The three best things I’ve read about change recently

What’s been insightful for you recently?

I’m learning a lot talking to my fabulous guests on the pod, and I hope you are too.

I’m also keeping my eye out for “the good stuff” about change that’s being shared elsewhere.

Here are three articles that I thought were astute.

If you’ve come across something you’ve found helpful in the last little while (an article, a book, a pod, something else), will you hit reply and let me know? 

Speed

Faced with the pressure of “getting on with it” when tackling change, it’s likely we’re moving too fast with too little information. I thought this was a powerful article about what happens when you take a moment (or two) to study a system.
https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/p/problem-solving

Culture

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast,” said Charles Handy never. But still … I bet you and me both think hard and long about what it takes to change and influence culture. I thought this was a helpful HBR article about what it *really* takes. It’s about structure and it’s about power, you know, the tricky stuff.
https://hbr.org/2025/08/to-change-company-culture-focus-on-systems-not-communication

Manifesto

Does your change team have a manifesto? Mine doesn’t either. But I thought this one was both useful and inspiring. It might be helpful for you, too.
https://thedolectures.com/manifestos/manifesto-of-a-doer

---

Thank your teachers

Have you thanked your teachers?

I’m flying back from a week or so in Amsterdam, doing some work with my friend (and the most recent pod guest) Paulo Pisano, walking the canals, and visiting the renovated Van Gogh museum.

But for some of that time, I time-travelled.

It was 2006. I’d created my first-ever book, Get Unstuck & Get Going. I say “created” because this wasn’t your classic pages and paragraphs play.

It was like one of those kids’ books with different sections you can flip and combine, so you can create a character with (for example) a ballerina’s head, with a scuba diver’s torso, and a wizard’s legs.

Only mine wasn’t drawings, it was great coaching questions. (I’ve been in the game of collecting great questions for a while.) 

The idea is you’d bring a challenge to the book, open at one of the 100,000+ combinations, be inspired (new ideas and perspectives!), and get cracking.

I self-published because it was ridiculously complicated and I was a complete unknown. I had just gotten a small inheritance from my grandfather, and I decided to spend it all on the book.

But how do you market a book? I had no idea, other than you get someone famous to blurb it. (There’s more to it, btw.) How many famous people did I know? None.

So I went to my bookshelf, then organized in alphabetical order, and the first book in the top left corner was David Allen’s Getting Things Done, the OG of productivity texts.

I hadn’t read it per se, but I was sure it was pretty good. 

Seizing the moment, I looked up David Allen on this cool new thing called Google, found the company’s phone number, and rang it.

And on the first ring, it was picked up … by David Allen.

I had prepared nothing, thought through nothing, was utterly unready for this conversation.

But I burbled out something, David said, “Send me the book,” and he ended up writing a testimonial, and we formed a friendship. He and I even did an early version of a podcast together in, hmmm, 2010 maybe?

David moved to Europe, and we fell out of touch. But circumstance reconnected us just before my trip to Amsterdam.

So a few days ago, we shared a delightful lunch and a very good bottle of wine. And I was able to say thank you.

Not just for what he taught me (frameworks I still use today to focus my time and to ward off the overwhelm), but more for the encouragement, support and mentorship.

As I prepare for the launch of the 10th anniversary of The Coaching Habit next year, I’ve been reminded that beyond solving problems, people want to be deeply seen, heard, and encouraged.

And David did that for me two decades ago. It was one of my lucky breaks.

You’ll have your teachers and mentors as well.

If you can, take a moment to drop them a line to say thank you.

---

What professionals focus on

Where’s your focus?

I came across this quote recently, and it somewhat stopped me in my tracks:

“Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.”

I’d never heard it before, although apparently it’s fairly well known in military circles. It’s attributed to General Omar Bradley, a US Army many-starred general, and first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, someone who knows a thing or two about campaigns.

One of my favourite Change Signal conversations so far has been with Charles Conn, who, as an ex-McKinsey guy and one of the most strategic people I know, railed the inherited military metaphors and structures that inform “old school” strategy. He’s a fierce advocate for running “small experiments.”

And ironically, it seems like the military might agree; at least in that the “strategy” bit of change is not nearly as important as people might think (especially, I’d wager, strategic consulting firms … the clue is in the name.)

Of course, Bradley’s not the first to understand this (and *HT* to Fred Gibbs on Quora for these quotes).

Sun Tzu: “The line between disorder and order lies in logistics …”

Napoleon Bonaparte: “An army marches on its stomach.”

General Foch (attributed): “Behind every great leader there was an even greater logistician.”

Tom Peters: “Leaders win through logistics. Vision, sure. Strategy, yes. But when you go to war, you need to have both toilet paper and bullets at the right place at the right time. In other words, you must win through superior logistics.”

Their focus was on overcoming their enemies and winning the battles.

But as a transformational leader, what’s helpful in this for you and your focus on change in your organization?

---

Cooking Onions

Cooking Onions & Change

A favourite memory of mine is my Dad cooking down onions. He used them to make his version of potatoes au gratin, thin layers of potato, cheese, and those soft, sweet, browned onions.

It’s a slow process to cook onions well. Apply too much heat too fast, and everything burns.

But slice the onions thin, turn the heat way down low, cover, and stir occasionally, and magic happens.

There’s science behind it.

First, the rigid structures of the onion rings get broken down as the water evaporates, and the pectins and polysaccharides that are holding it all together begin to collapse. You’ll see the onion getting soft and translucent.

Then, and this is what makes you cry, the sulphur compounds are released. The sharp and bitter are removed.

Now, natural sugars are released. Or really, they’re now made findable. They were always there, but locked into the rigidity of the cell walls and overpowered by the sulphur compounds.

And finally the caramelization occurs, as the onion turns golden brown. The Maillard reaction, that chemical process that makes grilled meat so tasty, allows for new complexities and depths of flavour to emerge.

Perfect.

I do love a good metaphor.

And I suspect this won’t be the last newsletter that plays around with the idea of food as guidance for how we lead change. Just the other day, I read this great article about what it takes to make the perfect cacio e pepe … which is both simple, and amazingly tricky to get “just right.”

---

Five Unexpected Laws of Change

What are your core change principles? (Here are five I like.)

Hacker Laws is a collection of “Laws, Theories, Principles and Patterns that developers will find useful.”

It’s catnip to me.

A favourite quote of mine is “all models are wrong, but some are useful” (George Box); and here’s a rich collection of wrong models, many of which are useful.

Here are five that made me smile, wryly. They each punctuate a delusion I’ve held at various times during various change processes.

What would you add? Do you have any helpful rules of thumb, pithy saying, and/or time-tested principles that you use to bring your change dreams back in line with reality?

1. The 90-90 Rule

The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.

It’s like the 80-20 rule, but realistic. When you’re 90% of the way through, it’s helpful (albeit painful) to realize that you might be about halfway.

2. Brooks’ Law

Adding human resources to a late software development project makes it later.

Human resources look so neat and tidy on a spreadsheet. Look, I’ve given you one extra person. You now have that much extra capacity. Move faster!

But: Ramp-up time. Added complexity. Communication muddling. And lots of tasks aren’t divisible. (Hence: "Nine women can't make a baby in one month.")

3. Cunningham’s Law

The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer.

It hadn’t occurred to me that the best way to shape a change plan might be to show a prototype, and get people to tell you actually how to do it. But it certainly reinforces the point that Charles Conn made in our Change Signal episode that “small experiments” trump strategy.

4. Gall’s Law

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.

Where are you heading to? And would you describe that as a complex outcome, or a simple working system that might evolve and merge into complexity?

5. Hofstadter's Law

It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

I love that even when you know Hofstadter’s Law, you still get done over by Hofstadter’s Law.

6. Chesterton’s Fence

And as a bonus (and nudge to listen to Change Signal), Carolyn Webb and I dig into Chesterton’s Fence in our pod episode.

---

Who are your swing voters?

And how will you tip them to your side?

It’s one of the hallmarks of modern voting today, and probably not in a good way, that the votes of a very few people can determine the government of the day and often the fate of a nation.

Now, I grew up in Australia (where there’s compulsory voting, which I approve of) and limits on how much election communication can take place. And I live in Canada, where there are also limits on how much you can spend to communicate.

I live on top of America, and watching the election cycles there is … um … illuminating.

The vast amounts of money. The relentless campaigns. The gerrymandering and disenfranchising. That weird electoral college system. 

I’m hoping that the strategy to reach people in your organization has mostly none of that. 

But what we can learn is that political parties have come to realize that they’ve got to target the key voters in the specific districts.

Yes, they’ve got to do enough to get their stalwarts to get out of bed and vote.

But really, they’re looking to reach the people who will tip things one way or another.

I’m reminded of the conversation with Rachel Botsman who said:

[Change leaders] don't ask the question, “What trust state is someone in?” So in the same way that people in marketing would think of customer segments and understand that you have to adapt communications and support and messaging based on that segmentation, it's no different for employees, where everyone is going to be in a different trust state in terms of their perception of the risk and therefore their willingness to change.

You might well segment your people by business units, or geography at the moment.

But what if you could find the people who were on the cusp of engaging with the change … which means, on the cusp of not engaging.

How do you find your swing voters?

---

Should you be sinister?

Should you be sinister?

This was a delightful short documentary on the many (113) printings of Hokusai’s extraordinary image, The Great Wave off Kanagawa" (神奈川沖浪裏).

The twist, for me, was at the end when scientist and curator Capucine Korenberg pointed out that because the Japanese read right to left, the picture is more ominous for them, a looming danger.

You can see what she means in the image above, where I’ve flipped the picture, so that our Western left-to-right reading now has the same experience.

It does feel different, right? It’s coming in from our blindside, so we see it just a fraction later, and that gets our “fight, flight, faint or fawn” lizard brain all het up.

It reminded me of pantomime etiquette, where our hero will enter from “stage right” (left, as the audience see it), while the villain enters from “stage left.” (Oh no, they don’t! Oh yes, they do!)

The neuroscience of engagement

In the TERA model from The Coaching Habit, one of the four drivers of engagement is E for Expectation. If people know what’s coming, they feel safer, which helps them stay present and engaged. If they don’t, they’re scanning for danger.

There are times and places you want to play with this. For instance, when I do a keynote I try and do all sorts of little things to disrupt their expectations (having them talking to someone within the first two minutes, present from a flipchart, get off the stage and in amongst the audience) while also meeting some of their bigger expectations (I’m sharing something helpful, I’m finishing on time.)

The point is, you want to actively choose how you use surprise or not. Don’t scare people off by accident by coming in from “stage left.” It’s tricky enough to keep people engaged. You don’t want to end up sinister by mistake.

---

The paradoxes inherent in change.

What are the paradoxes inherent here?

I’m not going to lie … being on Brené’s “let me send you a copy of my new book” list TOTALLY strokes my ego.

I got to know her a little before she became really well-known. I’ve had her on some of my pods, have been on hers, and she even asked me to write a blurb for an early book of hers.

(I’m just glad I didn’t do a Dick Rowe, and write the equivalent of “guitar groups are on the way out” as a reason for not signing The Beatles.)

Brené’s new book Strong Ground is the one most strongly aligned with organizational change, and I’m thrilled to see that one of the chapters is on paradox.

She references lots of people in the chapter, from Jim Collins talking about “the genius of the AND” to Richard Rohr’s idea of “the grace paradox” (we grow (spiritually) more by doing things wrong than by doing things right).

One of the quotes I immediately loved is from James March:

“Leadership is plumbing and poetry”

How about THAT as a challenge for the way you lead change? 🫣

The paradoxes I notice

Here are paradoxes I see showing up as I try to lead change. Or put another way, here’s where I find tension:

Doing change to people AND Doing change with people

Providing clear direction AND Running small experiments

Selling the benefits AND Pointing out the pain

Staying curious AND Wanting answers

Being optimistic AND Staying grounded in reality

Taking action AND Being patient and still

Fixing everything AND Letting some dumpster fires keep burning

Change as an event AND Change as a constant

Resolving paradox

“Enough with this BS tension! I want this awkwardness to end, please!”

(Or is that just me?)

Look, I know some of this is “sitting in the tension” of it. The most interesting paradoxes are probably not able to be resolved.

But “sitting in the tension of it” also feels quite passive.

So I have a few questions to more actively engage with the paradoxes that are showing up.

First, which pole of the paradox do I inherently think is more important? In other words, what’s my bias here? Knowing your personal preference, and knowing it’s a personal preference, not a universal truth, can be helpful.

Second, what choice would I actively make as to which one of the poles would best serve as a guide for this change process?

I’ve found a useful trick is to replace “AND” with “EVEN OVER.” It makes it clear what stand I’m taking in a difficult but useful choice.

So for instance, Not “Providing clear direction AND running small experiments” becomes (for me, most of the time) “Run small experiments EVEN OVER providing clear direction.”

Shades of Grey (and Gray)

It’s somehow appropriate that the colour of paradox has different spellings around the world.

If the answer seems clear and black and white, it’s possible you’ve misunderstood the question. 🙂

This is new thinking for me, so I’m curious to know how it lands with you. Do let me know, and let me know your favourite paradox too.

---

Navigational errors in change.

How good’s your map? (Rhetorical question)

Alfred Korzybski coined the phrase “the map is not the territory” (and also “the word is not the thing”). 

That sounds obvious enough when it’s pointed out – I can just see myself nodding vigorously and saying, “yes, exactly” when someone makes that point – but it’s amazing how quickly we forget.

• We do love our maps.

• Here are some maps that are currently leading you astray, more or less:

• How the senior team works

• The org chart

• What the values of the organization mean

• What behaviours the values of the organization will determine

• What people think the change is about

• How people understand that thing you communicated

• How much of the training will stick

• How power and influence work

• What competencies you have and don’t have in your change team

• How ready people are to change

• How people will respond to the change

• Your change strategy and plan

This is not a complete list. 🙂

Don’t get me wrong, maps are also really helpful

Creating them is powerful, because you can notice what you’re choosing to include or leave out, to emphasize or downplay.

Using them can generate shared goals and understanding, and increase the odds of you making good choices navigating what’s next.

But reality is messy and unmappable. If only we could “do a Google maps,” type in a destination, and get the exact route to the minute of the journey.

More likely, you need to run small experiments to figure out the way.

Antonio Machado:

Wanderer, your footsteps are the road, and nothing more; wanderer, there is no road, the road is made by walking.

If you’d like a literary excursion that makes the point, Borges’ extremely short story is slightly obscure and also mostly delightful.

And here’s a fun tool that makes the point literally. You can see just how warped our standard “Mercator projection” global map is.

---

Seeking success? Or avoiding failure?

A declaration of change often starts with someone senior painting the picture of success.

Often, they do it badly. “10% more widgets!” (In my pod interview with Dan Heath he is wonderfully acidic about how uninspiring c-suite numbers are as a vision.)

Sometimes they do it well, and there’s a resonant and compelling sense of what the future holds, and why we need to get there.

But as humans, we’re not really wired for bold success. We’re wired to minimize failure.

Blame our brains

Your brain has one overriding job, and that’s to keep you alive. The longer you live, the more chance there is of your DNA getting passed along.

So it’s learned that, on balance, staying safe and avoiding risk is the smart long-term bet.

That dark cave that tempted our ancestors some tens of thousands of years ago? The ones that avoided it were the ones who didn’t get eaten by the thing are also the ones who are our ancestors.

You’ll have your bias

In my experience, each of us has our own orientation of “towards reward” or “away from risk.” I’m a seek-rewards guy, my wife is an avoid-risk gal, for instance.

Do you know yours? The key players on your team? Your sponsors’? The CEO’s? The org culture’s?

Three conditions

One tool that might help to calm all nerves is to make explicit three different conditions of success.

From Lean comes the concept of Conditions of Satisfaction. These make explicit what “good enough” is. You know it, and they know it. They’re not just explicit, they’re typically measurable and limited in number. 

I’m going to add two more.

Conditions of Glory. 

What would be absolutely brilliant? What would be stunningly excellent? Do we know, specifically, what a truly glorious outcome would look like? And for whom? How do we unlock people’s ambition and excitement

Conditions of Catastrophe.

What would be disastrous? This might get into what Michael Abrashoff would call “above the waterline mistakes” and “below the waterline mistakes.” If the ship sinks, that’s probably a catastrophe. But does everyone know that?

There’s lots of general talk about success, but it’s helpful to remember that humans on the whole are more wired to avoid failure than they are to seek success.

Knowing how you, your team, your sponsor, and your organization are oriented will make clear what’s possible and worth striving for, and where you might choose to play it safe.

---

Beware sharks.

Where’s the danger?

I’m currently in Australia and entered some “risky” territory at the beach.

That’s a pretty excellent photo, right? It’s almost like they don’t want you to go swimming. 🫣

You probably haven’t erected Danger! Death Imminent! signs around the place for your change process.

That’s good.

But, almost certainly, people already have these messages posted in their own minds, and have their own internal doom scroll going on.

That’s less good.

Australian Tourism faces this challenge. More people die in Australia each year from their furniture tipping over onto them, than they do from shark bites.

But nobody asks Australians about the IKEA-related dangers of a trip Down Under.

Change makes people worry.

When in doubt, people will assume that change is a threat.

So let me ask you this:

What are the sharks, the stingers, the snakes, the treacherous undertow, and/or the collapsing beach that your change program has conjured for people?

You’ll find out when you go and ask them.

---

Armani x Change

RIP Armani

Signor Armani died last week. He’s made a lasting impression on fashion, but he’s got something to teach us as transformational leaders, too:

Take out the shoulder pads of the suit. And wear more loafers.

I’m kidding.

Well, kind of. I love stretching a metaphor, and I’m sure I could somehow draw some dubious change lesson here if nip came to tuck.

But at a more principle-based level, Signor Armani did love to say this:

The essence of style is a simple way of saying something complex.

I’ve never really thought of a change process needing to be stylish, but there’s something powerful here. It seems that other leaders feel the same.

I interviewed Paolo Pisano, CHRO for the Booking.com Group recently (episode coming out in a few months), and when I asked him what his most singular piece of modern change mastery was, he answered:

Simplify!

Which in turn reminded me of an interview with Tobi Lütke, CEO of Shopify and an excellent first principle thinker, who said:

You can tame enormous complexity with good UX.

Be Stylish

Here are three things you could do to search for style in the way you’re leading change.

1. Make it visual

Sketch out your design. Drawing things makes them real. What’s going to happen, and what does that look like? What’s the final outcome, and what does that look like? What are the tiny details that will make all the difference, and what do they look like?

2. Give it a theme

Every haute couture show has its own angle. If your change program had to be staged in Paris to a lot of Very Beautiful People Wearing Oversized Sunglasses, what would grab their attention? What would have both gravitas and whimsy?

3. Remove one of the big things

Just cut it out. Subtraction is one of the great underutilized tools of change.

(“Remove the shoulder pads.”)

4. Explain it in a single breath

If it takes more than that, there’s more simplicity to be found on the other side of complexity.

---

The double pain of ambiguous loss.

What’s the ambiguous loss?

Since starting the Change Signal project, I’ve been thinking about grief and its role in stymying change. 

I’ve had the hypothesis that we underestimate people’s sadness at leaving the status quo behind. Even when it’s a messy, diminishing and miserable status quo, it’s our status quo. We know how it works and what our role is in the whole catastrophe of it all.

I recently interviewed Michael Norton, author of The Ritual Effect, for a forthcoming episode of the pod, and we ended up spending quite some time on the whole idea of ambiguous loss and its cousin, anticipatory grief.

Ambiguous loss is a term coined by Pauline Boss. It’s when there’s a discombobulating combination of presence and absence. Someone with dementia is physically present and psychologically absent. Someone who’s been reported missing might still be very psychologically present.

This “grief limbo” can be hard to process. We’re stuck in the ambiguity and uncertainty of it all. Going through some of the rituals of mourning can feel too premature, and it’s easy enough to assume you’re just “making too much of it all”.

The status quo has a denser gravity than we realize. It’s not that easy to escape its pull. As we experience organizational change, we can underestimate the hidden forces that make it hard for people to move.

A deeper attachment to the way things are right now than anyone expected, and anticipatory grief at its passing, even if it might also come with a sense of relief or excitement.

A sense of ambiguous loss, with some things still present and others now absent.

Humans are messy, delightful, and complex. Helping them move through change is subtle, challenging and important.

---

What’s your best wisdom about modern change mastery?

What’s your best wisdom?

You know who is way, way, WAY smarter than me?

Us.

Change Signal is a burgeoning group of transformational leaders who are seeking (and finding) modern change mastery.

So I’d be an idiot not to regularly be asking you all, what do you know and love about this discipline?

What are you seeking out and learning as modern change mastery?

So let me know.

What are your favourite frameworks, books, thought leaders, podcasts, and miscellaneous sources of wisdom that fuel and inform the work that you’re doing?

Shoot me an email and tell me. I read every note I get.

Pod guest ideas? One thing I’m definitely curious about is who else you think I should have on the pod. If you’ve got a thought on that, let me know. (And if you can make the introduction, let me know that too!)

---

Three recommendations from me

Here are three resources I’ve found resonant lately.

The Change Rebels newsletter

They’ve created a fiercely wonderful community about and for self-managed organizations. The newsletter is punchy, practical, and also philosophical. A great regular read. Also, Pim De Morree was one of the first guests on the pod. You might enjoy that episode.

Stephen R. Covey, The 8th Habit

I’m as surprised as you, perhaps, that I’m recommending it. I was a bit dismissive of it when it came out (7 Habits … but wait, there’s more! Buy my book!) But my coach reminded me of it, and in particular, a model that shows the choices people have. It’s a model that moves through six stages, including Malicious Obedience (oh, I know this one well!), Cheerful Cooperation, and Creative Excitement. It’s on p.22 of my edition, and when I think about how to do change with people, not to people, this framework is helpful.

At Work with The Ready podcast

Rodney Evans and Sam Spurlin are wonderful hosts, and this is “let’s do real talk” about what works in getting work done. I’ve been a guest on the pod myself, and Rodney’s been on Change Signal (“Go find the gnarliest problem, and start there” <= love her insight!)

---

Some unexpected pearls of wisdom

Unexpected pearls of wisdom

I love the idea of “stems” in music … small encapsulated bits of magic that get shared and passed around, and are often the seeds for new creations. So I’m thinking of these various bits and pieces of wisdom I’ve collected over the last little while as change stems. For some, you’ll see the obvious link to transformation. Others might be a little obscure.

---

“Never accept a ‘no’ from someone who can’t give a ‘yes’.”

~ a lesson passed on by my friend ​Eric​ from one of his mentors

---

"The unpalatable truth is that the best change approach is one that builds off what best practice exists, but counters this with deep knowledge of the organisation and a clear articulation about what needs to be different. It requires clear-sighted planning and sustainability, but it equally needs messy experimentation, an understanding of the emotional agenda and boldness."

~ ​Kate Lye​ shared this with me, although we can’t find its source. If you know where it comes from, please let me know.

---

“Sensemaking starts with chaos.”

~ Karl Weick

---

“There are only two things that determine how your life turns out. One is luck, which we don’t have any control over. And second, where you land in that range of possible outcomes is going to be determined by the quality of your decisions. The quality of your decisions determines, in large part, the quality of your life.”

~ Annie Duke

---

“If you always let people in in traffic, no one can cut you off.” Also, “If you can train yourself to ask ‘is there a better way to do this?’ at random intervals ten times a day, you will become unstoppable.”

~ Cate Hall’s ​Substack​

---

“Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.”

~ Robert Conquest’s first law of politics. (See ​last week’s newsletter​ for #3.)

---

“What you think is the point is not the point at all but only the beginning of the sharpness.”

~ Flann O’Brien

---

“I want to change my mind. Or more accurately, be receptive to God changing it. Not in a zombified, cultish, drink the Kool-aid manner, but in the sense of a continual opening to dare-I-say-it grace? To more reality, more imagination and more freedom, even when that very doorway paradoxically comes with an understanding of limit. My mind has often been a fearful, defended and judgemental place. Thieves of my time and energy everywhere. Avaunt, you cullions!”

~ ​Martin Shaw​

---

“The patient inherit everything the impatient leave behind.”

~ Shane Parrish

---

“Your purpose is not the thing you do. It’s the thing that happens in others when you do what you do.”

~ Dr Caroline Leaf

---

“Not all criticism is equally valid.”

~ Seth Godin’s ​list of 65​

---

“Solvitur ambulando.” (When in doubt, go for a walk.)

~ Diogenes

---

“Motivation is weather: changeable, unpredictable, often absent when you need it most. Discipline is climate: the steady, reliable conditions you create for yourself regardless of how you feel on any given day."

~ Maalvika’s ​Substack​

---

“I’m still Trojan Horsing, smuggling wit, wisdom and warmth wherever I can.”

~ ​Dr Jason Fox​

---

“I arrive at the venue about thirty minutes before the show begins. I usually have a room of my own where I change into my stage clothes, put on a little make-up, and do some vocal exercises. Then I sit in silence, with my eyes closed, for about fifteen minutes. During this time I bring to mind those dear to me who have passed away, focusing on each person individually, and silently solicit their presence. For someone of my age this is a fairly substantial task. I assign specific qualities or powers to them that reflect their personalities, and I call upon those qualities.”

~ ​Nick Cave

---

You vs The Evil Genius

The Change Question: Who’s the evil genius sabotaging your plans?

I came across this the other day:

The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

~ Robert Conquest’s Third Law of Politics 

It made me laugh. It’s both absurd and exactly right. 

There probably isn’t really an evil genius, in a lair, with flying monkeys, and/or a table with an industrial laser beam. (“I don’t expect you to lead a change program, Mr. Bungay Stanier. I expect you to die.”)

But it reminds me that it’s useful to “red team” your change plans. That’s when you have an adversary try to find vulnerabilities and weaknesses in your setup and plans.

I’ve been using AI to help me with that. For instance, as I’ve worked on developing the Change Signal promise (currently “for transformational leaders seeking modern change mastery”), I’ve given Claude the prompt:

Play the role of a senior, experienced, skeptical change leader. What would they roll their eyes at or be suspicious of? Don’t pull your punches. Give it to me straight.

In some ways, that’s like a pre-“small experiment” (this week’s pod episode’s theme): running tests and getting data.

In any case. I’m pretty sure you’re a hero. I’m cheering you on in your battle for Justice and keeping organizations human. I’m glad you’re here and doing this work.

---

Capability vs Capacity

The Change Question: What matters most?

Caroline Kealey asked me a great question in a back-and-forth on LinkedIn, as we were discussing the (fabulous btw) Anne Gotte pod episode.

A question that kept coming up for me in listening: you were emphasizing the importance of change capacity in organizations. How do you understand the distinction between change capacity and capability? In conversation, I've found that most people use the term "capacity" when what is actually meant is "capability".

It’s amazing how, when two words sound alike, their definitions can get a little slippery and intertwined with each other. Am I using one, and meaning the other?

(This confusion also happens to me with “vegetables” and “chocolate,” but that’s a whole ‘nother thing.)

When I pause and take a breath, the differences seem clear enough.

Change Capabilities for an organization are the skills and mindsets required to be able to make progress on change. How to stay curious longer (and at scale). Managing conflict. Forgoing strategy and running small experiments. In short, how to be a change agent.

Change Capacity is the amount of juice left in the organization to make a change. It doesn’t matter how on-board your sponsor is, how excellent your strategy is, how necessary the change is, and how fantastic the training to help with capabilities is, if the change glass is already full. Pouring water into a full glass just makes for a wet carpet.

My guess is that we’re constantly drawn to discussions about capabilities (which is tricky, but tangible), and we too often skip over the need to understand capacity. (That’s why the pod episodes with Caroline Webb (audit!) and Leidy Klotz (subtract!) are so helpful.)

What’s your best wisdom on understanding, expanding, and managing change capacity? Is there someone I should interview on the pod who can help us go deeper on that?

Caroline Kealey started this, so we can end with her. Here’s an article she’s written on teasing apart the two concepts, if you’d like to go deeper.

---

What they want vs what they need

The Change Question: What do they want?

I’m editing The Coaching Habit, preparing a 10-year special edition for next year. It’s been quite a while since I read it closely. It’s pretty good, actually.

The Foundation Question, number four of seven in the book, is “What do you want?”

It’s a very powerful question, and a tricky one. Often, we’re not good at tapping in deeply to what it is that we want. Get clear on what we want — for us, for them, for the situation at hand — can be a moment of insight and the foundation for taking action. 

Beyond want is need

As powerful as uncovering a want undoubtedly is, deeper still is understanding need.

In The Coaching Habit, I reference the work of Marshall Rosenberg (who in turn draws on that of economist Manfred Max-Neef), who proposes nine universal and self-explanatory needs.

Affection

Creation

Recreation

Freedom

Identity

Understanding

Participation

Protection

Subsistence

I can see how being thrown into a change experience pokes at least six of the nine.   

Pick three

If you had to pick three of these as central to you and the way you live your life, which ones would they be? For me: Creation; Freedom; Identity.

There’s a one in 84 chance that yours and mine will be the same.

It might be useful to know how what matters deeply to you is affecting the change program you’re leading. How might those needs be having you over- or under-weight certain aspects of the process?

It might be useful to review what’s going on, and understand how it might be challenging some people’s deeply felt needs, and whether anything needs to be adjusted if so.

---

Where’s the friction?

The Change Question: Where’s the friction?

Bob Sutton — a future guest on the pod — says:

“Friction problems squander the zeal, damage the health, and throttle the creativity and productivity of good people.”

The point of managing the friction? To make the right things easier and the wrong things harder.

But what people get wrong about friction is they think it’s all bad. That nirvana is somehow a “friction-free” experience.

Friction-free certainly sounds like it would be efficient. But you could also label that as smooth, slick or Teflon: when nothing sticks, nothing sticks.

And if nothing sticks, nothing changes.

Warning: tortured cricket metaphor approaching

I appreciate that it’s only a small number of my readers who know about cricket. I grew up playing it in Australia, and even I don’t fully understand how a game that lasts five days could be interesting.

I played in my teens, and I was a bowler. Unlike in baseball, where they seem to replace the ball every 10 seconds or so if it becomes even slightly blemished (clearly, it’s the true “snowflake” of sports balls), one of the arts of cricket is to nurture the ball over 80 overs (240 “pitches”) as it gets beaten up and before you’re eligible for a new one. 

One strategy is to polish one side of the ball, and keep the other side roughed up. That often allows the bowler to create some magic, as the ball starts to swing through the air. The polished side goes faster than the rough side, and everything gets trickier for the person batting.

You get the point.

You’re the bowler in the Change Project of Life.

What needs to be made faster, easier, slicker, smoother (or, channelling Leidy Klotz, removed altogether)?

And what needs a little more friction, to slow things down, deepen the engagement, and make things stick?

And a bonus: an early Tim Finn song to wrap things up.

---

What's everybody (secretly) getting from this dysfunction?

The Change Question: What's everybody (secretly) getting from this dysfunction?

We underestimate just how much people love the status quo, even as they are irritated, frustrated, and trapped by the status quo.

It’s not that they like pain, or misery, or mediocrity.

It’s that they get something from it.

I often frame it as understanding the Prizes and Punishments from a choice. 

Do it, don’t do it. There are prizes and punishments for either one of those choices.

If we’re wanting change, we typically shine a light on both the Prizes for the new system and the Punishments of the old.

We forget to understand more deeply the Prizes of things staying exactly as they are. They’ll be both deeply personal and quite generic:

Familiarity

I know my place

Certainty over ambiguity

Predictable drama

Not confronting

Sunk cost

People and systems to blame

Nostalgia

(What did I miss?)

Deming said, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the result that it does.”

The system resists change because that’s the nature of a system — yeah homeostasis! — but at a more atomic level, people love the system as it is, even as they feel frustrated by it.

---