Michelle Moore @MichelleMooreTO

@Olympics @milanocortina26 @TeamCanada ❤️🇨🇦❤️

More than 70% of today’s skills are used in both automatable and non-automatable work. That overlap means most skills endure – but how they’re used will change. See which skills will evolve most: mck.co/aiskills

A new framework for understanding why initiatives succeed or fail can help leaders make better decisions about the future of their organizations. >> mitsmr.com/3Zesz0A

What sets 21st-century leaders apart? New research outlines six traits every 21st-century leader needs, and why CEOs must take a hands-on role in developing them. Explore the playbook for building next-generation leadership at scale. mckinsey.com/capabilities/s…

When terrible things happen in an organization — a partnership ends in disaster, expenses outpace income by a mile, or outside economic forces throw progress way off course — employees look to leaders to explain what’s going on. Good communication requires leaders to determine what happened and what comes next. They can start by articulating the answers to two questions: Where does responsibility for the problem lie? And is the situation salvageable? t.co/DxWJy7K1vT

Become a stronger leader in the new year. Catch up on 2025’s most-read articles for fresh advice on your toughest leadership challenges. Click on the list to see the whole list >> mitsmr.com/4pJUsc7

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

AI is reshaping the future of work—yet most employees aren’t unlocking its full potential: gtnr.it/4rXSp6i CIOs must move teams from passive adoption to active engagement for lasting impact. Learn how intentional AI choices drive business success. #GartnerIT #CIO #AI

hbr.org/2025/11/the-su…

If we want sustainable organisational change, which group is more important? (a) People who are active in response to the change (even if they are resistant); or (b) People who accept the change? Newly published research suggests (a); it is more important to get people active in change than it is to get favourable responses to it. Active dissenters/resisters/opponents are preferable to passive, seemingly accepting people who go along with the change. Many existing change frameworks focus on “valence”: the extent to which people are positive or negative about the change. This research highlights the importance of another dimension: “activation” - the energy or action level in people’s response to change - whether they are engaged, energetic & visible (active) or quiet, withdrawn, & non-participative (passive). The authors have created a four box framework called “the Change Response Circumplex Scale”. I’ve added some strategies for working with the different categories alongside their graphic. Active resistance is preferable to passive disengagement because it: -keeps the lines of feedback & dialogue open -surfaces important information & risks that passive compliance might hide -enables leaders to create psychological safety for diverse reactions to change. -Creates the conditions for long term engagement in change. Implications of this research for leaders of change: 1. Go beyond reducing resistance: Don’t just focus solely on minimising resistance or seeking passive agreement; aim to foster active, positive engagement from people -what the authors term “change proactivity.” 2. Understand engagement levels: Differentiate between passive acceptance, disengagement & truly active, positive support. Use the framework to understand people’s responses to your change initiative. 3. Create interventions accordingly: Disengaged people need approaches to increase involvement, passive assent can become active support & resistance can become constructive dialogue. 4. Leverage the value of dissent: Rather than viewing resistance solely as an obstacle, explore what motivates active dissent & use it as a resource for learning & adaptation. I appreciate this model because it challenges so much of the existing (dubious) advice for change leaders to “overcome resistance to change”. Instead we should work to activate engagement in change. The research shows that both high activation responses (change proactivity & change resistance) show the most promise for long term change engagement. Activism is what changes the world. There are two research articles about this framework. The 1st, from 2024, validates the framework (This is a version from Scrid so it is it accessible): scribd.com/document/89056…. The 2nd, which sets the framework in a wider change context, is from 2025 & is attached to this LinkedIn post from Cheese Cheeseman: linkedin.com/posts/cheesema…. By Shaul Oreg & Noga Sverdlik.

AI ‘Poseurs’: A Hidden Risk kornferry.com/insights/this-…

2025 #GenerativeAI in #ProfessionalServices Report-@thomsonreuters #Bigdata #Artificialintelligence #GenAI #LLM #ChatGPT #Automation #Aiskill #Talent #Fintech #Finserv #Regulation #RegTech @Damien_CABADI @mikeflache @bamitav @Nicochan33 @DG_Collective thomsonreuters.com/en/reports/202…

@rachkmc @StormhunterTWN Yes - I was out for a walk in midtown. It was wild!

Unfortunately, many workplaces promote manipulators. Here’s how you can deal when you have to work together. s.hbr.org/39657te

In cultures where people are terminally nice, no one questions leaders — which can be the death of the business. Former Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst shares pragmatic advice on building a culture of open debate. mitsmr.com/3Z2SIjL

In cultures where people are terminally nice, no one questions leaders — which can be the death of the business. Former Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst shares pragmatic advice on building a culture of open debate. mitsmr.com/3Z2SIjL

The second Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy report of 2024 looks at how organizations that combine organizational learning and AI learning are better prepared to manage uncertainty. @BCG Download the full report: mitsmr.com/4fno3Dp

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

"For organizations to succeed, they must invest in developing a workforce capable of integrating AI into daily operations." s.hbr.org/4hKUTja

The most competitively innovative companies have a tolerance for failure. But they don’t have a tolerance for incompetence. s.hbr.org/39cNnwl

Maintaining positive relationships with your own employees is a good thing, but over the long run your priority is to deliver results. Are you under-managing? s.hbr.org/3pcTAy6

It’s in an organization’s interest to establish (and train employees on) a process for having constructive dialogue. > mitsmr.com/3Y4TxIw