Latest / The Human Factor: Exploring the Intersection of Humanity, Technology, and Transformation / Episode 022 | S2E9 The Diagnostic Map: Why Transformation Fails at the Human Level

Transcript

Episode 022 | S2E9 The Diagnostic Map: Why Transformation Fails at the Human Level · The Human Factor: Exploring the Intersection of Humanity, Technology, and Transformation

0:05
Imagine you're a physician and a patient walks into your office
0:10
with four symptoms. Each symptom, taken
0:14
individually, has a straightforward explanation.
0:17
A headache? Well, that could be stress.
0:21
Fatigue. Couldn't be poor sleep.
0:24
Joint pain? Overuse digestive issues could
0:28
be a diet issue. But a physician who treats each
0:31
symptom independently and never asks whether they're connected
0:37
isn't practicing medicine. They're practicing symptom
0:41
management, and they're going to miss the real diagnosis.
0:46
That is exactly what most organizations do when change or
0:50
transformation stalls or outright fails.
0:53
They identify the symptoms in isolation, resistance in one
0:58
department, disengagement in another, communication
1:02
breakdowns across the entire leadership team, passive
1:06
compliance that masquerades as adoption.
1:10
And they treat each one as a separate problem with a separate
1:14
intervention training program for the resistors, an engagement
1:19
survey for the disengaged, the town hall for the communication
1:24
gap, and a dashboard for the compliance metrics.
1:28
None of it, of course, works. And the reason it doesn't work
1:32
is that these are not individual and separate problems.
1:36
They're a dimension of a single underlying condition.
1:40
And until you see the whole picture, your interventions will
1:44
continue to address the symptoms while the condition progresses.
1:50
I'm Kevin Novak, CEO of 2040, Digital professor at the
1:54
University of Maryland and author of the book The Truth
1:57
about Transformation, Leading in the Age of AI, Uncertainty and
2:02
Human Complexity, along with the Ideas and innovations Weekly
2:06
newsletter. Welcome to the Human Factor
2:09
Podcast, the show that explores the intersection of humanity,
2:13
technology, and transformation, along with the psychology behind
2:19
transformation success. This is season 2, episode 9, and
2:25
today, well, it's different from every other episode this season.
2:30
For the past eight episodes, we have been building a diagnostic
2:33
framework for understanding why organizational change and
2:37
transformation fails at the human level.
2:41
Each episode isolated a single dimension, and we went deep on
2:46
those dimensions. Episode 1 Explore the identity
2:50
crisis that transformation triggers an individual. 10
2:54
teams. Episode 2 with Elizabeth Stuart
2:57
My buddy examined how emotional contagion spreads anxiety
3:03
through an organization during change.
3:07
Episode 3 Unpacked the structural traps that middle
3:11
management faces when caught between executive mandates and
3:15
the front line realities. Episode 4 looked at the
3:20
algorithmic mirror, how AI and data systems reflect
3:25
organizational bias back as objective truths.
3:29
Episode 5, which James Elliott examined the organizational
3:34
immune system, that invisible force that detects and
3:38
neutralizes change the same way the body attacks a foreign
3:42
pathogen. Episode 6 explored structural
3:46
silence, the system that teaches people that speaking up is more
3:51
dangerous than staying quiet. Episode 7 examined the
3:56
psychological contract, the unwritten promise between
4:00
organizations and their people. The transformation and change
4:05
always violates. In episode 8, the last episode
4:09
with Ryan Vet explored the generational fault lines that
4:13
determine how each of these dimensions plays out differently
4:18
depending on when someone entered the workforce. 8
4:22
dimensions, 8 episodes, each one grounded in peer reviewed
4:26
research, each one validated by practitioner.
4:30
Experience in each one, I believe, essential to
4:35
understanding why many organizational transformation
4:38
and change efforts continue to fail at rates that have not
4:42
improved in decades, despite the billions of dollars invested in
4:48
change management tools, methodologies, and consulting
4:52
engagements. Here's the problem with building
4:56
a framework 1 dimension at a time.
5:00
The audience, and I include myself in this, can begin to see
5:04
each dimension as a stand alone diagnosis.
5:08
You hear about the identity crisis and you think that is our
5:13
problem. I know how to fix that.
5:17
You hear about emotional contagion and well you think
5:22
that is what's happening in our leadership team and I know how
5:26
to fix that. You hear about structural
5:29
silence and you recognize it immediately in your
5:33
organization's culture, and you may know how to fix that.
5:38
But the reality is none of these dimensions operate in isolation.
5:44
They interact. They amplify each other.
5:47
They create cascading effects that no single dimension
5:52
intervention can address. Resulting consideration then can
5:58
be overwhelming, if not downright scary.
6:03
So today we're going to map the interactions and focus this
6:07
episode on showing where the individual pieces become a
6:11
system, one that you can leverage to improve change and
6:15
transformation success. Let me start with the most
6:19
important thing that I have learned across change and
6:22
transformation engagements, along with the two decades I
6:27
have spent studying why organizations resist the changes
6:31
they say they want. The organization that fails a
6:34
change in transformation, they're not the ones that
6:37
misidentify the problem. They are the ones that correctly
6:41
identify one dimension of the problem, and then they build
6:44
their entire intervention around that single diagnosis.
6:49
We as humans, well, we default too easily to a single
6:52
diagnosis. We default too easily to short
6:56
term thinking, often without seeing the consequences, the
7:01
influences, the factors or the variables that connect to each
7:06
other, that are dependent on each other, and that compromise
7:10
the foundation that we seek to build and build upon.
7:14
Peter Sang identified this pattern decades ago in his
7:18
research at MI TS Sloan School of Management in the 5th
7:22
discipline. He demonstrated that
7:24
organizational problems are systemic and that leaders who
7:29
intervene on single leverage points without understanding
7:33
feedback loops consistently produce unintended consequences.
7:38
He called one of the most common patterns Fixes that fail, so
7:44
that's where a solution to one problem creates new problems
7:47
elsewhere in the system that eventually make the original
7:51
problem so much worse. That's precisely what I see in
7:56
Change Focused Engagements, and the rescaling example I'm about
8:00
to walk through is the textbook case of that.
8:05
Charles Perot's research at Yale on complex systems made a
8:09
related observation that I think applies directly to
8:12
organizations and change and transformation.
8:16
Perot demonstrated that in tightly coupled systems,
8:20
failures and one component unpredictably cascade through
8:25
connected subsystems. His original research focused on
8:29
industrial accidents, but the principle translates when the
8:34
human dimensions of an organization are interconnected,
8:38
which of course they always are. An intervention that addresses
8:42
one dimension without accounting for its connections to others
8:46
doesn't just fall short, it can trigger cascading effects that
8:50
make the overall situation worse.
8:55
Let me give you that practical example.
8:58
A chief human resources officer recognizes that people are
9:01
afraid of losing their jobs to AI.
9:04
That's a correct diagnosis. That is, of course, the identity
9:09
crisis from episode 1, along with the psychological contract
9:13
violation from episode 7. But the intervention?
9:17
They design A reassurance campaign and a reskilling
9:21
program doesn't account for the fact that the anxiety those
9:25
employees feel isn't staying contained in their individual
9:29
experience. It is spreading through the
9:32
organization via emotional contagion, that dynamic that
9:37
Elizabeth Stewart and I explored in episode 2.
9:40
And, well, it is spreading fastest through informal
9:44
networks, hallway conversations, Slack channels, and the spaces
9:49
where structural silence from episode 6 has already taught the
9:53
people that leadership can't be trusted with on his feedback.
9:58
So the reskilling program gets announced.
10:01
And the people who most need it? Well, they don't sign up not
10:06
because they don't want new skills, because signing up feels
10:10
like an admission that their current skills are obsolete.
10:14
Which then triggers the identity threat and the leaders and the
10:19
human resources chief interpreting the low enrollment
10:22
read it as resistance or apathy. Which then triggers the
10:28
organizational immune system from episode 5 to label those
10:33
employees as change resistant, which further entrenches the
10:37
silence which accelerates the contagion.
10:41
One problem, 6 dimensions interacting simultaneously and
10:48
well, the original intervention. The rescaling program addressed
10:52
exactly one of them. This is sayings fixes that fail
10:56
playing out in real time, and it's Perot's castading failure
11:01
in a human system. This is the pattern I see and I
11:06
hear about repeatedly. Not bad strategy, not
11:11
incompetent leadership, but a fundamental underestimation of
11:17
the systemic nature of the human factors to determine whether
11:22
change and transformation succeed.
11:25
Yeah, the medical analogy from the opening is not rhetorical.
11:30
It is structurally accurate. Organizations are treating
11:35
symptoms and completely missing the diagnosis.
11:39
So let me walk through the key interactions, the places where
11:42
two or more dimensions combine to create effects that are
11:46
greater than either one alone. I want to be clear that what I'm
11:51
describing is not a theoretical model.
11:54
These are patterns I have observed across multiple
11:57
engagements, validated by the research we have discussed
12:01
throughout every episode of this season.
12:05
The 1st, and perhaps the most powerful interaction is between
12:09
identity crisis and the psychological contract.
12:13
When change in transformation threatens someone's professional
12:16
identity, their sense of who they are and what they're good
12:20
at, they don't just feel anxious, they feel betrayed
12:26
because their identity was built on an implicit promise.
12:30
The organization told them through years of performance
12:33
reviews, promotions, and institutional reinforcement that
12:37
who they are is valuable. And now change of transformation
12:42
is redefining what valuable means.
12:46
That identity crisis activates. But it activates through the
12:50
lens of a psychological contract violation.
12:54
And that combination, well, it produces something far more
12:58
powerful than either dimension alone.
13:01
Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman's Transactional model of
13:04
stress, one of the most widely cited frameworks in
13:08
psychological research. It helps explain why this
13:11
combination is so potent. Their work demonstrates that
13:16
stress responses are not addictive but multiplicative.
13:20
When multiple appraisal processes are activated
13:24
simultaneously, 2 stressors do not produce twice the stress.
13:30
They can produce a qualitatively different and more intense
13:35
response. So when identity threat and
13:37
contract violation converge in the same person during the same
13:42
change or transformation, the resulting experience isn't just
13:47
more intense, it's categorically different from either stressor
13:52
alone. It produces what William Bridges
13:55
called the ending, the psychological experience of loss
14:00
that must be acknowledged before any new beginning is possible.
14:05
Most organizations, as I have said over and over again, they
14:08
skipped this entirely. They announced the change, they
14:12
launched the initiative and wonder why people who were such
14:16
high performers are now disengaged or actively
14:21
undermining the effort. The answer is the organization
14:26
violated a contract it never knew it had signed, and that
14:30
violation landed on an identity it never acknowledged that it
14:35
has shaped. Remember Ryan's leadership
14:38
example from last episode where most of the key staff departed
14:42
in six months? It's a great example.
14:46
The second critical interaction is between emotional contagion
14:50
and structural assignments. Anxiety during transformation
14:54
is, of course, inevitable. People are uncertain.
14:58
They are processing loss. They are trying to figure out
15:01
what the change means for them personally and professionally.
15:05
That is all normal. What determines whether that
15:10
anxiety becomes productive or destructive is whether people
15:14
have somewhere to put it. Elizabeth Morrison and Francis
15:18
Milliken's research on organizational silence, which
15:21
was published in the Academy of Management Review, identified
15:25
something that I think every leader needs to understand.
15:30
Silence in organizations is not the absence of opinion.
15:35
It is a learned behavior to become self reinforcing at the
15:40
systemic level. When the organizational culture
15:43
has taught people that honest feedback is punished, that
15:47
raising concerns is career limiting, that the real
15:51
conversations happened after the meeting and not during it, well,
15:55
the anxiety doesn't just dissipate, it goes underground.
16:00
And underground anxiety is where emotional contagion does its
16:04
most corrosive work. Nicholas Christakis and James
16:09
Fowler's research on social contagion demonstrated that
16:13
emotions, behaviors, and attitudes spread through social
16:18
networks up to 3° of separation. When you combine that finding
16:24
with Morrison and Milliken's work on silence, you get exactly
16:27
the dynamic that I see in organizations during change and
16:31
transformation. When people can't express their
16:34
concerns to legitimate channels, they express them through
16:37
informal ones. The rumor mill, the parking lot
16:41
conversations, the group text. These channels have no mechanism
16:46
for accuracy, no accountability for what gets said, and no way
16:50
for leadership to respond. So then the anxiety amplifies,
16:56
distorts, and spreads without any corrective inputs that open
17:01
communication would provide. By the time leadership detects
17:06
the problem, it has metastasized far beyond the original concern.
17:13
The third interaction is between the algorithmic mirror and the
17:17
organizational immune system. This is one that I think
17:21
deserves more attention than it has received.
17:24
When organizations deploy AI and data analytics during change and
17:28
transformation, they often do so with the belief that data will
17:32
provide objective insight into what's working and what is it.
17:36
But as we explored in Episode 4, AI systems trained on historical
17:40
organizational data reflect the organization's existing
17:44
patterns, biases, and assumptions.
17:47
The algorithm in here does not show you reality, it shows you a
17:52
digitized version of the organization's past.
17:56
And well, when the organizational immune system
18:00
from episode 5 is active, which it always is during
18:04
transformation, something particularly insidious happens.
18:09
The immune system is already looking for reasons to reject
18:13
the change, to label it as foreign, to build antibodies
18:18
against it. So when the algorithmic mirror
18:20
produces data that appears to support maintaining that status
18:24
quo, the immune system uses that data as evidence it is
18:30
confirmation bias at an institutional scale.
18:34
Wander through the technology that most stakeholders believe
18:38
is objective. The data said.
18:41
The old approach is working. The algorithm confirms our
18:45
existing processes. While they're optimal, the
18:48
dashboard shows that the transformation metrics are
18:51
underperforming. None of those conclusions may be
18:55
accurate, but they feel authoritative because they came
18:59
from a machine. And while the immune system now
19:02
has exactly the ammunition it needs to slow, dilute, or kill
19:08
the change or transformation initiative, the 4th interaction
19:12
connects the structural traps of middle management to nearly
19:17
everything else. In Episode 3, we explored how
19:21
middle managers occupy a position that is structurally
19:24
designed to produce failure during transformation.
19:28
They're expected to translate executive vision into front line
19:32
execution while managing upward, downward, and laterally.
19:37
They absorb the emotional weight of both sides and and they are
19:41
the people most likely to be squeezed out of the very
19:45
transformation that they're being asked to implement.
19:49
Kwai Hoy's research at and said specifically identified middle
19:54
managers as what he called emotional balancers during
19:58
organizational change. They're the people who absorb
20:02
and process emotional reactions from both senior leadership and
20:06
the front line employees. His work demonstrated that when
20:10
middle managers are structurally prevented from fulfilling this
20:13
role, organizational change efforts are significantly more
20:18
likely to fail. And that is what makes the
20:20
structural trap so devastating as a systemic factor.
20:25
Middle managers are the connective tissue of the
20:27
organization. They are the primary channel
20:30
through which communication flows, through which emotional
20:34
contagion spreads or gets contained, through which
20:37
structural silence is either reinforced or broken.
20:41
So when middle managers are trapped, when they can't
20:44
advocate upward for the concerns they hear from their teams, and
20:48
they can't translate downward the executive intent that they
20:51
don't fully understand or agree with, every other dimension gets
20:56
worse. Contagion accelerates because
20:59
the people who would normally moderate it, well, they're
21:02
frozen. Silence deepens because the
21:06
people closest to the front line have learned that honesty flows
21:10
in only One Direction. The immune system then
21:14
strengthens because middle managers become its most
21:17
effective agents not by intention but by structural
21:22
position. They slow things down, they add
21:26
caveats, they translate bold mandates into incremental
21:31
adjustments, not because they oppose the change, but because
21:35
the structure gives them no viable alternative.
21:40
The 5th interaction is the one we explored most recently, the
21:44
generational fault lines that run through all of the other
21:47
dimensions. Ryan Ven and I discussed this in
21:51
episode 8, but let me frame it specifically in terms of the
21:54
interaction of facts. The identity crisis from episode
21:58
one. Well, it does not hit every
22:00
generation the same way. A boomer has built 30 years of
22:05
institutional experiences. A fundamental different identity
22:09
threat from an AI deployment than a millennial who sees AI as
22:14
a career accelerator. The psychological contract from
22:19
episode 7 varies by generation because the implicit promises
22:24
were different to begin with. Boomers were promised stability
22:29
and upward mobility. Gen.
22:31
X was promised autonomy. Millennials were promised
22:35
purpose and development. Gen.
22:37
Z was promised flexibility and authenticity.
22:41
The same transformation violates 5 different contracts.
22:46
Emotional contagion from episode 2 travels differently across
22:50
generational frameworks because each generation, well, they have
22:54
different communication preferences and different trust
22:57
thresholds. Structural silence from episode
23:00
6 manifests differently because each generation has a different
23:05
relationship to institutional authority and a different
23:10
threshold for what they're willing to say out loud.
23:13
A leader who treats all of these as the same resistance, who
23:17
designs a single intervention from multi generational
23:20
workforce operating under multiple psychological contracts
23:23
with different identity investments.
23:26
Well, it is not leading transformation, they are
23:30
performing it. So what do you do with this 8
23:33
dimensions that interact in ways that are complex, contextual and
23:38
different in every organization? That's a temptation is to say
23:42
that this is too complicated to operationalize.
23:46
It seems so hard. Where do I even start?
23:50
Do I have the role in the influence to even raise the red
23:54
flag? I understand the temptation and
23:57
the internal questions that you may be asking yourself, but I
24:00
think the complexity is actually clarifying if you approach it
24:05
the right way. Andrew Pettigrew's longitudinal
24:09
research on organizational transformation demonstrated the
24:13
change must be understood across multiple interconnected levels,
24:19
what is changing, how it is changing, and the internal and
24:23
external conditions shaping the change.
24:27
His work showed that organizations which analyzed
24:30
only one level consistently underestimated the complexity of
24:34
change of transformation. The diagnostic map I'm proposing
24:39
operates on the same principle. It doesn't ask you to solve
24:43
every dimension simultaneously, it asks you to see them before
24:47
you enter V Donnella Meadows, in her work on systems thinking at
24:52
MIT, identified something that I think is essential for leaders
24:57
to absorb. She demonstrated that leverage
25:00
points in complex systems are counter intuitive and that
25:05
single variable interventions and interconnected systems often
25:09
produce the opposite of the intended effect.
25:13
The most powerful leverage points are not the obvious ones.
25:17
They are the ones that change the rules of the system, the
25:21
mental models, the goals, and the feedback structures.
25:27
That is what this diagnostic map is designed to help leaders
25:30
find. The right way is not to build an
25:33
intervention for each dimension. It is to use the dimensions as a
25:39
diagnostic map. Before you design any change or
25:43
transformation initiative, before you launch any change
25:46
communication, before you roll out any new technology or
25:51
restructure any team, you should be asking a set of diagnostic
25:55
questions that correspond to these 8 dimensions.
26:00
And the answers, well, they should shape your approach.
26:03
So let's start the identity question.
26:07
Whose professional identity is threatened by this change?
26:12
Not whose job is at risk. Whose sense of who they are and
26:17
what they are good at is being destabilized because identity
26:22
threat triggers resistance that no amount of training or
26:26
communication can overcome until it's acknowledged.
26:30
Next, the contagion question. How is anxiety about this change
26:36
currently spreading through the organization?
26:40
Through which networks? Which channels?
26:43
Which informal conversations? And more importantly, is your
26:48
communication strategy designed to feed the formal channels, or
26:53
are you ceding the narrative to the informal ones?
26:57
The structural track question. What are you asking middle
27:01
managers to do that their structural positions make
27:06
impossible? Are you asking them to champion
27:10
a change that eliminates the wrong roles?
27:13
Are you asking them to translate a strategy they weren't involved
27:17
in designing? Are you asking them to absorb
27:21
emotional weight from both directions without any support?
27:27
The algorithmic mere question? Well, is the data you are using
27:32
to measure transformation progress reflecting the change
27:36
you are trying to create, or is it reflecting the patterns of
27:41
the organization you are trying to leave behind?
27:45
Are your dashboards measuring adoption or compliance?
27:49
Behavioral change or performative engagement?
27:52
The immune system question. Where is the organization
27:57
already building antibodies against this change?
28:01
Which processes, committees, approval chains, and cultural
28:05
norms are functioning to slow, dilute or neutralize the
28:09
transformation? And are you inadvertently
28:13
strengthening the immune response by framing the change
28:16
in ways that trigger organizational self
28:19
preservation? The silence question, What is
28:23
not being said? Where in the organization have
28:27
people learned that honest feedback about this initiative
28:32
is unsafe? If your feedback channels are
28:35
producing only positive signals during a major transformation,
28:39
well, that's not evidence that things are going well.
28:43
That's evidence that structural silence is functioning exactly
28:46
as it's designed. The contract question, What
28:51
implicit promises is this change breaking?
28:55
What did people believe the organization owed them that this
28:59
transformation or change is withdrawing?
29:03
And have you created space for people to grieve those losses?
29:07
Or are you demanding enthusiasm for a future that requires them
29:10
to abandon the past that they were told to build?
29:15
And the generational question are you designing this change
29:19
from monolithic workforce or for the actual human beings in the
29:23
room? Have you considered that the
29:25
same initiative triggers different identity threats,
29:29
different contract violations, different communication
29:33
preferences, and different trust thresholds across the
29:37
generational landscape of your organization?
29:42
8 questions, 8 diagnostic lenses.
29:45
Not a checklist to be completed, but a map to be consulted.
29:50
And here's the most critical insight.
29:53
You don't need to solve all 8 dimensions to succeed.
29:57
You need to understand which dimensions are most active in
30:01
your specific context and design your approach accordingly.
30:06
The organization where structural silence is the
30:08
dominant factor needs a fundamentally different
30:11
intervention than the organization where the
30:14
algorithmic mirror is reinforcing the immune system.
30:18
The organization where middle management, structurally
30:21
trapped, needs different support than the organization where
30:25
generational fault lines are the primary source of friction.
30:29
The diagnostic map doesn't give you a universal prescription.
30:34
It gives you the ability to see what is actually happening,
30:38
which is the prequisite for any intervention that has a chance
30:42
of working. I want to close with why I think
30:44
this particular moment demands this kind of systemic diagnostic
30:48
thinking. We're in a period where change
30:51
and transformation pressures on organizations are not only
30:55
intensifying, they're converging.
30:58
AI adoption is accelerating. Workforce demographics are
31:02
shifting. Gen.
31:04
Z now comprises 40% of the current workforce in Gen.
31:09
Alpha, while in a few years they'll be approaching
31:11
employability. Remote and hybrid work models
31:15
are still being negotiated. Economic uncertainty is
31:19
reshaping organizational risk tolerance nationally and
31:23
globally. And the pace of technological
31:26
change well is out running most organizations Capacity and
31:31
individual capacity to absorbital Each of those
31:35
pressures activates multiple dimensions of the human factor
31:40
simultaneously. AI adoption triggers identity
31:44
crisis, reshape psychological contracts, and creates
31:50
algorithmic mirror effects. Workforce demographic shifts
31:54
activate generational fault lines and change the emotional
31:58
contagion pathways within an organization.
32:02
Economic uncertainty strengthens the organization immune response
32:08
and deepens structural silence because people are afraid that
32:12
honesty will cost them their jobs.
32:15
These aren't separate challenges requiring separate task forces.
32:20
There are manifestations of the same underlying reality.
32:23
Change and transformation are very human processes in the
32:28
organizations that treat it either as a technical or an
32:31
operational process, or they're going to continue to fail at the
32:34
rates the research has predicted for over 30 years.
32:39
The 70% failure rate that I reference often is not a curse,
32:43
it is a diagnosis. John Carter's research placed it
32:48
at that level in the mid 1990s. Mckenzie's research confirmed
32:53
similar figures across multiple studies from 2008 onward.
32:58
Michael Beer's work at Harvard validated that the rate has
33:02
remained remarkably stable across decades, despite massive
33:07
investment and change management methodologies and consulting
33:10
engagements. The stability of that failure
33:14
rate is itself evidence that the problem is diagnostic, not
33:18
methodological. We have not been using the wrong
33:21
tools. We have been looking at the
33:23
wrong level of the problem. We have been treating the
33:27
symptoms 1 dimension at a time without ever stepping back to
33:32
see the system. That is what the season has been
33:36
building towards. Not 8 separate insights, but one
33:40
integrated understanding of why change fails and what it takes
33:45
to lead transformation that actually accounts for the full
33:49
complexity of the human beings you are being asked to change.
33:55
The remaining episodes of the season are going to build on and
33:58
from this diagnostic map, now that we have the framework we
34:03
need to apply it. We have guests coming who bring
34:06
specific expertise to the dimensions we have been
34:08
discussing. Practitioners who have lived
34:11
inside these dynamics and who can show us what it looks like
34:16
when leaders get it ready and when they get it wrong.
34:21
If you found today's episode valuable, subscribe to the Human
34:24
Factor Podcast wherever you watch or listen.
34:28
Leave a rating and a comment and share this episode with your
34:31
leadership team. If your organization is
34:34
navigating change and transformation right now, this
34:37
diagnostic map is designed to help you see what might be
34:41
hiding in plain sight. Subscribe to the Ideas and
34:45
Innovations newsletter on Sub Stack for weekly frameworks and
34:49
research on why change succeeds or fails, and connect with me on
34:54
LinkedIn, where I post regularly about the psychology of
34:58
transformation. Next episode, we continue the
35:02
journey. Until then, Remember, change in
35:05
transformation doesn't fail because of the technology, the
35:09
strategy or the market conditions.
35:13
It fails because of people. And the more deeply you
35:16
understand the human factor, the more likely your change or
35:20
transformation is to succeed. I'm Kevin Novak, thanks for
35:26
watching or listening.