Why Change Efforts Still Fail

David 0:02

If most leaders think they're good at managing change, why do so many change efforts still fail? We'll find out on this episode of Shift Shapers Change.

Announcer 0:12

Either energizes or paralyzes. The choice is yours. This is the Shift Shapers Podcast, bringing the employee benefits industry interviews with individuals and companies who are shaping the industry's shift. And now, here's your host, David Faltzman.

David 0:29

And to help us understand all of this complexity, we've invited Leslie Ellis. Leslie is founder of Meaningful Change Consulting. She works with organizations to increase the probability of success when there are complex change initiatives, but we wouldn't know anything about that gang, especially where the stakes are high. And the path forward is anything but straightforward. Welcome, Leslie. Thanks for being here.

SPEAKER_02 0:51

Well, thank you so much, David. I'm thrilled to be here.

David 0:53

So let's start at the very top. Your work centers on raising the probability of success in complex change. But most leaders believe they already know how to change. So what are they missing?

SPEAKER_02 1:05

It's a wonderful question. And I run into it all of the time, right? So when we think about what we know as traditional change management as a profession today, is really starting to become more and more down the line of like a project plan, dressed up in kind of, you know, think about it like workshop language. We're very focused, a lot of times, not always. There are some really great consultants and change leaders out there, but a lot of times it's focused on communication rollouts. Let's do some stakeholder map templates, let's put a training plan and, you know, a calendar together. All of that is very logistic or activity driven. It's not really focused on leadership of the change, right? The work that actually raises the probability of success is making the real trade-offs visible of what the change means, building shared clarity in the organization and developing practical capability to actually change, not running a templated playbook.

Activity Versus Real Progress

SPEAKER_02 2:03

So most failure modes in a complex change are very, very predictable. They're avoidable, but only if the leaders over that change effort or that initiative stop confusing activity with progress. So the hard part isn't telling people about the change, it's actually helping them carry the weight of it and be successful and seeing it through. And that's the role where change leadership really comes into ensuring that organizations are successful with what they're trying to do.

David 2:30

What's generally the first clue that leadership self-assessment may be overly optimistic? What do you need to look for?

SPEAKER_02 2:37

Yeah. So they usually are focused heavily on timeline, right? And we we have to do this by August 1st, right? Okay. And usually I have a little bit of my eyebrows go up. Well, why August 1st, right? So they're very timeline driven. They are very um monetarily driven. And they're like, well, we have all these plans and we're we're seeing the plans through, but something's still not right. So those tend to be some of the immediate keys. And then of course there's the leader coming panicking and saying, My gut is telling me that something's off or that we're not going to get what we need in time, even though all of the boards show green, right? All the dashboards show we're green, we're on track. It's because they're measuring that activity, not measuring actual progress and movement and making traction where they need to, which is on the leadership side, building ability and alignment, depending on what the need is for that particular situation.

Ability Or Alignment Which Is It

David 3:31

Well, let's let's delve into that a little bit. I know you always make a distinction between ability and alignment. Why is that the first thing that you assess when you walk into an organization?

SPEAKER_02 3:40

Yeah, I really do draw a very distinct line because they're two separate problems, but they're a lot of times conflated if they're even talked about at all. So ability in change efforts is the capacity to execute. So the all the things, the speed, quality, consistency, do we have the right skill sets, the right tools, the right processes, the right bandwidth, which is a lot of times ignored, especially as change efforts increase in organizations in chaos and in and speed and pace. Alignment is about shared clarity and commitment to a direction where people are actually taking action towards it. And it's coherence across levels and functions, not just between you and me, David, but then those above us are in alignment. Those to us are in alignment coming from the top, our teams are in alignment, we're in alignment with other peers, right? It's a very multi-directional effort. So if you throw training at an alignment problem, you're wasting money and you're probably gonna burn some trust, right? Because people kind of know intuitively that that's not what was needed, but they're like, okay, fine, I'll do it, you know. But if you throw alignment at workshops as an ability gap, you're gonna stall execution if alignment isn't the issue. So the first move is always diagnostically asking which one is the real constraint? And of course, it can be both, and then they have to be tackled in that way. But naming this distinction is often, I find a relief to leaders once I help them understand this difference because they usually think, oh my God, this is impossible. How am I going to solve this problem? But really, they're both very solvable, but either conflated or not even addressed in their change efforts.

David 5:20

So senior teams don't typically know they're misaligned?

SPEAKER_02 5:24

No, they don't generally know. Or I would say they are seeking agreement with each other, consensus building or seeking to get people to agree with them versus aligning. And alignment is not agreement. You can move forward faster if you can make sure everybody is has a shared level of clarity and commitment to the direction. They don't have to agree with you. So a lot of times leadership spends a ton of time focused on trying to get agreement from everybody. Good luck. Especially if you've got, let's say, 12 leaders, you're trying to get them all to agree with you. We're gonna be here a while, right? But can we find a layer where we can align and get everybody moving in the same direction is a different approach and a way more successful one because you're not trying to change the inherent underlying agreement within an individual, right? When they may feel like they don't agree, but can you get them aligned and can you get them making the behavior changes in alignment with that for the bigger win, the greater good of the change effort and the organization? They don't personally have to agree with it.

David 6:28

Well,

Using Strategic Tension Productively

David 6:29

but a lot of leaders, and you and I know bunches of them, interpret tension or disagreement or discomfort as evidence that change is failing. But you see that a little bit differently. What's the right way to think about friction during change?

SPEAKER_02 6:42

Yeah, uh, I love that. So I view it um as a tension, right? Friction is a type of tension. Tension is is not an enemy of change. In fact, I actually think it's like uh like raw material of it, right? Of a change effort that's happening. I call product um productive friction between where we are and where we're going. I actually have a term for it. I call it strategic tension. And you you can't have real movement without strategic tension, personally or professionally. There has to be some type of strategic tension between where you want to go and where you're currently at in order to make the change happen. Most leaders, they spend their time, David, trying to eliminate friction and tension. It's uncomfortable, right? It doesn't feel good to live in that space even for 30 seconds. But that's actually the mistake. If we can look at it instead with curiosity and ask questions, we actually can leverage that tension to produce commitment, not just compliance. Because if we shut down tension too quickly, or friction, as you you call it, if we shut that down way too quickly and we don't investigate it and figure out what it's telling us about what we're trying to do so that we can solution it differently. If we jump on it too quickly and shut it down and like, nope, that's not what we're doing. We're not dealing with that, we're not going to go that route, right? It can produce compliance behaviors in change, which are not sustainable for really long term. They'll they'll help you in the short term, but they will not get you there in the long term. And then you end up in a lot of talent conversations on the back end of a change because people started resisting it on the back end. They just did it because they had to in the moment. So tension really shifts and it it ebbs and flows during life of a change effort. And that I call a tension arc within that strategic tension because early tension is usually about direction, right? We're trying to get alignment on what direction we're all heading and clarity around it. The middle friction or tension is about trade-offs and both personal and organizational or team identity, right? So think about how a change tends to work. First, it's are we all going in the same direction? The middle is about what are our trade-offs? What am I going to have to give up of a lower nature in order to have this change effort work? What the identity shifts have to happen, mindset and behavior. And then late tension in a change effort tends to be what are we keeping and what are we integrating into the organization?

David 9:13

Healthy tension from destructive dysfunction. Because there's always some of that in every group.

SPEAKER_02 9:19

Yeah, absolutely. But that's the curiosity part, right? So if we just completely go straight to I'm gonna, I'm gonna kiosh this friction, I'm gonna kiosh the tension. I don't want it, likely because it makes the leader or leaders in the room uncomfortable. We shut it down quickly and we don't spend the time saying, Well, let's let's explore that a little bit. Tell me more about where that's coming from, tell me more about what, or even saying, hey, the room just got really awkward. What just happened? Right. What's what are we not saying? What are we not talking about that needs to be addressed based on something that was just said? Right. So I've been in rooms where all of a sudden I've been in a room fairly recently in the last couple of months with 12, 13 officers, executives, right? And they're talking about making trade-offs about their the future functional work of their organization, which does impact them as VPs and SVPs. Who's going to lead what function? You know that they know down the line that they're thinking, well, am I going to get to keep this function or not? I want certain things. I want to keep my budget. I want to expand my budget. How is resourcing going to work? If you take this from me, to what am I giving up? Right. They're starting to think these things, even while I'm keeping them in a place of think about the work that is needed for the future success of your organization first. Try to operate with an organization or enterprise first mindset. That creates tension in itself for the individual and then in the room, because as they're wrestling with it themselves, they then are, you know, real time trying to practice it. And we have to call those things out. We actually have to make it overt and okay that it is part of the change process and that we're not expecting everyone to be perfect, but we can hold each other accountable to the direction that we're trying to go. So it's it's a really interesting piece because it can take a lot of different flavors, but it happens constantly, especially in leadership conversations, but also in your team conversations. We gloss over the discomfort, the tension, the friction. Maybe we should be a bit more curious about it because a lot of times the lever, the greatest lever to shift the change towards the direction you'd ideally want it to go lives in that tension or friction. But if it is unproductive, by curiosity, the leader will surface it, they would have heard it out, and they're able to then address it if it's unproductive. But if otherwise they're making assumptions, right?

David 11:48

Absolutely.

When Everything Looked Green

David 11:49

Can you share a client story where a change effort appeared to be on track and then just nearly unraveled? What happened? What turned it around?

SPEAKER_02 11:57

Yeah, uh, it happens, it can happen fairly frequently and in the moments, David. I I mean, the the teams that work on these big transformations, digital transformations, uh, they have a lot of money and resources into these projects. Almost all of them have these moments, right? Where, oh, this is how are we ever going to do this? Right. So, for example, a digital transformation I've been supporting in the utility space, actually, they were down a path. Everything looked good on paper, everything's looking green, we're all there. But the people that were leading the work and doing all the work, they were drowning. And the executives were getting a story of everything's good, rosy, rainbows, unicorns, sunflowers, right? But they basically they had the mindset in the organization historically of we need to implement the change. And I'm using that language very intentionally, implement the change regardless, because we're on time, we're on, we're on budget, we're in scope, and everything looks green on the dashboard. The people were never going to make it. Right? They were drowning, they couldn't do their day jobs. So, what actually happened in the moment is there was a recommendation to have key leaders driving that part of the transformation go into a two-day reset workshop, strategy workshop, essentially, and talk about what was actually happening and not happening and getting really clear on the expectations. And the vice president or the chief officer in that case was also in the room for that two days to hear the conversation, participate in it, and also share her boundary and her conditions for success. What was amazing out of it is that those leaders, big shock, they weren't in alignment with the officer. The officer was not holding them to this wall of must deliver on this date. They were holding themselves to that, but they had a story that the officer was. So all of a sudden the clarity came of the whole goal is to implement this successfully and get certain results out of it, not to implement the change and do it in a way that was unhealthy that we would struggle to get our results on the back end. So it was that intervention that made the shift. So I really encourage leaders when so there's the gut-driven, the rationale, the data-driven leader, right? Depending on who you are, maybe you're a blend of all three as a senior leader, is paying attention to not just what the dashboard looks like and what timeline, scope, and budget are telling you, but what is actually happening with the people. How is all of the work getting done? How are individuals feeling, right? And not just taking it at face value from the leaders of the program team. If you're a sponsor of a project, you should be asking questions, even visiting with some of the other key players to find out what's really happening. And if you don't know, then explicit conversations about it and figure out how you can find out. And a lot of times we're called in to find out and we do brief discoveries or investigations to say, hey, let's diagnose this and see where things are really at here and what the plenary thinks is going to get in the way of this or not. A lot of times companies bring in third parties to do that because people you they believe people will share more with the individuals who don't have a stake in the grim the game. So, you know, if that's a great example, just happened in the last uh six to eight months and they ended up implementing successfully, and they are starting to see results pretty quickly out of the gate. You know, that they just had to realign and intervene with each other and come to a better level of clarity on direction so that they could get better results.

David 15:51

Are

Optics Over Adoption Traps

David 15:52

are leaders sometimes solving for optics instead of for adoption? I mean, you kind of touched on that a little bit. And and how do you overcome that as a leader?

SPEAKER_02 16:01

Yeah, so it's about what. So when you ask a senior leader, or when I ask, let me go with that. When I ask a senior leader of a change effort, a sponsor, an executive, when they come and they say, Well, we want this change effort, and one of my very first questions is essentially, how clear are you on what you want? And then why do you want it? Because the why you want it, sometimes they answer it in a this is why I want it. Sometimes they answer it in this is what the organization needs and why, right? It sometimes it's about you know surviving and thriving in the market, whatever it might be. But ultimately, no matter what, you still have senior leaders who have individual desires and wants, usually around it. We need to surface all of those to help help the leader not just focus on whatever the optics are of what they want or what the organization wants and make sure that we understand the why. Because once I understand the wants and the desires and the why behind it, one of the conversations that can be had then is so based on what we're sharing, is there any flexibility in timeline scope or therefore budget? Is there any will are there any willingness to look and do this differently? Right. Because if the leader is not willing to look at it and do it differently, which is they're on a phone call with me, they're probably somewhat already there. But, you know, if they're doing this in-house, you have to ask yourselves, are we willing to do it differently to get better results? Or are we gonna do it the way we always do it, which a lot of times is for optics, which is timeline, scope, and budget. We came in on budget, we did it in the timeline we committed to. By the way, we committed to that timeline with from a perspective of, well, we just took a, you know, a dart and threw it at the calendar and said it's gonna take a year. And the technology vendor in this case told us it would take a year for most clients. So let's just throw that dart and let's hope we can do it in that time line. And we assigned an arbitrary budget to it, usually based on the content of whatever we're implementing, not on what is needed to shepherd our people through the process and the change.

David 18:08

So once you once a question with the with the leader, and they then take it out to the team. Do they tend to over-communicate, undercommunicate, or just communicate wrong?

SPEAKER_02 18:21

Yeah, it it's it's a wonderful, wonderful question. So overcommunicate well, let's start with a well-intentioned leader, right? Well-intentioned leaders in general, more often than not, are well-intentioned in my experience. Most of them want what's best uh for everyone, but they can kill a change that they're driving forward with, right? They can over-communicate decisions and they can undercommunicate reasoning of those decisions. They can go out there and they can declare alignment. Hey, we're aligned, we're all moving in the same direction. But what they really have is compliance because they might have killed that tension and that tension arc early on and weren't as curious as they needed to be. They don't always mean to, but sometimes they punish messengers, right? Sidelining people who are raising real concerns. Sometimes your squeaky wheel that just because less, I'll pick on myself, Leslie has been a squeaky wheel in past changes and sometimes unfounded, or we decided not to hear her. But now the minute Leslie speaks up again on this really big change, everybody's just gonna sideline her because listen, we already know we've been this is just how Leslie is. She's a naysayer to everything and brings up all these questions and concerns. Well, but you sidelined me, and now other people who have similar concerns will say, Oh, well, Leslie was sidelined and she was bringing it up, so I'm not gonna bring it up. Right. Confusing speed with progress, we talked about that one, moving fast with low quality decision making, treating the change as a project. So we talked about that to just finish the check the box mentality, right? Instead of building capability as we go. And then, in my opinion, uh kind of one of the things I see well-intentioned leaders do that it's it's almost like a cardinal sin or just a major faux pas, just see it so frequently is they the leaders will lead the change as though they are already on the other side of it. Does that make sense?

David 20:20

Interesting. Yeah, it makes total sense.

SPEAKER_02 20:21

I've been they're already there. But all their people are not. And so, you know, it it starts to become that challenge for them. So, you know, if uh you know, you can't lead people through a change that you've already exited yourself.

David 20:36

Yeah, uh, you know, but the question is then I mean, I've I've been in rooms where that's happened, and I've been a leader and probably done that myself once or twice. How do you build buy-in?

SPEAKER_02 20:48

So

Building Buy In Without Rework

SPEAKER_02 20:49

that is through the entire change process and orchestrating it appropriately from the beginning. So if I go back to the concept about implementation versus going after results and outcomes, all right. A lot of times what's happening in organizations is leaders they say, okay, we're gonna do this change, all right? We're gonna restructure this half of the business, we're gonna do this, okay. And then they all go behind closed doors and some one leader restructures it, comes with an idea, says, This is what I think it could look like, and here's why, and here's why. And then somebody says, Great, go do it. Happens all the time in in different types of changes, right? In organizations. But if we orchestrate a change process more effectively, then we aren't just about getting the implementation in, which is that scenario of go do it, put it in, make it happen. Instead, say, well, if we're going to do this in a really way because we need the buy in and we need folks to not jump ship, and we don't want a bunch of external PR chaos because it gets leaked out to the local newspapers or even the global or international newspaper. That we're doing this restructure and now it's blown up into layoff conversation, all the things that we actually had no intent to do, but now it's out there and everybody's scared, right? We would actually orchestrate a change process up front that was more thoughtful about how do we get people to feel like they are part of a conversation in the places that we can engage them? How can who can we bring into this conversation a little earlier to help us shape the results and get additional feedback? So it's not just one leader or just two or three leaders designing it. How do we then keep them engaged throughout the process so that they can see their DNA or their thumbprint in it? And the ability to then say to their peers, well, so and so and so and so and so and so did get to weigh in on this. Now we're bringing it to you so that you can ask your questions and you can help us see anything that we haven't seen to date. So a really thoughtful process. Here's one of the things I get a lot from leaders when I talk to them about a thoughtful change process, an intentional change process to get their results. They say, Yeah, but they gave me a timeline to put it in for August 1st. We don't have that kind of time. And I said, Well, that's where the conversation comes back in. Are you willing to move that time in order to get better results faster on the back end? Because if not, you're just going to do a second project after you implement on August 1st, trying to fix all the things that you didn't address. It's a significantly different conversation, David, because leaders in general don't want to spend all that time doing rework. They have five more changes on the back end of this one already set somewhere that they're already talking about. They can't afford to allocate additional budget to redoing the project one or two more times. I think there's a, I forget who did this statistic. It's one of the big, the big uh research houses, but did it might have been actually pro-sci, but uh digital transformations in particular proven to that companies are spending almost 2x on most digital transformations on the back end of them, of the cost of the original cost of the project. So if you have a $10 million digital transformation project, some have $30 and $40 million projects out there. You can pretty much guarantee that if you don't do the change process well up front, that you will at least one time, if not twice, spend that same amount of money on the back end to try to get it where you actually wanted it, delivering those results. Wouldn't you rather spend that money up front and do it one time?

David 24:30

Is I mean, I once heard somebody tell me that people like change. They just don't like to be changed. Is is would that be accurate?

SPEAKER_02 24:39

It can be. Uh, that's an individual mindset approach, right? Uh, you are always gonna have a 10 to 13% if we're operating on the general bell curve. You're always gonna have 10 to 13% of laggards who are are never going to come on board with the change because they they refuse. They just do not want to be changed. And it's my prerogative to say no, right? Well, a lot of times they either get on board compliance-wise or they turn around and they jump ship and go somewhere else, anyways, until the next change hits them. Right. The others, though, as they start to see the benefit either for themselves personally, or if they are minded towards the bigger win, they they come along after the early adopters do. So, one of the things I work a lot with clients more and more recently, I'm a certified reinvention practitioner. Reinvention is not innovation. Innovation is creating something new from scratch, right? But generally definition, traditional definition of it. Reinvention is taking things that we already have and improving or remaking them or re-ideating them in order to create something that is marketable, um, new for the industry, that will shift the game so that companies can continue to take their core competencies and survive and thrive in the organization. Reinvention itself is a mindset of individual and of a company, company culture being collective mindset. It's also a tool set. And then with practice, it becomes a skill set and it's a way of building adaptability and resilience in organizations. It's becoming more and more critical because it helps with that mentality of I don't like to be changed. It's again a high engagement approach, but can be done very quickly and agilely as folks build up their skill set. So, but and it keeps organizations ahead of the marketplace as opposed to reactive to the marketplace. So, to your same question about being changed as opposed to opting into change, right? If we help build capability to do that, then they feel less like they are being changed and more engaged in being part of the change. And it's back to your buy-in question.

David 26:48

So if,

Monday Morning Questions And What’s Next

David 26:49

you know, most of our audiences, as we discussed offline, are our benefits leaders or brokers, they're either sole practitioners or they're leading organizations. If they want to improve the odds of success on a change initiative, whether it's internally or with one of their clients, what should they do first thing on Monday morning?

SPEAKER_02 27:08

That is such a great question. Okay, so I would tell you pick a change that you're responsible for right now. All of you, I have no doubt everybody on this question on this call listening in uh has at least one change that you're working on or you're responsible for. I want you to ask yourself three questions. Am I clear on the direction of this change, like 100%? Or am I just taking actions? Who is genuine the second question? Who is genuinely aligned with this change? Who's compliant? Who do I think is just complying, just doing the motions, and who actually is quietly or not quietly opposed to it? Don't conflate those three. They are different. And there may be there's usually a different approach to each one of those. And then your last question I'd leave you with is where is your real constraint? If you're experiencing any type of tension, is the constraint in ability or is the constraint in alignment? And they'll have to re-listen to your call here, David, if they want to go back to the definition of ability and alignment. Start the work where the answer surprises you the most. So this is a real candid conversation with yourself about a change you're actually responsible for, and then decide to take an action based on where the answer is that surprises you the most. Go have one conversation with someone about the work, whether they are aligned, ask them why they're aligned, find out why. Who do you think's being compliant? Have a conversation with them about what would help them be even more aligned. Check your assumption, are they compliant or aligned? And who's quietly opposed? Go have a conversation with them about it. Be interesting to know why they're so opposed and hear them out. You may even gain a supporter, even if they don't agree with you. They can become aligned even if they don't agree.

David 29:01

Well, that gets to leadership itself. I mean, I know that you also do some executive coaching. What internal shift has to happen for a leader to truly lead change rather than simply managing the tasks around it, as we've seen so many leaders try to do?

SPEAKER_02 29:16

These are some of my favorite questions. So there's a shift from managing change as something that's happening to your people, being changed, to actually leading the change and leading people through it. And it's happening with you or with them, or even through you as a leader, right? I think leaders underestimate their role modeling responsibility. If you, and real quick, I'll just give an anecdote to this. If you're one of those leaders who you want a really close relationship with your team members, there are a lot of leaders out there, they're fabulous team leaders or department leaders, but they have a desire to belong and therefore they want to be friends with the people that work to them, work with them. No problem with you being friends with them. That does not mean, though, that you should ever forget that you're a role model of change for them. And if you go to them and you a new change is coming out, and they get you in a room one-on-one or two-on-one or whatever, and they're like, So what do you think about this change, David? And you don't really agree with it, but you know you got to tout the company line, but these are your friends and you want to continue to belong. You should tow the role modeling line. You know what? Whether I agree or not, this is seems like it's the best or right thing for the organization, the company, the department, the team, whatever it might be. Um, so I'm behind it because I, you know, I think we'll find out a few things uh along the way, but I think that this will be the direction that will get us to the next level of whatever. Toe the line, be a role model to them, regardless. So I see that happen quite frequently, and I end up coaching a lot of leaders in that difference. Also, oh, I said one more. Can I add another one to that? Because I'm gonna another thing I see leaders do a lot and change that if I can impact one person listening to this call, do your best to let go of being right. Be willing to be wrong in order to get to the right solution. Be interested in being an effective leader, getting results more than letting go of being right.

David 31:20

That's important. And a lot of leaders find that really hard to do. But nobody's the absolute authority on everything. And if you put yourself in that corner, it's hard to paint your way out of it. We always like to end our interviews by kind of looking forward. So looking forward ahead a few years, will technology accelerate the need for better change leadership?

SPEAKER_02 31:42

Yes, 100%. I'm already seeing it. Actually, I'm in a conversation with a uh with a technology company uh that is global, becoming a change partner with them, my company. One of the things that they actually even brought up was AI. Artificial intelligence is changing the work faster than the workforce is changing. And one of the questions was can you help us build agentic AI around change management? Okay. Huge question of the future, right there, right? Well, and I'll be fully transparent. I haven't yet. I actually proposed to them I'd pilot it with them if they were open to it. But the reality is that change management agentic AI will never be able to fully replace the change leadership requirements of human leaders leading humans through change, never be able to shift that. So amazing, amazing question there. What else on technology? And to your point, it it's a core competency that I think companies haven't fully bought into yet, change leadership. They're gonna have no choice at some point if they want to remain highly relevant and thriving in their organizations and reinventing themselves. So going into change leadership is a level of personal leadership reinvention as well as an organization's culture on how they lead change. So it shifts on both sides, which is why the personal executive coaching, as well as how we manage, lead, design the change process all become critical components of it. Hopefully that answered your question, David.

David 33:09

It did. It was great. Leslie, if listeners want to learn more about your work, where should they find you?

SPEAKER_02 33:14

So a lot of times folks call me, uh, find me at meaningfulchangeconsulting.com, and there's a contact us uh on there. You can send me if you're listening, you can send me a personal email. It's easy. Leslie at meaningfulchangeconsulting.com. Let me know that you listen to the podcast so I I know where we're starting from. And LinkedIn, you can find me at Leslie A. Ellis on LinkedIn and of course through my company page there. A lot of folks uh want to connect on LinkedIn first, which is totally fine by me.

David 33:40

Leslie Ellis, founder of Meaningful Change Consulting. Leslie, thanks for a fascinating conversation.

SPEAKER_02 33:46

Happy to be here, David. Thank you.

Announcer 33:48

The Chip Shapers Podcast is a production of Chip Chaper Strategy and may not be reproduced or quoted in whole or in part without our express written permission. Copyright 2020, all rights reserved.