Select Page
The Sin of Change Tourism

The Sin of Change Tourism

25-04-18 | Change Confessions, Sins of Change

You know the type. The senior executive who volunteers to “sponsor” the change programme, because it looks good. Because it’s high-profile. Because it’s destined to be a success (fingers crossed). They’re front and centre at the launch, delivering a rousing speech peppered with clichés and all those corporate buzzwords we love to hate. Maybe internal comms has organized a town hall. Maybe there’s a LinkedIn post, smiling selfie with the team. And then… they vanish.

Welcome to the Sin of Change Tourism.

These executives are not sponsors in the true sense of the word. They’re glory hunters, chasing visibility, not responsibility. They dip in for the highlights, then retreat to their corner office, leaving others to wade through the complexity, ambiguity, and resistance that real change work requires. And when the going gets tough, they’re on a business trip, a client visit, i.e. nowhere to be found.

This sin shows up most clearly in large, multi-site or global transformations. Executives from head office fly into local sites, deliver a well-rehearsed show of support, maybe tour the floor, shake some hands, pose for pictures—and fly out again. Local teams are left to deal with the fallout, while the same leaders who offered superficial solidarity continue to rain down new initiatives from afar, disconnected from local realities.

But change is leadership work, real work. Real sponsors show up consistently. They engage when things go sideways. They make hard calls. They stay visible long after the buzz dies down. Without that sustained presence, the message is clear: this isn’t a priority any more. And that’s when momentum dies, belief erodes, and cynicism sets in.

The damage goes deeper than poor delivery. It sends a cultural signal that change is something you offload. That visibility matters more than accountability. That the tricky work of enabling transformation is someone else’s problem. And when that mindset seeps into the organisation, the rot begins and the project is destined to the grave, along with the other 70% of failed transformations.

So if you’re sponsoring change, ask yourself: are you truly leading it?

Because if all you’re offering is a few pep talks and a profile photo, you’re not sponsoring. You’re sightseeing.

Welcome to the Friday Confessional. If you know, you know.

Change-Speak: We Need to Be More Agile

Change-Speak: We Need to Be More Agile

25-04-11 | Change Confessions, Change-Speak

Good old Agile. It’s still a popular buzzword, as though the word itself holds transformational power. But when agility is reduced to a corporate slogan, what follows is rarely adaptive, it’s usually just chaos in a new wrapper.

Too often, agility is mistaken for speed. Leaders push for faster delivery without rethinking how decisions are made. Teams are left sprinting endlessly, burning out while direction remains unclear. Speed without sense isn’t agility—it’s just chaos on a tight deadline.

Then there’s the Paradox of Structure. True agility depends on clarity—of roles, purpose, and decision rights. Ironically, in the name of flexibility, many organisations dismantle essential frameworks, creating a governance vacuum where nobody knows who’s accountable for what. And yet, success is still measured through rigid KPIs and delivery dates. The tension between adaptability and predictability becomes unbearable, and teams learn to game the system rather than embrace change.

And then comes the Agile Theatre. Daily stand-ups, sticky notes, Kanban boards—all the surface-level rituals, with none of the mindset shift. It’s agility in form, not in function. Command-and-control remains firmly in place, just with newer stationery.

It’s the same logic by which a symphony orchestra is told to play jazz, but every musician is required to play from detailed sheet music, follow the conductor’s tempo, and stick rigidly to the rehearsal. However, real agility is when musicians know their instruments so well that they can improvise in harmony, responsive, confident, and collaborative in the moment.

And true change leaders need to know how to create space for that.

Welcome to the Friday Confessional. If you know, you know.

The “Death by Pilot” Habit

The “Death by Pilot” Habit

25-04-04 | Bad Change Habits, Change Confessions

Some organisations treat pilot programmes like a warm and comforting security blanket. It starts with good intent: “Let’s test this first.”

Fair enough. A smart experiment can surface insights, reduce risk, and fine-tune delivery. But when the test becomes the destination, not the launchpad, you’ve fallen into the “Death by Pilot” trap.

Pilots should be springboards, not safety nets. But in too many organisations, “Let’s run a pilot” has become corporate code for we’re not ready to commit. We’ve all been there before; multiple waves of trials, stakeholder fatigue, feedback loops that go nowhere, and a growing suspicion that no one in management actually intends to make a decision.

When testing becomes an excuse for indecision, it’s no longer a useful iterative progression, but a delaying tactic. At best, it’s poor planning. At worst, it’s cowardice dressed up as prudence.

The cost? Change fatigue. Erosion of trust. People lose interest, disengage, and rightly question why this is happening yet again. All the potential of the transformation is worn down by inertia, overthinking, and a complete lack of ownership. It’s no wonder that 70% of transformations under-deliver on their promise.

Real experimentation comes with intention. A start and end. A decision point. Accountability. The goal is learning and action, not perpetual limbo. Leaders need to be brave enough to test, learn, and then commit.

If your organisation is still stuck piloting the pilot of the pilot, you need to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror. Pilots in themselves aren’t the problem, but piloting without purpose is. Progress is what happens when clear decisions are made and clear direction is given.

That’s what real change leadership is about.

Welcome to the Friday Confessional. If you know, you know.

The Sin of False Urgency

The Sin of False Urgency

25-03-28 | Change Confessions, Sins of Change

We have all been there: the big town hall meeting, the CEO announcing an urgent new initiative with a slick slide deck full of bold declarations, and internal comms anxiously crossing their fingers in the wings. Kotter’s “burning platform” has become the go-to playbook for leaders desperate to ignite action. But let’s be honest; when the message is always “Drop everything!” or “This is urgent!” instead of running for the fire extinguishers, people just start rolling their eyes.

False urgency is leadership laziness in a shiny wrapper. It’s easier to stoke panic than to do the hard work of prioritising, aligning, and committing. Burning platforms only work if people believe the flames are real—and that jumping is worth the risk. In organisations where priorities shift weekly and “critical” projects pile up like unread emails, slapping a “URGENT” label on everything doesn’t motivate—it creates inertia. Employees develop a form of corporate immunity to urgency, and teams grow numb.

When leaders cry wolf quarter after quarter, they’re not driving change. They’re eroding their own credibility, and their team’s resilience.

True change leaders understand the difference. They create clarity around why change matters, without manufacturing crises. They distinguish between what’s truly time-sensitive and what requires steady, consistent effort. They build sustainable momentum rather than exhausting sprints that lead nowhere.

Instead of false urgency, try these approaches:

  • Define “urgent” like your strategy depends on it. Ruthlessly clarify what must happen now, what can wait, and—crucially—what to stop.
  • Trade theatrics for transparency. Instead of breathless declarations, explain why this matters, what it replaces, and how progress will be measured.
  • Listen to your team’s pushback. If your “urgency” consistently crashes into overloaded calendars, the problem isn’t your people—it’s your planning.
  • Acknowledge the cumulative fatigue of constant “urgent” initiatives. When leaders weaponise urgency to compensate for poor planning or indecision, they’re not driving results. They’re outsourcing their accountability to exhausted employees.

Next time you hear “we’re building a culture of accountability,” ask yourself: are we creating conditions for success, or just identifying who to punish for failure?

The future of change isn’t about cranking the urgency dial to 11. It’s about rewiring the system from the top down and from the bottom up. Audit legacy projects sucking the life from your teams. Protect capacity like it’s a finite currency.

Change leadership is about creating space for the quiet moments between storms—when trust is deepened, clarity is honed, and people actually believe the next fire might be worth fighting.

And if you’re still clinging to burning platforms? At least have the decency to admit you’re the one holding the matches

Welcome to the Friday Confessional. If you know, you know.

Change-Speak Madness: The False Promise of “Accountability Culture”

Change-Speak Madness: The False Promise of “Accountability Culture”

25-03-21 | Change Confessions, Change Leadership, Change-Speak

“We’re building a culture of accountability”. The moment those words escape a leader’s lips, my internal alarm bells start ringing. It’s one of the many corporate phrases that promise so much whilst often delivering so little. Because, in practice, it’s the executive team’s way of saying “we want everyone else to be held responsible for outcomes” whilst quietly exempting themselves from the same standards. True accountability isn’t something you announce, it’s something you demonstrate.

And here’s where the hypocrisy often reveals itself:

Leaders trumpet “accountability” then promptly avoid difficult conversations with underperforming senior team members. They demand extreme consistency for frontline metrics whilst their own erratic decision-making is positioned as a “strategic pivot.” They insist on rigid deadlines for their workforce whilst taking their own sweet time to respond to simple approval requests.

This twisted version of accountability is typically directed downwards, never upward. And in this guise, accountability becomes a weapon used to control rather than a way of working meant to encourage greatness.

Genuine accountability cultures don’t need to be announced because they’re visible in action. They’re evident when leaders publicly admit their mistakes. They shine through when executives face the same consequences for missed targets as their teams. They’re unmistakable when feedback flows freely in all directions without career-limiting repercussions.

  • If your organisation is serious about accountability, be sure to incorporate these essential strategies:
  • Create psychological safety where failure is seen as a learning opportunity, not career suicide.
  • Ensure those accountable are given genuine decision-making authority.
    Distribute accountability proportionally to power and influence.
  • Recognise systemic constraints instead of blaming individual shortcomings.

Next time you hear “we’re building a culture of accountability,” ask yourself: are we creating conditions for success, or just identifying who to punish for failure?

The difference isn’t subtle. It’s everything.

Welcome to the Friday Confessional. If you know, you know.

The “All Talk, No Walk” Habit: How Leaders Unknowingly Sabotage Change

The “All Talk, No Walk” Habit: How Leaders Unknowingly Sabotage Change

25-03-14 | Bad Change Habits, Change Confessions, Change Leadership

The conference room falls silent as the presentation concludes. The leadership team exchanges satisfied glances over their transformation manifesto. They’ve ticked all the boxes: bold vision, compelling case for change, clear roadmap. Their language is impeccable—agile, innovative, future-ready. The deck is polished to perfection.

There’s just one significant oversight: no one has considered how they themselves will need to change.

This isn’t simple executive inconsistency. It’s a more subtle blind spot—the assumption that transformation is something that happens throughout the organization, but somehow bypasses the executive suite.

Observe these transformation champions in their daily work. The VP who endorsed “radical empowerment” still reviews every document before it leaves her department. The CTO who championed “failing fast” continues to require comprehensive risk assessments for modest initiatives. The CEO who advocates “work-life balance” routinely sends urgent emails over the weekend.

They aren’t being deliberately contradictory. They simply don’t recognize the disconnect between the organizational change they’ve mandated and their own established behaviours and habits.

This misalignment creates a peculiar organizational tension. Employees hear the message of transformation but experience the persistent pull of status quo leadership. The result isn’t active resistance—it’s something more problematic: quiet disengagement and a loss of trust.

The solution isn’t found in another alignment workshop or communication plan. It requires creating honest feedback mechanisms that help leaders recognize their own resistance to change. It means having the professional courage to ask: “Which of my current behaviours contradicts the future we’re trying to create?”

Meaningful transformation begins when leaders understand they aren’t merely directing change from above; they’re active participants in the change itself.

Until then, organizations will continue mistaking announcements for achievements and intentions for results.

Welcome to the Friday Confessional. If you know, you know.