“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.

If we want sustainable organisational change, which group is more important? (a) People who are active in response to the change (even if they are resistant); or (b) People who accept the change? Newly published research suggests (a); it is more important to get people active in change than it is to get favourable responses to it. Active dissenters/resisters/opponents are preferable to passive, seemingly accepting people who go along with the change. Many existing change frameworks focus on “valence”: the extent to which people are positive or negative about the change. This research highlights the importance of another dimension: “activation” - the energy or action level in people’s response to change - whether they are engaged, energetic & visible (active) or quiet, withdrawn, & non-participative (passive). The authors have created a four box framework called “the Change Response Circumplex Scale”. I’ve added some strategies for working with the different categories alongside their graphic. Active resistance is preferable to passive disengagement because it: -keeps the lines of feedback & dialogue open -surfaces important information & risks that passive compliance might hide -enables leaders to create psychological safety for diverse reactions to change. -Creates the conditions for long term engagement in change. Implications of this research for leaders of change: 1. Go beyond reducing resistance: Don’t just focus solely on minimising resistance or seeking passive agreement; aim to foster active, positive engagement from people -what the authors term “change proactivity.” 2. Understand engagement levels: Differentiate between passive acceptance, disengagement & truly active, positive support. Use the framework to understand people’s responses to your change initiative. 3. Create interventions accordingly: Disengaged people need approaches to increase involvement, passive assent can become active support & resistance can become constructive dialogue. 4. Leverage the value of dissent: Rather than viewing resistance solely as an obstacle, explore what motivates active dissent & use it as a resource for learning & adaptation. I appreciate this model because it challenges so much of the existing (dubious) advice for change leaders to “overcome resistance to change”. Instead we should work to activate engagement in change. The research shows that both high activation responses (change proactivity & change resistance) show the most promise for long term change engagement. Activism is what changes the world. There are two research articles about this framework. The 1st, from 2024, validates the framework (This is a version from Scrid so it is it accessible): scribd.com/document/89056213…. The 2nd, which sets the framework in a wider change context, is from 2025 & is attached to this LinkedIn post from Cheese Cheeseman: linkedin.com/posts/cheeseman…. By Shaul Oreg & Noga Sverdlik.