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.

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.

The Sin of Survey-Washing

The Sin of Survey-Washing

25-03-07 | Change Confessions, Sins of Change

Ah, the employee survey; a classic move in the corporate playbook. It’s the Swiss Army knife of workplace engagement: quick, convenient, and, if used correctly, genuinely useful. But let’s be honest, too often, it’s wielded like a magic wand meant to look like action rather than drive real change.

Here’s the usual routine: A big change is announced, employees feel blind-sided, and the project team senses the growing tension. What’s the go-to solution? A survey! A neat, data-driven exercise that provides the comforting illusion of listening.

But here’s the catch: These surveys often serve as a public relations exercise rather than a real feedback mechanism. The questions, while well-meaning, tend to guide responses in a way that serves to reinforce the existing plan rather than challenge it.

Some classics include:

  • Do you understand why this change is happening? (Translation: We hope so, because it’s happening anyway.)
  • How confident are you in management’s ability to drive this change? (Translation: Here’s your moment to be supportive!)
  • What additional support do you need? (Translation: We’ll add that to the roadmap, but no promises.)

Then comes the grand finale: The results are selectively highlighted, a celebratory email goes out about “valuable insights,” and everything continues as planned. Employees, meanwhile, recognize the performance for what it is—a well-intentioned but ultimately hollow gesture if nothing tangible follows.

Survey-washing isn’t just a change-management issue; HR and comms teams also love a good data-backed initiative to win over stakeholders. And hey, surveys can be great tools! The problem isn’t the survey itself—it’s when they’re used to check a box instead of shape the path forward.

If you’re going to ask for feedback, be ready to act on it. Otherwise, it’s just another corporate tradition that everyone sees through but no one calls out.

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

The Sin of Leadership Gaslighting

The Sin of Leadership Gaslighting

25-02-21 | Change Confessions, Change Leadership, Sins of Change

“We had a massive problem with resistance.”

That’s often the conclusion when a transformation effort crashes and burns. It couldn’t possibly have been the terrible strategy, the lack of communication, or the fact that the CEO and CFO nearly got into a wrestling match in the boardroom. Oh no!

The problem must have been the middle managers who didn’t do their job or the employees who just “don’t get it.”

This is not a psychology lesson, but still: welcome to Leadership Gaslighting 101 where the red flags line up as…

🚩 Employees pointing out real problems.

🚩 Leadership dismissing them as “negativity” or “resistance.”

🚩 The initiative stalling and ultimately failing.

🚩 Leadership blaming employees for “not embracing the vision.”

Listen up, leaders, change managers, project leads and HR business partners: It’s not the change itself that people resist. It’s the BS with which it is often served: unrealistic timelines, indifference of existing workloads, ignorance of processes on the ground, disregard of the wisdom of the people actually doing the work.

People typically respond with resistance when:

  • Change has no clear rationale – Instead, the purpose and expected benefits of the change should be crystal clear, because “Leadership said so” isn’t a valid strategy. 
  • Change makes things worse – If the new system is slower, clunkier, and creates more work, don’t expect applause.
  • Change has no management buy-in – If managers don’t support the change, why should anyone else?
  • Change ignores past failures – Chasing the same old concept through the organization under a new name just treats employees like fools. They’ve been there and have the t-shirts.

If people are “resisting,” maybe they’re not the problem. Maybe the change itself is broken. Admitting that would mean taking accountability. But why do that, when you can just blame the organization?

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

The Sin of Blue-Sky Thinking

The Sin of Blue-Sky Thinking

25-01-10 | Change Confessions, Sins of Change

Ah, the optimism. The grand vision. The leadership roadshow complete with slick PowerPoints and just enough buzzwords to make it sound like this time, things will be different.

“We’re transforming the way we work!”

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity!”

“Things can only get better!”

Really?

Because once the applause dies down and the executive Q&A wraps up, reality sets in: No owner. No roadmap. No actual plan. Just a lot of blind faith and a vague hope that “momentum” will somehow carry this thing forward.

Six months later, the landscape is bleak:

  • Some teams have made an educated guess and started changing things.
  • Others assume it was quietly abandoned like last year’s employee engagement survey.
  • A department in Singapore is still waiting on a follow-up email that never came.

Then one brave soul dares to ask: “Hey… are we still doing that thing?”

Cue the awkward mumbling. The tight smile. The vague reference to ‘shifting priorities.’ And just like that, the change initiative vanishes into the corporate void. The next Big Idea has already taken its place.

And the teams left behind? Still confused. Still waiting. Still frustrated.

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