Why do people resist change, and should leaders always try to overcome it? Resistance is real, but the label can hide more than it explains. Research suggests that people's responses are shaped by the person, the change process and the organisational conditions around them. Sometimes resistance may even tell you something important about the change itself.
Change management leans hard on staged models: Kübler-Ross's change curve, Lewin's unfreeze-change-refreeze, Kotter's eight steps, and Prosci's ADKAR. Each promises that if you move people through the right sequence, in order, the change will land. It's a reassuring idea for leaders navigating something they don't fully control. But look closely at where these models came from, and what the research on organisational change actually shows, and the promise falls apart. This article traces each model back to its origins, explains why the sequence itself has never been shown to guarantee success, and offers practices grounded in complexity science for leading change that won't sit still long enough to be staged.
Is the viral "Athlete vs. Corporate" infographic actually accurate? Discover why the divide between performance and training is a myth, and how the 70-20-10 model proves that high-level work is the ultimate laboratory for professional development.
Most teams are told they need a vision. But many teams quietly lose trust, clarity, and meaning because of it. This article explains when vision helps, when it harms, and what teams actually need instead.
Mental models are often presented as the key to better leadership. But neuroscience and complexity science tell a different story. This article challenges the mental model myth and explores why leadership change comes from interaction, not introspection.
The Iceberg Model is one of the most enduring frameworks in systems thinking. But its promise, that by uncovering what lies beneath, leaders can solve complex problems, creates a dangerous illusion. It turns leadership into a technical exercise and overlooks the human, adaptive, and relational nature of real change. This article challenges the leadership myth embedded in the model and explores what it means to lead from within complexity, not above it.
Many leaders assume that silence means apathy or disengagement. But what if silence is something else entirely, a signal of caution, fear, or protection? This article challenges a persistent leadership myth and explores what silence really means, and what leaders can do in response.
Many leaders rely on the idea of “starting with why”, but this approach often oversimplifies how commitment forms. This article explains why purpose is not the starting point of leadership and shows how conversation, connection, and shared ownership build genuine engagement.
Many leaders still believe that a transformation programme can save an organisation, yet most large scale change efforts fail because they treat complex systems as if they can be controlled through planning. This article exposes the leadership myth at the heart of transformation, explains why organisations remain drawn to big programmes, and shows what research on complex adaptive systems reveals about how change really happens. It offers practical guidance for leaders who want to create real, sustainable transformation through learning, interaction, and shaped conditions rather than rigid roadmap
Many leaders still believe that a good plan guarantees successful change. This view, inherited from a more predictable era, persists in organisations that value control and certainty. Yet research from thinkers such as Kotter, Stacey, and Snowden shows that in complex environments, outcomes emerge through adaptation, not execution. This article explores why the myth endures, the costs of over-planning, and the practices that help leaders lead through learning rather than prediction.
Many leaders still describe culture as “soft stuff”, something intangible that sits alongside the real work of strategy, planning, and execution. Yet decades of organisational research show the opposite: culture is a powerful driver of behaviour, performance, and long term results. When leaders overlook it, they miss the hidden forces shaping how decisions are made, how people collaborate, and how strategy is interpreted. This article challenges the leadership myth that culture is soft, explores why the belief persists, and shows how culture functions as strategic infrastructure rather than atmosphere. It also offers reflective questions to help leaders bring culture back to the centre of their thinking.
Many leaders still inherit the idea that they must have all the answers. It is a belief shaped by the industrial age, reinforced by organisational culture, and sustained by our collective discomfort with uncertainty. Yet research from thinkers such as Heifetz, Senge, and Edmondson shows that knowing is not the work of leadership. The real task is to create the conditions where people can think, learn, and sense what the system needs next. This article explores why the myth endures, the cost of pretending to know, and the practices that help leaders move from answer giver to steward of shared insight.
“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” is one of the most persistent leadership myths. Often attributed to Peter Drucker, it distorts his thinking. This essay explores why measurement brings comfort but not always insight, and why true leadership begins where data ends.
“What gets measured gets managed” is one of leadership’s most quoted lines, often credited to Peter Drucker. Yet the phrase hides a deeper truth. Measurement can guide or distort, depending on intent. When leaders use data to learn rather than to control, numbers become tools for meaning. This article explores how to build a healthier relationship with metrics in complex organisations.
The phrase “people don’t leave jobs; they leave managers” feels true, but it tells only part of the story. This article unpacks the evidence behind the myth, revealing how turnover reflects not just bad bosses but broken systems, poor design, and misaligned purpose. Explore what really drives people to stay, to leave, and to lead better.
"Culture eats strategy for breakfast” is one of the most quoted, and misquoted, lines in business. Peter Drucker never said it, yet it endures because it feels true. This essay explores where the phrase came from, what research really shows about culture and strategy, and why effective leaders treat them not as rivals but as partners in shaping organisational success
