they'll embrace it (almost never true). 4 principles that should inform our change efforts: 1) Transformational ideas typically come from outside the community & incur resistance: We build attachments to ideas, people & ways of working - when those attachments are threatened, we tend to act out in ways that don’t reflect our best selves 2) Transformations follow an “S curve” pattern: Innovations take hold slowly amongst a group of enthusiasts, then hit an inflection point at 10%-20% participation, then accelerate exponentially - it's why we should concentrate on building the 10-20% through enthusiasts rather than getting everyone on board with the change 3) There is a common, persistent “KAP-gap”: (the difference between what we say & what we do) - it's because we only change our views/practice when the people around us do & it's why we need to shape networks rather than opinions 4) Transformational ideas are propagated socially: It's not the mode of communication or even the individual influence of early adopters but the structure of the network that determines how fast and far an idea travels medium.com/@greg-satell/we-h…. By @digitaltonto.

I've been working with @Goranhenriks & hundreds of leaders of change to identify the enabling factors for systemic, profound change (at a deeper level than incremental improvement). One of the nine interrelated themes that has emerged is "leading people through transitions in situations of uncertainty". So it was great to see this focus pop up in a new article in @HarvardBiz. The authors say that to support people to transition in change in uncertain times we need to: 1) Ask big questions ("What do you value?"; "Where do we stand"; "How can we move ahead?") 2) Focus on the fundamentals (the things that stay the same, things that need our attention & where we can make a tangible difference). hbr.org/2024/11/how-to-lead-…. Via @JHoward_Grenvil

I'm often surprised by how many change & improvement leaders don't know about (or don't use) Liberating Structures. They are a set of 30+ ways of working with groups that enable us to include everyone, in innovative ways, to produce results within a short amount of time. Liberating Structures can change the way we meet, plan, decide & relate to one another. You don't need to be an expert facilitator. They can be used by anyone. They are freely available. I use Liberating Structures constantly in my own practice. In the last week, I've used 1-2-4-All & 15% Solutions. Learn more here: liberatingstructureslondon.o…. Liberating Structures were developed by @KeithMcCandless & Henri Lipmanowicz. Graphic from @liberators_the