“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.

Our beliefs & assumptions about change are often the biggest barrier to leading & enabling effective change. @DigitalTonto describes “change management beliefs that consistently sabotage genuine transformation”. The first such belief is that large scale change is persuasion at scale; the idea that we can change opinion across an organisation by communicating a compelling case. However, change is much more about collective dynamics than about persuasion. People are more likely to be influenced by what their peers think than by top-down messaging. If we want change to spread, we need to help activate peer networks. The second belief is that a large scale change initiative should have a “big bang” launch. The aim is to create widespread awareness that the change is happening & drive the message home. The problem is that undifferentiated messages create early resistance that can kill off promising initiatives. Much better to protect, test & nurture new ideas with committed stakeholders to pave the way for wider adoption over time, rather than trying to convince everyone at once. The third belief is that once people understand the change, they will embrace it. The issue is that people are typically navigating many competing influences—prior beliefs, habits, social pressures & noise from many directions. That’s why ideas spread most effectively through peer networks, not top-down campaigns. People adopt the ideas they see working around them. What might work better? 1. Deliberately starting where there’s already energy & enthusiasm & building out from a local majority (eg., three allies in a room of five) instead of trying to convert everyone first 2. Intentionally working through & connecting peer networks so people are influencing “others like us”, rather than relying on one-to-many broadcasts 3. Creating early proof through local majorities that “people like us are already doing this,” tapping into social proof rather than abstract persuasion techniques. 4. Expecting that some people will resist change & take steps to work with it, rather than assuming that better messaging will win “resistors” over 5. Focusing less on increasing information and more on enabling people to see others like them succeeding with the new behaviours, so they can appropriate and adapt the change as their own. Leading large scale change is less about convincing people to think differently; it’s more about creating the conditions that enable people to act differently. digitaltonto.com/2025/3-stub…

Three different strategies for leading change in organisations: data-based, high engagement & generative: 1) Data-based change: Leaders or experts diagnose the problem using data to decide the “right” solution & roll it out. Fits best when there’s one clear answer, stable situation & you need tight coordination & control (eg, standardised process redesign or compliance project).​ Implementation is directive in nature. 2)High engagement change: Leaders already know the direction, but actively involve many people in shaping how to get there. Builds ownership, taps local knowledge, & increases likelihood that a major change (eg., a big IT rollout or operating model shift) is accepted & implemented well.​ 3) Generative change: Leaders frame a clear purpose (e.g. “‘safe, compassionate care with less stress for people who use services & colleagues”), set boundaries, then invite people across the system to launch many small experiments or tests of change & “learn as we go.” Works best when there are many interconnected, competing factors, the situation is unpredictable & there is no single knowable “right” solution.​ From a paper by Gervase Bushe & Sarah Lewis. Most change efforts mix these strategies, often unconsciously. Data is critical to effective change but data-based change that neglects human participation is highly likely to fail. High engagement change & generative change use many of the same large-group change methods but are fundamentally different. High engagement change uses group events for leaders to listen & create proposals for to choose from or to produce sub-decisions & action ("You said, we did"). By contrast, generative change events are used to stimulate & launch numerous change activities with the intent of lots of people engaged in trying things out & to “learning as we go.” High engagement starts with a leader-led vision (what things will be like once the change is complete). Generative change starts with purpose (what the organisation is trying to do every day). The authors say that vision-led change risks shutting off potential innovations that may emerge when we start with purpose. Generative change can produce deeper & faster transformation than the other strategies but requires leaders to cede some direct control in favour of self-organisation & emergence.​ Read more: b-m-institute.com/wp-content…

Let’s talk about “emergence” in organisational change initiatives. Emergence is when new ways of working & new forms of order grow out of the interactions of people, practices & structures, rather than through implementation of a fixed, top-down change plan. Top‑down, programme‑driven approaches assumes change is predictable & that leaders can design the route in advance. Research on emergent change shows our change environments are complex, fluid & cannot be fully understood or controlled in advance. It’s not surprising that, in many situations, top down approaches on their own are failing to deliver the outcomes we need. Emergent approaches (which blend strategic intent & accountability with high local autonomy on how to move things toward) are clearly the way to go. Yet organisational leaders are reluctant to adopt them. Why? · The wider accountability & governance systems we operate in expects linear plans, business cases & RAG reports, so leaders worry that explicitly adopting emergent approaches will be seen as vague, indecisive, or not having “management grip” of the change, even in obviously complex environments. · Under high levels of scrutiny & pressure, leaders may worry that inviting more emergent, adaptive ways of working will look like ‘losing control’ & create chaos, especially in cultures where it still feels unsafe for leaders to name fear, uncertainty, or not having all the answers. · Most leadership development does not include practices for emergence such as inquiry‑based facilitation, safe‑to‑fail experimentation, joint sense‑making & adaptive framing, so “emergence” is often heard as “no plan”. We can build emergence into our daily leadership practice by adding new ways of working around experimentation, learning & distributed leadership, without losing focus on accountability & delivery: 1) Take a “tight-loose-tight” approach: tight on strategic intent, loose on multiple local routes & experiments towards it & tight on accountability for results 2) Introduce safe‑to‑fail experiments: many small, parallel interventions around key priorities that enable learning & can fail without harm 3) Make experimentation routine: require major programmes to allocate a proportion of budget & capacity to designed experiments before any big‑bang roll‑out 4) Measure improvement in adaptability & collaboration - not just results: add measures for experimentation, collaboration & responsiveness (e.g., number of safe‑to‑fail tests, time from idea to first trial, cross‑team initiatives started) alongside traditional KPIs 5) Build the likelihood of emergence into the business case process: add “learning system design” to the template - how data, stories & signals will be gathered, discussed & used to pivot or stop; align incentives, risk & culture so people are rewarded for stopping or redirecting initiatives when evidence changes, not just for delivering the original plan 6) Institutionalise collective sense‑making: forums across the system where data, stories & experiment results are interpreted together, & next moves are agreed adaptively. 7) Replace blame or failure language with forward‑looking learning language (“what did we discover?”), especially in reviews & governance meetings 8) Develop leadership capabilities for emergence: build skills in inquiry, facilitation, “holding space”, & working with uncertainty, not just project & programme management & “technical” improvement methods. A favourite “classic” article on leading for emergence by Gervase Bushe & Robert J Marshak: gervasebushe.ca/otherdocs/Di…. Graphic by Joss Colchester of @Sys_innovation: linkedin.com/posts/josscolch…

Reciprocity: part two In my last post, I wrote about why reciprocity is one of the most important principles for leaders of change. Reciprocal relationships are ones built on mutual giving & receiving, with an expectation that everyone benefits, rather than one-way transactions. The post got many reactions so I’ve decided to respond to some of them. It’s great that we can have a healthy debate. I’ve summarised some of the challenges/criticisms/questions below: 1. Reciprocity creates a sense of obligation which is burdensome for people Reciprocity DOES create a sense of obligation—but the nature of that obligation matters massively. The key question is whether that obligation emerges from healthy reciprocity or from manipulative exchange. From my experience, the obligation created by authentic reciprocity is not burdensome or manipulative; people choose to reciprocate because they value the relationship & recognise mutual benefit. 2. Reciprocity should not be about “winning” (the graphic I used talked about “why giving first wins”) Reciprocity helps teams & leaders win, but it changes what winning looks like. Team members help each other more often without being asked. People stay longer because they feel valued. Problems get solved faster because everyone is invested in collective success more than protecting their own interests. 3. If you give to receive, that is generally considered to be manipulation It depends on intent. Authentic reciprocity involves offering assistance with sincerity & the best interests of both parties in mind (without expecting immediate returns), not just extracting value for yourself. Effective leaders of change practice reciprocity authentically to build genuine relationships, collective capability & success. They don’t use it manipulatively to extract value while pretending otherwise - or, as happens more often, intend to build reciprocal relationships but don’t get around to following up. 4. Reciprocity should be about an act of care, rather than aimed at triggering a response “Giving first” isn't about triggering a response - it's about demonstrating genuine care & understanding that strengthens relationships over time (so I agree about reciprocity being an act of care). At the same time, reciprocal relationships don't typically emerge spontaneously in big hierarchical systems. Someone has to “give first” - take the first step, accept the vulnerability & model the behaviour we want to see. 5. Giving first to resistant stakeholders wastes political capital versus concentrating resources where reciprocity already exists. I’d say that greater waste of political capital often comes not from engaging with “resistors”, but from ignoring them so that resistance hardens & spreads. Giving first to “resistors” surfaces important insights & risks & can create the first steps towards long term reciprocal engagement in change. Of course, there’s always a balance as to where to put our energy but I wouldn’t write “resistors” off at the beginning of a change initiative. 6. Can you demonstrate the difference between “reciprocity” & “brokering”? One of the best examples is from research at @WarwickBSchool led by @DrNicolaBurgess. It contrasts two hospital systems; one where relationships are based on “simple brokering” & one with strong reciprocal relationships. Reciprocity is associated with much stronger mechanisms for sharing & learning & better overall performance. The research report: warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/re…

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.

Today I spoke at the Drucker Global Forum about “Trojan mice” vs. “Trojan horses.” Organisational change programmes often struggle to get results despite investment, careful planning & leadership commitment. Traditional "Trojan horse" initiatives (large scale pilot projects designed for eventual system-wide rollout) struggle against the complexity inherent in large systems. The alternative, "Trojan mice," offers a fundamentally different pathway: having many people across the system with the skills & agency to test out small, well-focused changes to address complex problems. The choice between Trojan horses & Trojan mice isn't about abandoning ambition or settling for incremental tinkering. It's about recognising that in big systems, distributed action by skilled people with agency nearly always achieves more than centrally controlled, large-scale programmes. By cultivating many changemakers across the system & creating conditions where small, focused experiments can flourish, we can unlock the collective intelligence & energy needed for systemic change. Three facts about Trojan mice: 1) They fail often, fail early, & learn greatly. The cost of failure occurs early in project timelines, rather than at launch when it's too late. This is in line with what @AmyCEdmondson calls "intelligent failure"—thoughtful experiments that result in useful learning & allow teams to move forward. 2) They capture what works in complex systems - local ownership, fast feedback, & momentum that scales organically. Because changes are small & focused, they can be genuinely owned by those implementing them, creating commitment rather than compliance. 3) Most organisations are built for consistency, not novelty. Trojan mice strategies bypass this structural resistance by building agency & capability throughout the system rather than concentrating change authority in a central team. I learnt about Trojan mice from Chris Bolton @whatsthepont: whatsthepont.blog/2020/02/09… #DruckerForum

Newly published research shows that taking calls & answering emails during “non-work” time can have negative consequences for people. When people use work-related technology in the evening (even by choice) they struggle to mentally switch off from work, which negatively affects their wellbeing both that night & the next morning. Evening work-related technology use depletes people’s “self-regulatory resources” - the mental energy needed to redirect attention away from work. Without these resources, people cannot mentally disengage from work, which impairs their ability to repair their mood & maintain emotional wellbeing. It creates measurable reductions in positive affect (feeling enthusiastic, relaxed) & increases in negative affect (feeling anxious, dejected). This negative effect carries over to the next day, creating a downward spiral of loss of resources. However, two factors can break this cycle: feeling in control of how evening time is spent & getting good quality sleep. The authors describe a "double-edged sword" situation - evening technology use may help with work goals in the short term but comes at a cost to recovery & ongoing wellbeing. Actions for leaders based on this research: 1) Discuss how to contain the work to the working day with the team & problem solve: don't encourage "going the extra mile at night" or "always-on" behaviours. 2) Model the boundaries we expect from others: if we want people in our teams to respect their evening time, demonstrate it ourselves by not sending late-night emails or messages. When leaders reply to emails at midnight, team members feel they should too. 2) Make our boundaries visible & talk about them openly: the research emphasises that perceived control is protective, & when leaders talk openly about their own boundaries, it helps team members feel comfortable setting their own without fear of judgment. 3) Include digital boundary training in wellbeing training: encourage people to be more deliberate about when they engage with work technology rather than checking emails out of habit.​ 4) Act early when we notice patterns of evening work: spot these patterns early & intervene before visible wellbeing problems emerge, enabling workplace cultures where people feel comfortable setting boundaries.​ ovid.com/journals/joop/fullt… By Svenja Schlachter & colleagues, via John Whitfield. Graphic by @_workchronicles.

I do not like the term “empowerment”. “Empowerment” is everywhere in the world of change leadership. It’s in the top three of the most commonly used leadership terms globally according to @DigitalDefynd. Personally, I never use “empowerment” unless I’m working with someone who is doing so already. When organisations or leaders seek to "empower" people, it's often them choosing what's best or how much control others can have. This puts the person or group doing the empowering above everyone else & doesn't really give true freedom to those on the receiving end. Empowerment suggests that power is something that “we” give to “them,” reinforcing the status of the “giver” & (often unintentionally) making others feel weak or dependent, which is the opposite of what empowerment is supposed to do. “Agency” is a better principle than “empowerment”. It means recognising people's innate ability to contribute & lead rather than relying on managers to bestow permission. People with agency decide what to do, take action & shape what happens. It’s their own drive & ability, not because someone else says they can. Agency makes people active collaborators in change & leads to better, more sustainable change outcomes. As leaders, we can give people empowerment, by granting permission or sharing authority. We cannot give people agency: people have to build it for themselves through practice, experience & reflection. But leaders can create a climate for agency to thrive through encouragement, resources & space. Being “agentic” means acting with or displaying agency. This term has become popular recently because of the development of “agentic AI” – AI systems that can act autonomously & make decisions, rather than just react to commands, prompts or rules. We don’t just need agentic AI; we need agentic people too. “Agentic” is beyond “empowered”; it means shifting from a top-down model of control to one that trusts & supports people to make their own choices, solve problems & shape their own work. This shift requires us to let go of rigid structures, foster open dialogue & design systems that enable autonomy & collective discovery. When teams operate with agency, they become active collaborators, driving innovation & resilience in the face of uncertainty. The future belongs to leaders who encourage agency - rather than empowerment - where people don’t wait for permission, but act with purpose & ownership. “Designing for agency: how leaders move past empowerment”: agileleadershipjourney.com/b…. By Daniel Gagnon & Pete Behrens. Graphic adapted from “Agency is the highest level of personal competence”: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/…. By @ThomasSBateman.