"The way we talk about change is more important than how we plan it.."

88% of organizational change efforts fail to produce lasting results. What if the solution isn’t a new framework, but a new conversation?

This episode challenges leaders to reconsider why change efforts fail, pointing to a surprising culprit: a lack of listening and communication. Jeff and I explore how shifting our approach to conversations can transform outcomes and build stronger, more adaptive organisations.

We literally change the conversation, digging into the fact that individuals are often ambivalent about change, possessing both reasons to accept it and reasons to hesitate. This ambivalence is not fixed but fluid, and can be navigated intentionally

Motivational interviewing (MI), originally developed in clinical psychology, provides a framework for guiding individuals toward change they cannot be compelled to make. Motivational Interviewing teaches us to listen for “change talk” and “sustain talk” — people’s own reasons for and against change.

This deep listening reveals the raw ingredients for productive dialogue, moving beyond fixed attitudes to address underlying concerns. It’s about meeting people where they are, acknowledging their ambivalence, and helping them clarify their own path forward. This approach doesn’t dismiss models; it feeds them the human insights they need to succeed.

How do you differentiate between true resistance and genuine hesitation in your teams?

The main insights you'll get from this episode are :

1. Conversations about change need to be front and centre in organisations – organisational change requires communication, commitment and engagement, making it easy to find excuses not to undertake it.
2. Failed organisational change comes at enormous cost, making successful organisational change essential for the bottom line - everyone is ambivalent about change, but leaders often interpret hesitation as resistance.
3. Change management has unhelpfully popularised the word ‘resistance’, yet attitudes towards change are not fixed - the many reasons why people are for or against change fluctuate; tweaking this balance can move the needle towards change.
4. ‘Resistance’ attributes intention without discretion or discernment, whereas it might be due to a lack of understanding or training - calling people resistant is self-fulfilling; likewise silence does not always signify defiance.
5. Motivational interviewing (MI) for organisational change can be defined as a set of conversational tools and skills for helping people move towards change that you can’t make for them – this makes it relatable and teachable.
6. Understanding how to listen differently, speak differently, and help build belief in different modes of communication means that small steps can be interleaved with immediate effect (MI-inspired microskills).
7. Learning to listen for change talk (someone’s own language of change) and sustain talk (someone’s own language against change) brings to light the ‘raw ingredients’ for a different kind of conversation.
8. Frameworks and models (i.e. planning) for organisational change don’t work, are unsustainably expensive and alienate staff; ‘all models are wrong, some are useful’ is true if they are used consistently.

"Leadership is a collective ability. It’s not an individual skill set."

Now more than ever this phrase rings true for leadership in teams, organisations and society as a whole. The inherited leadership model is destructive, not productive in today's interconnected world.

Never has it been more important to challenge the status quo, to unlearn old formatting and build new patterns so that organisations and teams can thrive. The best way to avoid risk is to actually do nothing.- Celine's observation highlights a critical issue in modern leadership. Many organizations inadvertently foster environments where inaction is safer than innovation. I see this firsthand frequently.

Leaders, fearing blame for mistakes, often maintain the status quo. This “risk of doing versus risk of not doing” dynamic stifles creativity and energy. We need leaders to challenge this complacency. Rather than trying to be the best, leaders should challenge themselves ethically and morally; pursue human pastimes to maintain emotional and creative ability; hold space to think and feel; and improve the quality of relationships with their people and between people - leadership is a collective ability, not an individual pursuit.

Celine shares her insights and experience from working with leaders all over the globe and from researching her book : Dare to Unlead.

The main insights you'll get from this episode are :

1. The inherited leadership model is destructive, not productive: it is evident in the corporate world that leadership has been transformed into an industry, making it difficult to progress (business- and human-wise) in large, industrialised companies.
2. Toxic patterns are reproduced, resulting in a male-dominated, ego-drive, territory-obsessed culture with the heavy infrastructure of prediction and control that is slow, outdated, inefficient, and comes at enormous personal, social and planetary cost.
3. Red flags often come in the form of multiple small indications, such as cultural, ethnic, and gender homogeneity at decision-making level; a prevalence of no vs yes; and difficulties driving innovative projects forwards because leaders are risk averse.
4. A lack of accountability for not doing the right/wrong thing leads to complacency and ‘yes’ people who maintain the status quo, leaving no room for new blood or change, which in turn produces stagnant energy that is directed into negative politics.
5. In the workplace, we have to be with people we haven’t chosen or who aren’t like us, giving us an opportunity to develop our diversity muscle in terms of dealing with different opinions, worldviews, etc. against a clear mandate of making the business work.
6. Leadership is about enabling something productive; creating value across the board; and mobilising all talent - energy and power are omnipresent and can be either a constraint or an opportunity, depending on the mindset.
7. Familiar power structures are still honoured, e.g. one knowledgeable expert has the right to overrule all other opinions, but they are no longer applicable given that managers now are often less knowledgeable than their direct reports.
8. Knowledge and relational work has changed the foundations of old decision-making systems, with more agility and diversity required - leaders must stop seeing themselves as the centre/top of the system, and rather as an

"If my top talent walked out tomorrow, or AI shook things up overnight, would I still know how to win with people ?"

This is the question Kate and I discuss - the urgent need to rewire work and change the way we view talent, skills and the workplace. One of the shifts is moving from viewing individuals as mere “employees” to recognising them as “contributors.” This change fosters a sense of agency within any organizational system.

The topic of agency highlights a crucial shift: workers have agency to choose and the long time loyalty contracts are gone. People, particularly the younger generations now prioritize health benefits, time off, and flexible working over pay raises. This signifies a deeper desire for lifestyle integration and genuine care from employers. It’s about feeling valued for one’s skills from day one, having a voice, and ensuring long-term employability, especially with AI on the horizon. If our identity is tied to what we know, how do we adapt when AI “knows more”?

Historically, the more people got used to new tech, the less anxious they became. But with AI, it’s the opposite! The closer people get, the more nervous they feel. This isn’t just about understanding the tech; it’s about our identity and status tied to what we know versus what we’re willing to learn. This paradox calls for a fundamental shift: from being “know-it-alls” to “learn-it-alls.” Leaders must foster environments where learning and adaptability are paramount, rather than relying solely on existing expertise.

If you had the opportunity to redesign work in this department how would you do it differently ?

The insights you'll get from this episode are :

- It is people, not technology, who breathe life into businesses and keep them competitive; the pressure businesses are under puts a premium on talent and GenAI is increasing the gap between average and high-performing employees.

- Hiring, development and promotion must be right for a business to unlock opportunities, but workers have more options than ever before - Gen Z feel work is broken and the lift provided by augmented AI does not fix what is broken.

- The proximity paradox, i.e. the nearer people get to AI, the more nervous they are about it, is the opposite of past experiences with tech – if people are worried about losing their jobs and using AI, they will not innovate and look forward.

- This paradox is also a human paradox – GenAI provides no reassurance as it is always changing and learning, which is at odds with a system that values knowing over learning: know-it-all v learn-it-all is a threat to identity and status.

- Companies must care about guiding employees so that they stay relevant, and managers must have honest conversations with employees about how AI will change their jobs – this may well involve not having all the answers.

- The employee turnover rate is driven by the labour market and HR must know what the company’s reputation is externally to prevent the top talent from leaving in a flexible and fluid talent supply – motivation is key here.

- More agility in the workforce requires intentional work redesign - fixed v flex v fully flow roles - to solve real human problems and supply gaps through e.g. offshoring, right-shoring, making use of global capacity centres.

- Leaders must be able to work across temporal, digital, cultural and behavioural boundaries, and across generations, i.e. manage paradox, sense markets and people, have a global mindset, and embrace DE&I.

- Upskilling is crucial, as skills are the real