Change Management Workshops And Seminars

I've watched a leader make a $700 million decision on three hours' sleep. Everyone congratulated him on being across it (spoiler alert: it was the wrong decision). Every transformation I've worked on has a risk register. Legacy systems. Budget overrun. Vendor dependency. Change fatigue in the middle layer. Not one of them has EVER listed the physical state of the people making the big decisions. I've sat in steering committees at 7am with executives who'd landed at midnight. I've watched calls get made on nine-figure programmes after weeks of four-hour nights and back-to-back travel across time zones. The decision wasn't reckless. It was just made by someone operating well below their own baseline. We treat that as a personal matter. Something the individual should manage on their own time, quietly, if at all. But when the quality of executive judgement is the single biggest variable in whether a transformation lands, sustained depletion isn't a lifestyle issue. It's an operating risk sitting outside the risk register. Here's what I've noticed about the leaders who hold up best through multi-year change: 📍 They protect decision quality, not just calendar space 📍 They treat recovery as infrastructure, not indulgence 📍 They know which decisions they will not make after 9pm None of that shows up in a transformation methodology. It probably should. The organisations getting serious about this aren't doing it out of benevolence. They're doing it because a depleted executive team is a delivery risk — and it's one of the few nobody is measuring. What's on your risk register that shouldn't be? And what's missing? #programmanagement #riskmanagement #futurefitleaders

My workshop feedback method has a 100% response rate — and uses zero forms. I ditched post-workshop surveys because… no one filled them out and the ones who did wrote things like “Great workshop 🤗 ” (helpful… ish ⁉️ ). So now I use my four-question, four-colour sticky-note system at the closing of a workshop. It’s fast, visual, and human. It surfaces real language, real commitments, and real insight. Reflection becomes baked into the workshop instead of bolted on. Here’s the magic. I ask everyone to respond to these phrases individually 🟡 “I learned / liked / aha!” - Quick bursts of insight. One idea per sticky. No faffing. 🟢 “I will…” (What ideas do you plan to implement immediately?) - The gold. Actual commitments. I can instantly see what’s going to live beyond the room. 🔴 “I wish…” (What support do you need or what else do you wish we had explored today?) - Constructive, honest improvement ideas and what they need to succeed post-workshop. Better than any anonymous text box. 🔵 One word (What single word best describes your overall reaction to the session?) - These become my word cloud*, and it tells me the emotional temperature in one glance. Then, in small groups, participants choose their top insights, star them, and share them with the room. It turns into this joyful moment where you can see what activities really landed and what learning truly stuck. Impact? • I can literally see what resonated. • The “I will…” notes show behaviour change starting before people even leave the room. • The “I wish…” notes help me evolve each workshop immediately. • And the one-word cloud gives me a pulse check that’s surprisingly accurate. (see word cloud from 10 workshops* - 210 words - in comments) Yes, I still type them all into a spreadsheet by hand (there’s something human and connective about reading people’s handwriting). Then I let AI help me spot themes and patterns. It’s simple. It’s human. It works. And gives clients tangible, meaningful insights... Curious: how do you gather feedback that actually helps you get better? #PlayMore #JudgeLess #feedback #facilitation

You can’t have a good program without good evaluation ‼️ Over the last decade, I have designed and run a lot of programs. The most difficult and important part has always been the evaluation process I’ve learned to be wary of “perfect” feedback. When participants tell me a program was flawless and doesn’t need to change, it usually means I didn’t ask the right questions, or I didn’t create the conditions for honest reflection. It’s good for the ego and for reporting back to funders/external stakeholders, but it’s not useful for growth. Evaluation should surface what didn’t land, what could be clearer, and what needs to be rethought. It requires designing questions that go beyond “Did you enjoy this?” and instead get closer to answering “What actually changed for you?” or “What didn’t work in the way you expected?” When time and resources allow, a mixed approach tends to be the most meaningful. Surveys, short written reflections or even simple sticky note responses can capture immediate, unfiltered reactions. However, it’s often in post-program interviews where the depth really emerges. That’s where people articulate the nuances, the contradictions, and the things they wouldn’t write down. The goal isn’t just to prove that a program worked. It’s to understand how the next iteration can be meaningfully better.

One month ago, an HR head told me something during our first call that I wasn't expecting "We ran the numbers on last year's sessions. I don't think I can defend the budget this time for our existing vendor." They'd run six one-day workshops that year.  - Communication - Leadership basics - Conflict resolution Good facilitators, good feedback forms, good scores. So she did something most L&D teams don't do. She went back 90 days later and actually checked: not the feedback forms, but the behaviour. - Were managers giving feedback differently? - Were escalations down? - Were the "conflict resolution" skills showing up in an actual conflict? The answer, across almost every session, was no. Not because the training was bad.  But a day is long enough to feel inspired and too short to actually change a habit. You can teach someone what active listening looks like in four hours. You cannot make it automatic in four hours. The gap between "I understood it in the room" and "I do it under pressure three weeks later" is where almost every one-day training quietly dies. And that gap doesn't show up on a feedback form. It shows up in a P&L, eighteen months later, when leadership asks why the training budget isn't moving the numbers everyone hoped it would. What should eventually change are not the topics. It is - The shape of the engagements like shorter sessions spread over weeks - Built-in follow-ups - Managers being looped in to reinforce what is taught instead of being kept out of the room entirely. Training is never the problem. The 1-day container it was being poured into is. If you're an HR or L&D leader sitting on a training calendar you're not sure you can defend anymore  That conversation is worth having before the budget review, not after. #learninganddevelopment #corporatetraining #hr #softskills #behaviouralskills #behaviouralchange #facilitation #personaldevelopment

Feedback about me. I rarely ask for feedback or evaluation specifically about me at the end of a session I have facilitated. I refer to sessions where the group determines the outcomes and invites me to facilitate discussion and decision-making processes. These are not training workshops. I don't ask for feedback about me because it makes the session about me. The session is because of, about, for, and by the participants. Yes, I am part of the group and play a specific role. However, asking only for an assessment of what I did and how I did it undermines the participants' ownership of the process. The participants leave thinking and feeling about me and not their work together. But! How do I learn what worked and didn’t work? How can I improve my skills as a facilitator? I ask questions such as: 🔴 How was today for you? 🔴 How did the session go for you? 🔴 What was our work together like? Questions such as these open all parts of the session for feedback and evaluation: the participants, the facilitator, the process, the flow, the methods, the place and space, the refreshments ... Sometimes, I ask these questions as a closing conversation; sometimes, in pairs with an invitation to call out answers; sometimes, in individual worksheets to hand in. I often use the Rose, Thorn, Bud method. 🌹 Rose: What worked well during the session (strengths)? 🌵 Thorn: What didn’t work and could be improved (challenges)? 🌿 Bud: What are your ideas from the session (possibilities and opportunities)? Sometimes I use these questions: 💡 Light bulb – insights ... What stimulated your thinking during the session? From facilitators? From participants? ❓ Question Mark – getting more … What more could have been done by all concerned, including you, to make the session a better experience? 👍 Thumbs Up - what changed … What has changed for you because of this session? What will you do differently now? From any of these questions or ways to ask them, I sense what I did to help or hinder. After the session, I debrief with the host or client. We can then discuss my approach, style, demeanor, behaviour, skills, competency, design, etc. How do you acquire feedback about your facilitation skills while helping the group reflect on all parts of the session? I enjoy learning and improving from your answers. #facilitation #sessions #conversations #feedback #meetings #learning #improving #skills #growth

I've facilitated 500+ workshops. These 5 closing techniques are the only ones that stick. Most facilitators spend hours designing the opening and the activities. Then the last 10 minutes arrive and they panic. → "Let's share a final thought." → "Any last reflections?" → "Thanks everyone, great session!" The closing is where behaviour change gets locked in or evaporates. Most facilitators treat it like an afterthought. Here are the 5 that actually work: 1. The One Commitment Round Every participant states one specific thing they'll do differently this week. Out loud. To the room. → Not: "I'll communicate better." → Instead: "I'll start every Monday standup asking my team what's blocking them before giving updates." Vague commitments die on the drive home. Specific ones survive. Public commitment creates social accountability. Say it out loud and it costs something to not follow through. 2. The Accountability Partner Every participant pairs up. They exchange commitments. They set a check-in within 14 days. Calendar invite sent before they leave. → Not: "Let's all keep each other accountable." → Instead: "You and your partner have a 15-minute call on March 31st. One question: did you do it?" Accountability without a name and a date is just a wish. 3. The Letter to Yourself Each participant writes a short message to their future self. What they committed to. Why it matters. The facilitator collects them and emails them back in 2 weeks. A delayed mirror. When the workshop energy has faded, you get a message from yourself reminding you what you promised when you were most motivated. 4. The Team Contract The group co-creates 3-5 agreements about how they'll work together. One page. Everyone signs. Photographed and shared in the team channel before they leave. → Not: "Let's agree to be more open." → Instead: "If you disagree with a decision, raise it in the meeting, not after. If you don't speak up, you've agreed." Invisible norms become a visible artefact. When someone breaks the agreement, anyone can point to it. The contract does the confrontation so individuals don't have to. 5. The Pre-Mortem Close Instead of "how was the session?" ask: "It's 30 days from now and nothing has changed. Why?" Participants write down every reason the commitments might fail. Then for each, one thing that would prevent it. → "It'll fail because I'll get pulled into daily fires." → Prevention: "I'll block 30 minutes every Friday to review my commitment." Instead of hoping for the best, you design against failure before it happens. The pattern across all 5? Every closing that sticks has three things: → A specific commitment, not a feeling → A named person responsible for follow-up → A date on the calendar Without all three, it was a nice ending to a nice day. Nothing more. ___ Save this for later (three dots, top right). Share with friends → ♻️ Repost. Get consultant-grade workshops every Sat → https://lnkd.in/eSfeUapJ

Most organisations are investing significantly in workshop and change facilitation and have very little idea whether it's working. That’s the uncomfortable truth at the heart of the recently published “State of Facilitation 2026” report from SessionLab. At a time when every hour spent away from operational demands must earn its place, we have to pay serious attention to the impact of facilitated change sessions. Here is the core tension: facilitation is widely described as powerful and transformative, yet the practices needed to prove that (upfront goal-setting, structured follow-up, rigorous evaluation etc) are not routine. Only 1 in 3 facilitators agree measurable performance indicators with the people who commission their change sessions upfront. Without outcomes defined at this stage, impact assessment becomes retrospective and unreliable. The report distinguishes three types of "impact" that are routinely conflated: (1) facilitator performance and in-room engagement; (2) participant experience and perceived value; and (3) actual organisational outcomes (sustained behaviour change and measurable results). Facilitation practitioners often “focus mainly on satisfaction,” even though “there is no correlation between satisfaction and application" (Alliger & Janak, 1989). As leaders, we often accept (1) & (2) as evidence of success. We need to invest significantly in (3). 43.5% of respondents identify lack of follow-up as the main barrier to impact. Sessions are evaluated on what happens in the room, but impact depends on what happens afterwards. As one contributor notes: "After the session, participants go back to a work environment and systems which weren't designed to support the changes explored." Leaders across every sector can recognise that pattern. 51.4% of facilitators rely primarily on word of mouth to communicate their impact, and only 4.5% contribute to research or published writing on outcomes. The impact is often real, but it doesn't travel. Where evidence shapes strategy and investment, this invisibility has consequences. Three things leaders can do differently: 1) Treat facilitation as a strategic capability, not a tactical event: Bring facilitators in early, define the outcomes you care about, and make impact expectations explicit at the outset. 2) Invest in the before and after: Commit to proper scoping, co-design, and systematic follow-up — not just satisfaction surveys at the end of the session. 3) Make the invisible visible: Ask for impact stories, behavioural indicators and links to organisational outcomes. Sponsor the translation of facilitation results into the language of strategy, risk and value. Facilitation as a one-off event changes little. Facilitation as a sustained, evidence-informed capability transforms performance. The “State of Facilitation 2026” report: https://lnkd.in/emekCjQr.

A Risk Register Is Not a List of Hazards It’s a decision-support tool. Too often, risk registers become passive inventories—long lists of concerns with vague labels and no real connection to business priorities. That’s a missed opportunity. In a mature risk program, every risk entry is anchored to a decision. Whether it's about cloud migration, vendor selection, or treatment investments, the register only earns its keep if it's helping decision-makers weigh tradeoffs under uncertainty. Attached is a screenshot of a model risk register I use in quantitative programs. It’s transposed to fit on one screen and includes: - 90% confidence intervals for frequency, impact, and ALE - Inherent vs. residual estimates - Risk reduction per unit cost (RRPUC) - And—most critically—the decision each risk is meant to inform You don’t need math—or even numbers—to apply this mindset. Even in so-called 'qualitative' programs, recording the decision context for each risk strengthens alignment, traceability, and accountability. More important, it transforms the risk register from a compliance artifact into a living instrument for real-world decision-making. #RiskManagement #DecisionSupport #IRM #QuantitativeRisk #FAIR #GRC #RiskRegister #CyberRisk Linda Fry Tony Martin-Vegue FAIR Institute

We had two suppliers nearly derail a major vehicle launch. Both failures traced back to the same gap. We hadn't done the risk assessment that would have surfaced what we were walking into. The first ran aged equipment with poor reliability. That was a risk that should have been caught at award. We knew the equipment was old. We hadn't fully assessed what that meant for launch-rate reliability under real conditions. The second was harder to see, and harder to own. We made a significant program volume change after the supplier had already kicked off their capital equipment. We made the change because the business needed it. What we didn't do was step back and assess what a volume change at that stage actually meant for their process design, their capacity assumptions, the constraints they'd already locked in. The failure showed up at launch. The decision that caused it was months earlier, made without the analysis that would have shown us what we were doing to them. What I took from it. Every meaningful change to a program, whether volume, timing, or spec, is also a change to the supplier's risk profile. You owe them the assessment of what that change does on their side. Not after the fact, when it shows up as a launch issue. Before, when you can still adjust the change or help them adapt. "We changed volumes" sounds like an internal decision. It isn't. Both issues were recovered. Both became major learnings into how we approached supplier risk assessment on the next launches, at award and at every major program change after. If you've run programs, where do you draw the line on running a risk assessment before a change, versus making the change and dealing with what surfaces? #Leadership #SupplyChain #Manufacturing

Dear IT Auditors, Auditing IT Change Management Change is constant in IT. But uncontrolled change is one of the biggest sources of audit findings. Change management controls protect production environments from errors, downtime, and security exposures. Yet, they often fail in predictable ways. Here are some common gaps to watchout for: 📌 Missing or Incomplete Change Documentation Auditors often find changes made without proper tickets or approvals. If it isn’t documented, it didn’t happen. Lack of traceability weakens assurance. 📌 Unauthorized Changes Developers or administrators sometimes deploy fixes directly to production. Even small “emergency” changes can cause major incidents if not reviewed. 📌 Inadequate Testing Evidence Changes are approved but testing proof is missing or incomplete. Testing must confirm both functionality and security before deployment. 📌 Segregation of Duties Issues Developers who code, test, and deploy changes bypass a critical control layer. Auditors should verify that roles are properly separated to reduce risk of manipulation or error. 📌 Improper Access to Migration Tools Privileged access to deployment tools is often excessive or not reviewed. These permissions should be restricted, logged, and monitored. 📌 Weak Emergency Change Process Emergency changes are necessary but must be controlled. They need a post-implementation review to confirm they didn’t introduce new risk. 📌 Lack of Post-Change Review Auditors should check if teams validate system behavior after deployment. This confirms stability and reduces hidden risk. Change management isn’t about slowing progress. It’s about protecting reliability. When controls fail, even a single change can damage systems, trust, and the compliance posture. #ITAudit #ChangeManagement #AuditLeadership #InternalAudit #RiskManagement #GRC #ITControls #Assurance #TechGovernance #AuditQuality #CyberVerge #CyberYard