Change Management

If you live in the Mid-Atlantic region and don't know what PJM Interconnection is, pay attention. PJM was founded 99 years ago to manage the distribution of electricity over Pennsylania (P), New Jersey (J), and Maryland (M). Since then, the nonprofit company has expanded to include Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Washington DC, half of Kentucky, and significant parts of Michigan, Indiana, North Carolina, and Illinois (including Chicago). It is the largest single power grid in the United States. Headquartered in Valley Forge, PA, PJM provides electricity to 67 million Americans. PJM coordinates the movement of electricity between all the different power companies within its service area, such as PECO in Philly, Delmarva Power in Delaware, and all the other power companies listed in the graph. PJM operates as a traffic cop for electricity generators, making sure that power plants (gas, coal, nuclear, etc.) operating in its service area are distributing electricity as needed across the entire grid so that no area goes without necessary power. Think of what air traffic controllers do at airports, guiding the planes in and out, making sure there is order and no mistakes, 24 hours a day. PJM does that with electricity. The problem is the rapid proliferation of AI data centers, particularly in Northern Virginia and Maryland (around DC) which is the most concentrated collection of data centers in the USA. These data centers just plug into the PJM grid and started sucking up power to the point that PJM is running nearly all the time at max capacity. If you live here and haven't felt the impact of electricity price increases, you will soon. Many power companies have price caps in place, but that won't last. In capacity auctions, where power resources commit to be available in years ahead, prices have gone parabolic; from $2.2B to $14B (a 536% increase), largely due to forecasted load growth from data centers. It's a challenge to generate a political solution with governors of both parties in the service area. Plus, the Trump Administration is now getting involved. The Energy Secretary and Interior Secretary hosted 13 state governors involved at the White House 1/16 where there was an agreement on 2 key principles: 1- Emergency Power Auction - the idea is to compel data centers to participate in financing new power plants by buying 15 years of power in advance. Data centers would bid for these contracts, hence the auction. 2- Price Caps - to shield the 67 million Americans from exponentially higher electric bills, it is proposed to cap electricity bills for 1-2 years. It is unclear who will absorb the risk and cost to make this happen. In many states price caps are already protecting Americans. If a solution can't be reached soon, it is increasingly likely that rolling blackouts will happen across the service area during high-load periods (extreme heat or extreme cold). Be prepared. #riskmanagement #interestrates #fedpolicy

As amazing as LLMs are, improving their knowledge today involves a more piecemeal process than is widely appreciated. I’ve written before about how AI is amazing... but not that amazing. Well, it is also true that LLMs are general... but not that general. We shouldn’t buy into the inaccurate hype that LLMs are a path to AGI in just a few years, but we also shouldn’t buy into the opposite, also inaccurate hype that they are only demoware. Instead, I find it helpful to have a more precise understanding of the current path to building more intelligent  models. First, LLMs are indeed a more general form of intelligence than earlier generations of technology. This is why a single LLM can be applied to a wide range of tasks. The first wave of LLM technology accomplished this by training on the public web, which contains a lot of information about a wide range of topics. This made their knowledge far more general than earlier algorithms that were trained to carry out a single task such as predicting housing prices or playing a single game like chess or Go. However, they’re far less general than human abilities. For instance, after pretraining on the entire content of the public web, an LLM still struggles to adapt to write in certain styles that many editors would be able to, or use simple websites reliably. After leveraging pretty much all the open information on the web, progress got harder. Today, if a frontier lab wants an LLM to do well on a specific task — such as code using a specific programming language, or say sensible things about a specific niche in, say, healthcare or finance — researchers might go through a laborious process of finding or generating lots of data for that domain and then preparing that data (cleaning low-quality text, deduplicating, paraphrasing, etc.) to create data to give an LLM that knowledge. Or, to get a model to perform certain tasks, such as use a web browser, developers might go through an even more laborious process of creating many RL gyms (simulated environments) to let an algorithm repeatedly practice a narrow set of tasks. A typical human, despite having seen vastly less text or practiced far less in computer-use training environments than today's  frontier models, nonetheless can generalize to a far wider range of tasks than a frontier model. Humans might do this by taking advantage of continuous learning from feedback, or by having superior representations of non-text input (the way LLMs tokenize images still seems like a hack to me), and many other mechanisms that we do not yet understand. [Truncated for length; full text: https://lnkd.in/gQUHwrFu ]

Stuck in an endless loop of client changes? Lost track of what revision this constitutes? Yeah. Been there. Done that. The secret? It's not about saying no. It's about saying yes to the right things upfront. Every project that goes sideways starts the same way: Vague agreements. Fuzzy boundaries. Good intentions. Six weeks later you're bleeding money and everyone's frustrated. Here's my framework after 30 years of running two 8-figure businesses: The SOW is your salvation. Not some boilerplate template. A real document that covers: • Exact deliverables (not "design work" but "3 homepage concepts, 2 rounds of revisions") • Hours of operation ("We respond M-F, 9-5 PST. Weekend requests get Monday responses") • Revision rounds spelled out ("Round 1 includes up to 5 changes. Round 2 includes 3.") • Feedback cycles defined ("48-hour turnaround for client feedback or the project may be delayed or additional fees may be incurred") But here's what most people miss— Don't work on client notes immediately. Client sends 37 pieces of feedback at 11pm Friday? Producer sends conflicting notes from the CEO? Marketing wants one thing, sales wants another? Stop. Collect everything first. Resolve the conflicts. Get on the phone and discuss it with your client to get alignment. Separate the "have to haves" from the "nice to haves". Then present unified changes. "Based on all feedback received, here are the 8 changes we'll implement. This constitutes revision round 2 of 3." Watch how fast the random requests stop. No extra work that goes unappreciated. No more feelings of being taken advantage of. Communicate before the crisis, prevents the crisis from happening. "Just so you know, we're entering round 2. You have one more included. After that, it's $X per additional round." No surprises. No awkward money conversations. No resentment. Scope creep isn't a them problem. It's a you problem. And that's good news, because that means you are in control. They're not trying to take advantage. They just don't know where the boundaries are because you never drew them. Draw the lines early. Communicate them clearly. Everyone wins. What's your most painful scope creep story? What boundary would've prevented it? Small Business Builders #projectmanagement #clientmanagement #businessgrowth

I was shadowing a coaching client in her leadership meeting when I watched this brilliant woman apologize six times in 30 minutes. 1. “Sorry, this might be off-topic, but..." 2. “I'm could be wrong, but what if we..." 3. “Sorry again, I know we're running short on time..." 4. “I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but..." 5. “This is just my opinion, but..." 6. “Sorry if I'm being too pushy..." Her ideas? They were game-changing. Every single one. Here's what I've learned after decades of coaching women leaders: Women are masterful at reading the room and keeping everyone comfortable. It's a superpower. But when we consistently prioritize others' comfort over our own voice, we rob ourselves, and our teams, of our full contribution. The alternative isn't to become aggressive or dismissive. It's to practice “gracious assertion": • Replace "Sorry to interrupt" with "I'd like to add to that" • Replace "This might be stupid, but..." with "Here's another perspective" • Replace "I hope this makes sense" with "Let me know what questions you have" • Replace "I don't want to step on toes" with "I have a different approach" • Replace "This is just my opinion" with "Based on my experience" • Replace "Sorry if I'm being pushy" with "I feel strongly about this because" But how do you know if you're hitting the right note? Ask yourself these three questions: • Am I stating my needs clearly while respecting others' perspectives? (Assertive) • Am I dismissing others' input or bulldozing through objections? (Aggressive) • Am I hinting at what I want instead of directly asking for it? (Passive-aggressive) You can be considerate AND confident. You can make space for others AND take up space yourself. Your comfort matters too. Your voice matters too. Your ideas matter too. And most importantly, YOU matter. @she.shines.inc #Womenleaders #Confidence #selfadvocacy

This is the HR challenge that keeps me awake at night. We ask HR to change the engine. Then we don’t give them the keys. That's exactly what we're doing to HR leaders across every industry, every day. Last month, I sat across from a brilliant CHRO who looked defeated. She'd just been handed her third "culture transformation" mandate this year. The brief was crystal clear: Fix engagement, reduce turnover and build a high-performance culture but… Her budget? Unchanged.  Her authority? Non-existent.  Her seat at strategic decisions? Still fighting for it. "They want me to drive change," she said, "but I can't even change the coffee brand without three approvals." Four decades in this industry, and this conversation haunts me more than any other. We've created a fundamental paradox that's destroying HR effectiveness across organisations. Leadership expects HR to: + Transform toxic cultures overnight + Attract top talent in impossible markets + Drive engagement without addressing root causes But denies them: - Decision-making authority - Strategic budget allocation - Real influence over business direction It's like asking someone to architect a building while handing them only a paintbrush. The result? HR professionals burning out faster than the talent they're trying to retain. Organisations wondering why their "people initiatives" keep failing. Executives frustrated that their "people investment" isn't paying off. And the worst part? We blame HR for it. I’ve mentored some of the brightest HR minds in this country…sharp, driven, deeply committed to impact. But they often carry this quiet frustration: “We’re asked to deliver change, but not empowered to lead it.” This isn’t just unfair. It’s ineffective. We're wasting brilliant minds on impossible missions. The CHROs I know aren't just order-takers. They're strategic thinkers who understand that people performance drives business performance. They see connections between culture and revenue that most leaders miss. But we've reduced them to administrative executors of someone else's vision. The companies getting this right have figured out something fundamental: HR isn't a support function that implements people policies. It's a strategic driver that shapes business outcomes. So, to every founder, CXO, and board member reading this: If you want your people strategy to succeed, stop asking HR to drive change from the passenger seat. Give them the steering wheel, or accept that you'll keep going in circles. Because the future of your culture depends on it. #leadership #hrchallenges #hrstruggles

70% of change initiatives fail. (And it's rarely because the idea was bad.) Here's what actually kills transformation: You picked the wrong change model for the job. It's like performing surgery with a hammer. Sure, you're using a tool. But it's the wrong one. I've watched brilliant CEOs tank their companies this way: Using individual coaching (ADKAR) for company-wide transformation. Result: 200 people change. 2,000 don't. Running a massive 8-step program for a simple process fix. Result: 6 months wasted. Team exhausted. Nothing changes. Forcing top-down mandates when they needed subtle nudges. Result: Rebellion. Resentment. Resignation letters. Here's what nobody tells you about change: The size of your change determines your approach. Real examples from the field: 💡 Startup pivoting product: → Used Lewin's 3-stage (unfreeze old way, change, refreeze) → 3 months. Clean transition. Team aligned. 💡 Enterprise going digital: → Used Kotter's 8-step process → Created urgency first. Built coalition. Enabled action. → 18 months later: $50M in new revenue. 💡 Sales team adopting new CRM: → Used Nudge Theory → Made old system harder to access → Put new system as browser homepage → 95% adoption in 2 weeks. Zero complaints. The expensive truth: Wrong model = wasted months + burned budgets + broken trust Right model = faster adoption + sustained results + energized teams Warning signs you're using the wrong model: • High activity, low progress • People comply but don't commit • Changes revert within weeks • Energy drops as you push harder • "This too shall pass" becomes the motto Match your medicine to your ailment: Small behavior change? Nudge it. Individual performance? ADKAR it. Cultural shift? Influence it. Full transformation? Kotter it. Enterprise overhaul? BCG it. Stop treating every change like a nail. Start choosing the right tool for the job. Your next change initiative depends on it. Your team's trust demands it. Your company's future requires it. Save this. Share it with your leadership team. Because the next time someone says "people resist change," you'll know the truth: People don't resist change. They resist the wrong approach to change. P.S. Want a PDF of my Change Management cheat sheet? Get it free: https://lnkd.in/dv7biXUs ♻️ Repost to help a leader in your network. Follow Eric Partaker for more operational insights. — 📢 Want to lead like a world-class CEO? Join my FREE TRAINING: "The 8 Qualities That Separate World-Class CEOs From Everyone Else" Thu Jul 3rd, 12 noon Eastern / 5pm UK time https://lnkd.in/dy-6w_rx 📌 The CEO Accelerator starts July 23rd. 20+ Founders & CEOs have already enrolled. Learn more and apply: https://lnkd.in/dwndXMAk

The ‘So What?’ Rule How to Make Senior Leaders Listen You have less than 3 minutes to make an impression. That’s how long senior executives take to decide whether to engage with you or move on. If your message isn’t clear, concise, and compelling, you’re forgettable. Here’s how to command attention in high-stakes conversations with senior leaders: 1. Start with the End in Mind ↳ Before you speak, define the exact outcome you want. ↳ This keeps you focused, prevents detours. 2. First 30 Seconds: Get to the Point ↳ Don’t bury your message - start with the ‘so what?’ ↳ Lead with the key insight or ask, then expand. 3. Structure Your Message Using the 3C Framework ↳ Clear, Concise, Compelling - cut unnecessary details. ↳ Use bullet points, data, short narratives. 4. Frame It from Their Perspective ↳ Senior leaders value impact, risk, and RO - focus there. ↳ Speak their language - align with their priorities. 5. Energy > Words ↳ Confidence isn’t just what you say - it’s how you say it. ↳ Pace yourself, lower your pitch slightly. 6. Anticipate and Address Pushback ↳ Think ahead - what objections might they raise? ↳ Have clear, direct responses ready for challenges. 7. Don’t Over-Explain ↳ After making a key point, pause. ↳ Choose that over nervous rambling. 8. Stories & Data > Opinions ↳ Senior leaders trust evidence - not personal opinions. ↳ Use metrics, industry insights, real-world examples. 9. Handle Pressure Tactically ↳ Need time to think? Avoid filler words. ↳ Instead, say: "That’s a great question - here’s how I’d approach it…" 10. Lead with Solutions ↳ Senior leaders value problem-solvers, not complainers. ↳ Pair every issue you raise with solutions or trade-offs. 11. Close with a CTA ↳ End with clear next steps or a call-to-action. ↳ Avoid vague endings - be specific on what's next. The clearer you are, the faster they trust you. You already have the expertise, now make it impossible to ignore. What’s one thing everyone should do before speaking to executives? Let me know in the comments. ♻ Repost to help your network master executive communication. ➕ Follow me (Meera Remani) for high-impact leadership strategies

A cheat code to unlock professional growth in 2024. The 4 Types of Professional Time: There are 4 types of professional time: 1. Management: Meetings, calls, emails, etc. 2. Creation: Writing, coding, building, preparing. 3. Consumption: Reading, listening, studying. 4. Ideation: Brainstorming, journaling, reflecting. To make improvements to your balance of time, first assess your starting point: Starting on a Monday, at the end of each weekday, color code the events from that day according to this key: • Red: Management • Green: Creation • Blue: Consumption • Yellow: Ideation At the end of the week, look at the overall mix of colors on the calendar. The image in this post is an illustrative example of how it might look. This simple exercise should give you a clear picture of your current baseline mix of professional time. With your baseline mix in mind, here are three tips for a more optimal balance: 1. Batch Management Time Create discrete blocks of time each day when you will handle major Management Time activities. 1-3 email processing blocks per day. 1-3 call and meeting blocks per day. The goal here is to avoid a schedule where the red bleeds out everywhere across every single day. We are trying to keep the Management Time windows as discrete as possible to create space for the other types of time. 2. Increase Creation Time Creation is what propels us forward, with more interesting projects and opportunities. We all need more Creation Time in our days. As you batch Management Time, carve out distinct windows for Creation Time. Block them on your calendar. Don't check your email or messages during them. Focus on creation during your Creation Time. 3. Create Space for Consumption & Ideation Time Consumption and Ideation are the forgotten types of time because we rarely create space for them, but they are critical to long-term, compounding progress. History's most successful people have all made a practice out of creating space for reading, listening, learning, and thinking. We can draw a lesson from this. To start, schedule one short block per week for Consumption and one short block per week for Ideation. Stay true to the purpose of the block. Own that before increasing the presence of these types of time in your schedule. With these three tips in mind, you're well on your way to building a more optimal balance across the four types of professional time. *** You can join 650,000+ others who receive these actionable insights in my 2x weekly newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/esGsF85Q Enjoy this? Share the post with your network and follow me Sahil Bloom for more in future!

Introducing the Music Tech Ownership Ouroboros, 2025 edition ✨ The music-tech sector has come of age. What started as a relatively niche investment thesis five years ago has matured into a powerhouse market segment, drawing tens of billions in capital since 2020. For five years, we at Water & Music have been mapping these shifting power dynamics through our “Music Tech Ownership Ouroboros” — a living document that traces the complex web of investments, ownership stakes, and strategic acquisitions shaping music and tech. Our latest update adds over 30 new relationships to the map, primarily from growth investments and M&A deals in 2024. The takeaway: Private equity firms and major labels are locked in a battle for control over independent music infrastructure. As indie market share keeps climbing, owning the tech backbone is becoming as valuable as owning the actual rights. Highlights from 2024 include: - Hellman & Friedman's majority stake in Global Music Rights — making GMR the third PRO owned by a private equity firm - Virgin Music Group's acquisitions of Downtown Music ($775M), [PIAS], and Outdustry - Flexpoint Ford's growth investments in Create Music Group ($165M) and Duetti ($34M) - KKR's acquisition of Superstruct Entertainment ($1.4B) and debt financing in HarbourView Equity Partners ($500M) - EQT Group and TCV's co-ownership of Believe (alongside CEO Denis Ladegaillerie), as part of taking Believe private - Vinyl Group's acquisitions of Serenade, Mediaweek Australia, Funkified Events, and Concrete Playground Link to the full interactive chart with sources is in the comments. Would love to hear what you think, and if any of these deals feel particularly standout or surprising to you! #musicbusiness #musicindustry #musictech #privateequity #musicinvestment #musicrights

Most changes fail, especially if they are complex. But why? The Lippitt-Knoster model explains exactly why you don’t get what you want. Making changes is notoriously difficult, especially if they are substantial and complex. In response, there are many change management approaches and step-by-step instructions for managing change. But, to manage change, it is essential to first understand it. Once we know the key ingredients of a successful change, we know what it takes to make it. Even more importantly, once we know these ingredients, we also know WHY a change fails, so that we can do something about it. According to the Lippitt-Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change, a complete change effort requires the following six ingredients: 👉 Vision: sets the direction and explains why the change is needed 👉 Consensus: creates alignment and commitment for the change 👉 Skills: outlines the skills and expertise needed to realize the change 👉 Incentives: creates the motivation and drive to make the change 👉 Resources: enables the change with the needed time, money and tools 👉Action Plan: clarifies the roadmap and steps for realizing the change All six are needed. Consensus was added later by Knoster and it’s not so clear if both originators agree. Yet, I find it essential for any change to be successful, so you need all six. If you miss one you don’t get the change you want. ❌ Miss Vision and you get Confusion ❌ Miss Consensus and you get Sabotage ❌ Miss Skills and you get Anxiety ❌ Miss Incentives and you get Resistance ❌ Miss Resources and you get Frustration ❌ Miss Action Plan and you get False Starts So, here is what it takes to make a successful (complex) change: Step 1: Vision. Create and share a clear vision of the change and why it is needed. What will the new situation look like? Step 2: Consensus. Engage people across the organization to gather input and align their viewpoints in line with the vision. Step 3: Skills. Identify which skills are needed, provide the necessary training, upskill or attract people with the right skills. Step 4: Incentives. Understand what motivates people and create the right mechanisms for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Step 5: Resources. Reserve enough time and money for making the change and obtain the necessary tools, technologies and other resources. Step 6: Action Plan. Develop a high-level roadmap and detailed action plan that outlines the priorities, order and steps for making the change. === Want to create true and lasting change? Then the Certified Strategy and Implementation Consultant (CSIC) program may be something for you. For more information and registration for the September 2024 cohort of this exciting program, and booking a call with our enrollment advisor, visit our website strategy.inc.