Gestion du changement
Des experts qui aident les organisations à naviguer la transformation, l’incertitude et l’aspect humain du changement
Speakers Associates represents 326 speakers on Gestion du changement, including Joy Poole, Steven D'Souza, Thimon de Jong, Itai Green, Andy Bass, Marina Ibrahim, Sue Mitchell, Rita McGrath, Jennifer Willey, et Jeremy Blain.
Every competitive advantage a company holds will eventually be copied. The strategic question is not whether to transform, but whether to do so while still ahead. Most leadership teams wait for the crisis – by then, the gap is too wide to close.
Regulated institutions know how to pass a compliance review. The harder test is whether their governance could catch an ethical failure before it becomes a reputational one. A diversity policy and a structurally inclusive institution are not the same thing, and the distance between them is now being measured.
Boards and executive teams are being asked to rebuild their businesses around technology while the companies themselves were built for a different era. The people making these decisions rarely have the dual fluency required: operator judgement about what a transformation actually costs inside a P&L, and board-level clarity about governance, risk and capital allocation. Without that combination, strategy decks multiply and execution stalls.
Large organisations know they need to innovate faster than their own R&D cycles allow. They have budget, scouting teams, and pilot programmes, yet most startup engagements stall before any technology reaches a revenue line. The hard question is not where to find innovation; it is how to build the internal structure that lets a corporate actually absorb it.
Most leadership teams have an AI strategy. Far fewer have changed how the business runs. The gap between stated intent and operating-model impact is where executive teams stall, and where the investment case quietly unravels.
Senior leaders are being asked to be more human at exactly the moment the job has become less human. Restructures, AI rollouts, hybrid teams, and constant pressure on results have left many executives defaulting to either detached toughness or performative empathy. Neither produces the trust, candour, or performance the business needs.
Leadership teams are being asked to hold their nerve while the ground moves under them. Decisions get harder, windows get shorter, and the cost of hesitation shows up in quarters, not years. What separates the people who perform in those moments is not more information. It is the ability to stay precise when the room expects them to flinch.
Senior leaders ask their teams to perform when the stakes are highest and the margins thinnest, then ask them to do it again the next quarter and the one after that. The discipline that produces a single peak is not the discipline that produces repeated peaks across years of changing conditions. Most organisations underestimate what it costs the people who deliver it.
Strategy documents land, offsites end, and within a quarter the organisation is back to its old behaviour. The gap between what leaders decide and what teams actually do every day is where most transformation stalls. Closing it requires a working theory of how habits form at the individual and system level, not another round of motivation.
Most large organisations communicate through rhetoric, slogans and decks. None of it sticks, because none of it is structured the way humans actually pay attention. Strategy is announced, then forgotten by the second town hall.
Resilience has been reduced to a wellness slogan at exactly the moment leaders need it as an operating capability. Teams are absorbing wave after wave of restructure, market shock, and AI-driven change, and the standard response is more frameworks, more dashboards, more comms. What is missing is a credible account of how senior people and the teams under them actually stay sharp, decide well, and keep performing when the conditions stop being predictable.
Most workforces have been told to be resilient so often the word has lost meaning. What leaders actually need is people who can keep making decisions when the conditions are bad, the plan has failed, and nobody is coming to help. That capability is taught badly, if at all.