In situations of change, what holds people together when the ground keeps moving? A sense of belonging. I define “belonging” (in a change context) as confidence that we are part of the group the change is happening with, that our effort to adapt is visible to the people around us and that what we contribute still counts as the organisation reshapes itself. Belonging is one of the most underrated conditions for change leadership. We plan structures, timelines and communications. We plan far less for whether people feel connected, seen and significant while the change happens around them. Three reasons belonging matters to the change itself: 1) Change travels through relationships. New practice spreads when people we trust adopt it first. 2) Uncertainty is more bearable in company. When people are unsure of their standing, their attention moves to self-protection. That attention is then unavailable for the work of adapting. 3) Belonging is a condition for speaking up. What goes unsaid in the early weeks of a change initiative (when people don’t feel secure enough to name problems) often reappears later as failed implementation. Research by Gartner, across multiple industries and sectors (including health and care) shows a widening “transformation deficit gap”: the chasm between the pace at which leaders introduce change into their organisations and the depleted capacity of people at work to absorb, believe in, and deliver it. Glassdoor named "fatigue" the defining word of the year. A recent @hacking_hr analysis describes how the scars of disruption are relational. Change fatigue often shows up as withdrawal. People stop asking questions, stop offering ideas, stop working across boundaries. BetterUp's research links a high sense of belonging to a 56% rise in job performance and a 50% drop in turnover risk. The graphic sets out three dimensions of belonging that become critically load bearing during change. Each one points to actions that leaders of change can take: CONNECTION, or "I am not alone": do I have people here I can trust? Protect time for peer conversation and mentoring when delivery pressure rises. Create spaces where people can ask questions, so uncertainty is not faced alone. FEELING SEEN, or "I am not invisible": does anyone see me and my contribution? Notice effort, including the work behind the scenes: learning an unfamiliar system, holding a team together, absorbing extra load while roles settle. Value adaptation and learning. MATTERING, or "I make a difference": does what I do make a difference here? Reinforce to people how their contribution is meaningful for the organisation. Clarify roles when priorities change, so people can see where they still fit. This is the dimension that change disturbs most, because purpose gets lost in the noise of implementation. We cannot treat belonging during change as a “cultural nicety”. The evidence points to it being one of the fundamental conditions that decides whether a change takes hold. hackinghrlab.io/blog/employe….

Leaders of change and improvement don't typically fail because they lack technical skills. More often, they fail because they never built the relationships that make change possible, or didn't give those relationships enough attention during the change process. A new research-based report, "The Space Between People," by @CCLdotORG defines leadership as a social process: "[Leadership] lives in the trust formed through repeated interaction, the shared understanding that allows people to act without constant realignment and the informal networks through which leadership travels." The authors call this relational infrastructure: "the human foundation that makes leadership possible". For most of organisational history, relational infrastructure developed largely on its own. Proximity and stability built trust as a byproduct of working alongside one another. That condition has gone. AI-mediated communication ("the net effect is more communication but less connection"), hybrid working, global expansion and continuous urgency now actively work against connection forming. Many organisations haven't grasped the implications for leadership, change leadership or leadership development. The symptoms are playing out everywhere: staff survey "engagement scores" keep falling; leaders make decisions based on what the system reports rather than what's actually happening; agreements reached in the room unravel days later; trust that looked solid collapses under real pressure because it was built on role rather than relationship; leaders see only the polished, delayed version of events because they lack the close ties to fill in the gaps; setbacks hit harder and last longer without strong relationships to absorb the shock; and people who feel psychologically unsafe hold back, instead of contributing fully. What should we do? Connection is an interpersonal capacity. We can't build relational infrastructure by developing individual leaders in isolation, however capable they are. We have to build leadership development around the social architecture that makes leadership possible at scale. Four suggested ways to do this: 1) Examine leadership development activities through a relational lens, creating conditions for leaders to work together, not just perform better individually. 2) Design connection deliberately into leadership transitions, when relational infrastructure is most fragile. 3) Invest in the human capabilities AI can't replace: listening, trust-building and boundary-spanning become differentiators, not lower priorities. 4) As senior leaders, visibly model the connected behaviours we want from everyone else. My own reflection (amongst many): we've long assumed that building "shared purpose" or "shared aims" is enough to generate the relationships that change and improvement depend on. This research suggests otherwise. Connection has become something we must deliberately design for, not something we can rely on emerging. Access to the paper: ccl.org/articles/guides/conn….

There’s so much change happening at present. It’s easy to feel powerless and overwhelmed, particularly when many of the factors affecting our situation sit outside our direct control. I enjoy working with new ideas and practices for change (most of the time), but with many of the teams I’m working with now, I keep returning to a classic model: Stephen R. Covey’s ‘circles’ model from "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". The practical value is that it draws a clear distinction between (a) big concerns we care about, (b) what we can affect, and (c) what we can directly change through our own actions. Used well, it can help us prioritise better, reduce time spent unproductively “spinning our wheels”, and translate pressure into concrete next steps. In pressured systems, our attention naturally gravitates to the biggest risks and threats. The problem is that many of those risks sit in the circle of concern, where effort does not translate into impact. The "circles" model is useful because it deliberately redirects our limited time and headspace towards areas where action can produce measurable change. It also helps prevent a common failure mode in change: treating system constraints as if they are team-level problems. When teams repeatedly try to “solve” issues that require decisions at a higher system level (funding, policy, workforce supply etc), it creates frustration and helplessness. Separating concern from control creates a more realistic basis for action: escalate what needs to be escalated, adapt where adaptation is required, and take action where we have a level of control. One way I use this model is to ask the team to identify a shared list of current issues, then sort them into concern / influence / control. The circle of influence is particularly important for enabling change in a system, because system change depends on coordination across boundaries—through relationships, alliances, and shared action. This is not about ignoring the circle of concern. It is about managing it appropriately: acknowledge it, communicate it, escalate it when needed, and then avoid spending disproportionate energy where there is little prospect of change. The central message of Covey’s model is that when pressure is high, the most effective response is to focus on what we can control and what we can influence—because that is where our effort and energy is most likely to convert into outcomes. All of us can make a difference in the world within our “circle of control” and “circle of influence”. Let’s put our energy where it will count: take the next practical step we can take today, strengthen the relationships that enable progress, and act on the things that we can change.

Curiosity is one of the most strategic capabilities that we need at times of profound change & uncertainty. For leaders of change, I would define “curiosity” as engaging with uncertainty: focusing on gaps in our knowledge, exploring them with others, seeking other possibilities & using what we learn to adapt decisions, relationships & systems for better outcomes. Uncertainty automatically triggers threat responses in our brains, narrowing attention and pushing us into “fight‑flight‑freeze” patterns that shut down creativity & collaboration. As leaders under rising pressure, we tend to seek quick closure, filter out disconfirming data & dig in with our initial interpretations, which is the opposite of what complex change requires. ​Curiosity creates a different pathway. When we become genuinely interested in “what is really going on here?” we recruit neural networks linked to exploration, problem‑solving & reward. Leaders who show interest, ask open questions & tolerate “not knowing yet” help teams move from defensiveness to discovery. In practice, that can be as simple as shifting the first question in a crisis meeting from “How do we fix this?” to “What might we be missing about this situation? Research on “information gaps” shows that curiosity is triggered when we become aware of something important we do not yet know; the gap itself generates energy to learn. People often feel most curious at moderate levels of uncertainty—enough ambiguity to stimulate interest, but not so much that the situation feels hopeless. ​For change leaders, this means uncertainty gets reframed as a shared learning agenda: “Here is what we know, here is what we don’t, & here are the questions we need to explore together.” This approach treats ambiguity as a resource rather than a personal failure of leadership & invites collective sense‑making instead of people waiting for instructions or answers. How to build a culture of curiosity in uncertain times: 1. Model visible curiosity every day: Regularly say “I don’t know yet”, “Tell me more” & “What am I missing?”, signalling that questions are welcome, not a weakness. ​2. Design meetings around questions, not updates: Start sessions with 2–3 priority questions (e.g. “What’s the most important thing we don’t understand about this issue?”) instead of long slide decks. ​3. Actively encourage questioning & learning: Publicly thank team members who raise awkward issues or ask clarifying questions, & link this to your values/behaviours framework. ​4. Create simple learning & experimentation routines: Encourage small, safe‑to‑try tests of change & make it explicit that “failed” experiments are successes if they generate useful learning. ​5. Bring in diverse perspectives by design: Mix roles & disciplines in problem‑solving sessions & deliberately ask “who else needs to be in this conversation?”. ​Building a culture of curiosity is not about adding extra components on top of an already overloaded change agenda; it’s about changing the way we pay attention. In an uncertain world with shifting demands, shared curiosity is no longer a “nice‑to‑have”; it can be the difference between repeatedly coping & continuously improving. See e.g., performancefrontiers.com/ins… Performance Frontiers. Post by inspired by this graphic from by @tnvora

Reciprocity is one of the most important principles for leaders of change. At a simple level, reciprocity means a mutual exchange between people where each party gives & receives value, creating a balance that benefits everyone involved. But it's deeper than that. It's about mutual benefit & collective growth. Reciprocal relationships are built on mutual giving, receiving and creating community, rather than one-way transactions. Increasing numbers of organisations are investing in “social network analysis” (SNA) to understand their internal relationships & the extent to which these relationships enable or block change. SNA shows that reciprocity creates the best kind of sustainable, trust-based relationships that support long-term change. By contrast, many organisations exhibit “simple brokering” rather than reciprocity. That means that individuals (“brokers”) fill gaps between disconnected groups or individuals in an organisation. Brokering can be fragile & psychologically costly/exhausting if you’re in this role. In change leadership, reciprocity succeeds where brokering alone may struggle because it builds the relational infrastructure that makes information sharing, collaboration & sustained commitment possible. By contrast, brokering often means transactional approaches focused on short-term exchanges; less sharing & less learning. As change leaders, we have to be role models of reciprocity. That means being the people who create the conditions for reciprocal relationships by being the ones who give first. If we want cooperation, support &/or engagement from others, we need to offer cooperation, support &/or engagement first. Even when we are working with people & teams who are challenging, resistant &/or “don’t get us”, we have to give first. A beautiful blog on reciprocity from @SisDrSandra: linkedin.com/pulse/reciproci…. Graphic from David Meade on the power of "giving first" taken from: linkedin.com/posts/davidmead…. I also want to acknowledge @DrNicolaBurgess who has helped me more fully appreciate the power & importance of reciprocity through her excellent research studies.

When we lead big organisational change programmes, we tend to lead them through logic: rational arguments, business cases & systematic approaches. We might get better results if we lead them through loss, not logic. We consistently underestimate the power of a sense of loss in change processes & get surprised when people react as they do. There are typically multiple senses of loss and actions we can take to lead change with loss, not just logic: 1) Loss of competence: “everything I know is useless now”. We can help normalise discomfort, highlight transferable skills, encourage unlearning & create quick wins. 2) Loss of control: “this is being done to me”. We can involve people in change (& be clear about non-negotiables), help set clear boundaries, tap into experience & show how contributions influence the process. 3) Loss of status: “I’m becoming irrelevant”. We can acknowledge contributions and achievements, help people pass on key insights, bridge past & future & help create mutual learning. 4) Loss of belonging: “we’re losing what made us special”. We can help preserve core traditions, build new rituals for the new environment, celebrate uniqueness & help teams to adapt the changes to their style where possible. 5) Loss of narrative: “this isn’t how things should be”. We can keep connecting back to purpose, acknowledge changing realities: preserve fundamental values & develop the new story together. We can’t logic people out of loss. Nor should we try to fight people’s feelings of loss, but we can help bridge the past and the future and build something better, together. think.fearlessculture.design…. By Gustavo Razzetti.

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.

Why do so many leaders & professionals keep working at a punishing pace, even when it damages their health, well-being & relationships? And why do organisational initiatives aiming to curb extreme work hours, e.g., "no email after hours" policies, wellness initiatives - often fail? New research suggests this isn’t about personal “workaholism” or “driven” personalities. Rather it is about people fitting with the relentless tempo of their organisations. This is underpinned by a sense of what you need to do to make career progress & cultural expectations of 24/7 availability. It creates a pace that feels impossible to clock out of, even after hours. Researchers call this an “entrainment cycle”. People come to feel that this pace is normal - even necessary. In the study, people often described the fast-paced tempo of work not as something they were forced into, but as something they craved or became “bored” without. How organisations can break the cycle: 1) Address the tempo, not just the hours. Change how work is done, e.g., rethink project pacing, reduce artificial urgency, redesign calendars to allow for focus & reflection. 2) Be alert for warning signs - stress, disengagement, burnout early & respond before issues escalate. 3) Help people feel they have the cultural permission to pause. It's not enough to change schedules – expectations need to change. Taking breaks, disconnecting on non-work days & ignoring the inbox when on holidays should become organisational norms. hbr.org/2025/07/new-research…. By Ioana Lupu & Shanming Liu in @HarvardBiz. Cartoon by @_workchronicles.

Facilitation skills are not just for change & improvement "experts". Every leader should have them. Organisations that integrate facilitation into their leadership approach report more productive & engaged teams, improved innovation & better decision-making. Facilitative leadership is even more important in the era of AI. AI can analyse trends, detect patterns & generate content, but it can't replicate the trust built through dialogue, or the remarkable outcomes that can emerge when people collaborate to make sense of complex issues together. How we might go about making facilitative leadership the norm: 1) Integrate facilitation into leadership development activities, providing training, coaching, resources & safe spaces to practice. 2) Have senior leaders role model facilitative approaches. 3) Build understanding of situations where we should limit the number/style of decisionmakers & those where we should be facilitative. 4) Make facilitative approaches the leadership norm/expectation & build them into organisational processes. 5) Encourage peer learning so leaders can share experiences, discuss challenges & learn from one another. Inspired by a very good new blog & sketchnote from @tnvora: tanmayvora.com/what-effectiv….

The little "chit chats" we have at the start of a meeting or Teams call (where we talk about our weekends, the weather, our pets or the traffic) are really important. Research shows that they actually work as a neural 'warm-up' for a deeper connection. So the next time we get irritated by the small talk at the start of a meeting & push to start discussion on the topic at hand, we might remember that: - small talk isn’t filler; it’s an entry point to foster group psychological safety. - rapport isn’t a ‘nice to have’; it enables the trust needed for meaningful dialogue. - alignment doesn’t begin with tasks; it begins with shared attention & mutual recognition. Those first few minutes of “non-essential” chatter are doing critical work. They're building safety, alignment & a shared language that's the foundation for us to work more effectively together: linkedin.com/posts/nick-wrig…. By Nick Wright. Fabulous graphic & signpost to this piece by @tashwillcocks

"We aren't currently facing a "disengagement crisis" at work. What we're really facing is a mattering deficit". Mattering is knowing we’re significant to our leaders & key members of our group. When we experience mattering, we flourish - we’re more motivated & persistent & experience greater well-being. But when we feel we don’t matter, we languish & either act out in desperation or withdraw. Noticing is a key component of mattering. It is the deliberate act of paying attention to the details, ebbs & flows of someone’s life and work. Three ways leaders can become better noticers: 1) identify barriers to seeing others: the biggest barrier is being too busy to take the time. 2) deliberately make space & use time for connection. 3) ask questions & check in, in order to gather information & address the concerns of people in our teams: hbr.org/2025/05/great-leader…. By @ZachMercurio in @HarvardBiz An overview of his new book: nextbigideaclub.com/magazine…

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.

"Humanocracy: creating organisations as amazing as the people inside them" is a book that's had big impact on my change practice. A new updated version is due out in August 2025. In the meantime, here's a fantastic new sketchnote on a key principle from "Humanocracy": impact multipliers for large scale change. What can we do to truly create impact & influence change in complex environments? linkedin.com/posts/tnvora_sk…. Thank you @profhamel & @MicheleZanini for wisdom of your book. Thank you @tnvora for your outstanding sketchnotes.

We would get better outcomes in our action planning for change if we thought more about "leverage points". Leverage points are the powerful places in a system where small changes can lead to significant impact. They're not always obvious, which is why, when we are identifying potential change interventions, we need to think about the connections, relationships & behaviours in the system, not just the technical processes. Leverage points offer a way to create substantial change by focusing on areas where even minimal effort can lead to impactful results: medium.com/weareopencoop/an-…. Via @WeAreOpenCoop.

We invest significant time/resources into upskilling people at work - whether it is improvement methods, or interpersonal skills or compliance or technical training. But does it deliver? Research shows only 12% of employees actually apply new skills learned from training provided by their employers. So here is a good new article about how to make workplace training work. Advice incudes: 1) Be clear about the purpose of the training & consider ways to reinforce learning from one-off sessions: continuous learning opportunities are needed to foster long-term change. 2) Omit content rather than condense it: too much information can keep participants from retaining any of it 3) Equip people to know what questions to ask, rather than assume the training will give them the answers 4) Acknowledge the wider benefits of training sessions, such as building rapport, creating collaborative opportunities, generating ideas & fostering a sense of community around specific topics or initiatives thedecisionlab.com/insights/…. By @TheDecision_Lab.

I really like this new article on psychological safety (a belief that we can speak up, take risks & make mistakes without fear of being judged, humiliated or punished) at work. It sets out a series of activities/approaches that all of us can use to build psychological safety in our teams. These include: - Manual of Me - Team Charter - Lifelife - Activity from Google that ranks sources of anxiety - 5-word Fridays - Team temperature check uxdesign.cc/creating-psychol…. By @ChristinaLai1, via @Elaineking91. A link to an archived version of the article, in case the above link doesn't work for you: archive.ph/VDr0k