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.
Most senior leaders inherit organisations that talk fluently about culture and inclusion and deliver very little of either. The board wants growth, the workforce wants meaning, and the gap between the two has widened since the pandemic. Leaders need someone who has closed that gap inside a FTSE-scale business, with the numbers to prove it.
Strategy decks land in inboxes and nothing happens. Change announcements get read, filed, and forgotten. The gap between what leaders say and what employees do is where strategies quietly fail, and it is usually a communication problem dressed up as a culture problem.
Most leadership teams know what good performance looks like on a quiet day. They struggle to keep judgement, coordination and standards intact when the regulatory regime, the technology and the competitive set all shift at once. That is the gap between people who run a stable organisation and people who run one that has to win while it is being rebuilt around them.
AI now makes decisions that once belonged to people, and it is absorbing more of the work. Leaders still have to keep human judgement and accountability in place while that happens. Most operating models were built for stability, and offer no map for the ground between what worked before and what comes next.
Most executive teams are not actually teams. They are a set of senior individuals reporting to the same person, accountable upward, rarely to each other. When the operating environment moves faster than the org chart, that structure cracks: decisions stall, silos harden, accountability blurs. The unresolved question for the CEO is how to make peers genuinely answerable to peers without burning the hierarchy that holds the organisation together.
Trust in senior leaders has thinned, inside organisations as much as outside them. Employees are asked to follow through restructure and constant change, while their reasons to commit wear thin. The open question for any leadership team is whether performance and integrity can still be held together at the top.
Most organisations that need to transform already have a strategy. What they lack is a team that believes in it enough to change how they behave day to day. That gap – between direction that is communicated and commitment that is genuine – is where performance programmes fail, and it is a leadership problem, not a planning one.
Most change programmes fail at the level of the individual, not the plan. People are told to adopt new behaviours but never shown how to shift the mindset that governs them. Energy in the room fades the moment the session ends, and the old patterns return.
Senior teams under sustained pressure do not fail from a single shock. They fail from accumulated fear, deferred decisions, and the quiet erosion of conviction over months of difficult conditions. Most leadership development addresses the crisis moment. Far less addresses the long stretch in between, when the temptation to retreat is constant and invisible.
Strategy decks rarely fail on the page. They fail in the gap between intent and the daily behaviour of the people meant to execute. Senior teams know what good looks like, yet under pressure they default to the habits that built the current performance ceiling, not the ones required to move beyond it.
Most leadership development assumes conditions that rarely exist when it matters. Knowing what a good decision looks like and making one under real pressure, with incomplete information and real consequences, are two different skills. Organisations rarely train the difference.
Most organisations evaluating AI can assess technical performance. Few can assess what AI systems do to decision-making structures and accountability lines once deployed. That gap, between what AI promises and what it changes about how organisations operate, is where governance risk accumulates before it becomes visible.