Change the People

Here's a great post “It’s The People Stupid”. I almost agree with it, but I think the writer talks around the most important point: “Change The People Stupid”.

The post says

without the right people to run it you will not get the full benefits of the technology or frameworks... You must have people who are engaged and understand ... It takes leaders to implement, guide and inspire the people doing the work

Yes you need the right people engaged and motivated, and yes good leadership is important. But I think it missses the key point. Getting the people engaged is NOT solely a matter of good leadership. There is much more to it: the best way is a planned and coordinated program of cultural change.

IT is all about dealing with constant change.

At its heart that change is change of people: changing their ABC (attitudes, behaviour, culture), changing their processes and work procedures, changing the tools they use. First change the people (and if you can't change the people then change the people).

The right people with the right approach will fix the processes and keep them fixed. They'll want to improve and find ways to improve. The right processes will identify the right tools to use for best value and impact.

It all flows from changing the people. Without effective cultural change, new processes or tools are a waste of money - you do not extract full ROI/VOI.

Of course it is not a serial sequence. You start with the people, then start on the processes, then start on technology. Start in that order, but work on changing them in parallel, and the multiple streams inform and influence each other.

I'm pursuing an interest in this area that is leading to a website devoted to this, He Tangata, and a book. All thoughts and suggestions most welcome.


It remains all about the leadership...

The leadership fires, hires, sets the agenda, and assigns the tasks. Unfortunately, leadership forgets about the feedback loop. If something is not working and someone says, "Boss, the is not working, here is a better way". The boss must be enough of a listener to make the change and enough of a leader to go to his boss and make the report. There is also the need to keep the "really smart guys" focused on the business goals. Again, leadership is required here. Too often, the leadership is interested in ensuring that they follow their leaders but fail at leading their followers. It is all about leadership!

i don't buy this leadership fad

Sorry i don't buy this leadership fad. Leaders are rare creatures. 1 in 10 CEOs is a leader, as are 1 in 10 national presidents, kings or prime ministers. The rest are managers. the world is full of managers, very very few are leaders. Expecting managers to be leaders is unrealistic and unfair. the ability to inspire others to follow is a priceless talent, not a skill to be learnt or a procedure to be demanded. (You can see I've been re-reading First Break All the Rules.)

It's all about being a good manager, which is probably what you meant anyway :)

Where did you get those numbers?

If 1 in 10 CEOs is a leader, then 90% of companies are either leaderless or leading from where? Who are the staff following if there's no leader and where is the business going?

I have no leader in my current role. I only have a manager, and a bunch of twits with twit-like roles jostling for position around the project. The one guy who should be in a position of leadership because of his strategic position at the top of the chain fires flares and chaff then dives for cloud-cover every time he encounters a situation!!! Jeez it's priceless, but sad. The whole squadron will go down in flames. I've my finger on the eject button, but I'm considering taking out everyone ahead of me before I go if they haven't the balls to step up to the plate and keep stopping me.

Hup ya boyo.

great leaders are mutants

Like all pundits I pulled those numbers out of my own analyst.

Most organisations are leaderless. they have someone running the place, often competently, but they don't have a leader. You'd march into hell for a good leader.

the bigger the organisation (e.g. the USA, Shell) the more likely one of society's small pool of leaders will be at the top of it. If an organisation rose from nowhere there is almost certainly a leader at the top of it.

Great leaders are freaks, mutants. Describing what leaders are and then telling managers to be like that is just absurd. So too is being an also-ran or aging organisation and hoping you'll attract a leader to run things. is all about the management

I missed the leadership fad you mentioned. While saying management is more accurate, it is about those who run the organizations. I guess the term "senior leadership" is sometimes used to describe these folks and I guess calling them leaders is what you question (or call a fad).


New World?

Follow my ideals or get out. Sounds like a frenzied dictator led holocaust. I'm sure it would have a lot of support from some fanatics but leave utter destruction in it's wake. If you don't fit into the current world and can change with it, then maybe you should not destroy it, but go build your own world from scratch?

It is about the People

It is the people. It always starts with finding the right people. You are only as good as the people you surround yourself with. Related blog at

recruiting is incidental

I think you miss my point. yes recruiting matters but (a) you always have a legacy staff to deal with [I don't consider that tech startups reflect the real world] (b) many of the people are out of your control, especially end users and (c) even the best people need to change with changing IT environment

So recruiting is rather incidental to what i'm on about. Successful IT change is not about recruitment - its about changing the people you have.

Hardly incidental

With the fluid labour and sourcing market I don't think recruiting can be considered incidental. I would love to believe that a cultural change program can convert everybody to new ways of thinking ans working, but the truth is it isn't like that. The challenge then becomes to either manage those people out, either individually or en mass as part of a sourcing deal, or to redesign the jobs of those who don't get the new world via to limit the damage they can do whilst leveraging the good they can do.

So sourcing & hire&fire improves the attitude towards change ???

This is exactly the kind of thinking that harms positive cultural change: Either they change or they are out. This is exactly how you create a strong oposition within your company.

James, your comment shows your lack of appreciation for people, their capabilities, experience and personality.

I guess you are probably talking about the small percentage of complete resisters who you can not be reached by a change initiative and yes, they will have to go. But there is not a single example that I know of, that replacing a large amount of staff increased the cultural quality or the morale. You will not get to a change embracing culture by threatening (even only part of) your staff.

With your approach you have to replace your staff every time you need to change, since change is the only constant in our world.

What should you do? Embrace change yourself first.

And yes, hiring is not incidental, but for different reasons. Do not focus on people that fit your current mode of operations, but look for people that fit your requirements with regard to your change culture.

ITIL in the time of recession


I think you might have slightly misrepresented my position, or more likely that I wasn't clear in what I said, so let me expand a little. Incidentally I think it would have been sufficient to say you disagreed with me rather than describing me as "lack(ing) appreciation for people, their capabilities, experience and personality." I really don't think any of the people I've worked with over the last twenty five years would describe me in those terms,

There are, unfortunately, some individuals who are never going to accept the need for change, indeed who will actively undermine any change. We seem agreed that they have to go. My personal view is that these individuals are often at the root cause of under performance in the first place, but see my response to Rob's "Heads on spikes" post for more on that. I would remove those people from the organoisation at the earliest opportunity, whether a change program was under way or not.

There are times, even more unfortunately and indeed painfully for all involved, when some individuals have to go simply because the talents they have no longer fit, or their actual response to the changing world is too slow even thought they are willing. It isn't nice, especially in a recession, and it is only sensible to provide these people with as much help as possible to find alternative work.

I hope those first two cases aren't contentious.

As to the whole sale outsourcing because an IT department is struggling to change culture - here we do stray into a difficult area and my views are not black and white.

First of all we can't hide from the fact that whether you or I think it is right or wrong it is is one of the key drivers for sourcing deals.

Certainly this has long been the case in the UK. One of the reasons UK government IT departments were an easy target of "Market Testing" back in 1992 was the desire to have a more entrpeneurial approach to the delivery of services. The threat of market testing undoubtedly acted as a burning bridge to encourage some IT departments to change, indeed the first successful major ITIL implementation was driven by the need to stave off outsourcing.

Incidentally much of my work at that time was helping (non-IT) teams across the Civil Service develop successful counter bids. Most were successful, there were some key ones which weren't that I still fume about today.

Often the cultural aspect is not explicit, but is implicit. Failing projects are often seen as the fault of the IT culture, whether fairly or not.

Do I believe it is the right decision to outsource if there is a bad cultural fit with the business? I think you have to look on a case by case basis and see how many previous attempts to change have failed, and the consequences of not taking decisive action. Times are tough here.

Let me give you another example to ponder, one which we see frequently in the UK. You've already outsourced, possibly off shore, and now you realise that your new supplier is not a good cultural fit and is unlikely to change. Is it right to look for another supplier, possibly bringing it back on shore? What about the economic impact on the staff who have been reliant on the call centre work? Is it any different from the original decision to outsource?


Manage people out ... or en masse ...

This was the sentence I jumped on. And to me this is a sentence that shows lack of respect towards people and the employers responsibility. I think many others have heard such phrases (and phrases they are) and it seldom resulted in a proper handling of the required measures.

I am not against firing people (to use the harsh word it deserves), but I always know that part of the blame does fall onto my plate. And in my personal experiance of several change initiatives, outsourcing deals etc., I have not seen a single sample of improved change culture (which is what we were looking for) after a massive "manage people out" effort. All the outsourcing deals I have been part of (never responsible for the workforces side, though, so maybe I would be just as lousy...) have failed to gain on this. They often reduced overall costs, they often resulted in better IT architecture but never in a more engaged workforce.

In response to your longer explanation:
Your statement: My personal view is that these individuals are often at the root cause of under performance in the first place (and the other comments)
Me: Agreed. I would not remove them as early as possible, since that shows lack of trying to get them "changes". I would try my utmost to move them, communicate openly (if hierachially possible) with them and as a last resort fire them.

Your post: "Hold the horrid tyrants head high":
Me: It is exptremely hard to differenciate between heros and villans, especially if many you are a few management levels away and could have a few villans in between. The way to go is to remove the villans at the top first. They do most damage (directly & indirectly). Still I find it uneffective to hold peoples heads high, because everybody will think "That could be me as well" (your proper IT hero does not know that she is a heroine).

Your statement: As to the whole sale outsourcing because an IT department is struggling to change culture - here we do stray into a difficult area and my views are not black and white.
Me: This is where we then disagree. Yes it is believed to be one of the key drivers, but it does not solve your issue effectivly. It is outsourcing a problem and we all know where that ends. I don't mind the threat, though. But in thruth it is a hollow one.

Your section: "Let me give you another example to ponder, one which we see frequently in the UK."
Me: Yes it is differnet. Not because these are people somewhere else, but because they are not my people (in my responsibility). I am working for my team, my company and it's owners, partners etc. I will not take on the responsibility of making this a perfect world. I do things to make this a better place but that can not dominate my business decisions.

Your comment "Editing": Personally I've always struggled with the mainland European (UK Newspaper headline: Fog in the Channel: Europe cut off) inability to face up to works councils whilst nat the same time lamenting we don't have anything comparable in the UK.
Me: Why face up? Work with them together. My father was CEO of the German branch of a large chemical company. He had to lay of 1/3 of his workforce. When he adressed this issue he received applause from the workforce, no strikes and good cooperation with the workers council. How many companies can continue to be a good workplace even in such situations? Another example, closer to home. My company (consultancy) had to lay of people in 2001/02 due to the IT crisis then. We did this in good cooperation with the people that had to go. Some of them still come to our christmas party, others are good customers now. We are ranked as the 4th best employer in europe (by the Great Place to Work institute), because we continue to care and work for and with our employees. This pays back, since even now we have not suffered from the current econmic crisis. We know there is still something coming, but we have not been hit.

So my basic advice: Your employees are the greatest asset your company can have. And yes there are a few that do not live up to the expectations and yes, they may have to go (no matter what level of hierarchy they are). But this is the last and final resort and is your acknowledgement of your failure. So no heads on a post. Show the 3 Rs the Bill McFarlan speaks about in "Drop the Pink Elephant". Regreat, Reason and Remedy. Regret that you could not make the cooperation work better, Reason how this situation arized and offer Remedy, support the people in finding a new and fitting position. Show your respect allways, otherwise you will loose your own respect.


P.S.: If I insulted you personally by the starting remark, I do apologize. I did mean that the sentence shows a lacking of appreciation and I did not phrase that well. I will try better next time.

P.P.S.: My longest comment ever.

A question of emphasis


First of all at some time or another I think I've argued in favour of everything you've said. It has taken a long time for my views to change - I suppose you could say for them to harden. No doubt they will change again.

There is a vast difference between doing something because it is the best option and doing it in the best way, and doing the same thing for the wrong reason in a bad way. I might regret having to do something, but that does not mean it was wrong to do it.

The impact of TUPE means that very few outsourcing deals stand a chance of improving culture. Then I wasn't particularly advocating that approach, so much as saying I understand reasons why the business will take it. I have seen outsourcing deals where the workforce were happier afterwards, but oddly that doesn't mean the customer got a better service.

I agree that any mis hire is a mistake that someone should be held responsible for. Have you noticed that HR never seem to be held accountable? It is in the nature of a good manager to feel responsible if they have to fire someone and to ask themselves if they could have done things differently.

My experience, and arguing from personal experience is always dangerous, is that spending time trying to change the "villians" is rarely effective, although it can make us feel better.Too often it diverts energy away from the people who would most benefit from the attention. Let me be clear that I know all the theory about cultural change and I'm not expecting everybody or anybody to embrace change overnight. As I've said eleswhere the people we are mostly talking about are those who are doing damage irrespective of whether or not we are promoting change.

The comment about holding the head high was a response to the Skeptic's comment about heads on pikes, and wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Again going on personal experience I would agree that villians in the leadership should be the first to go - if they are the ones doing most damage, but I've also seen a leadership team living in fear of an employee. There is a story I would love to tell here, but can't.

The changing your outsourcer issue is an interesting one. There are some well known ethical thought experiments in the area of agent centered deontological theory.

I've seen excellent Works Councils, but in the specific cases I was thinking about they were trying to hold back the sea in the same way that British Trade Unions did in the past, though without the political agenda. It might be a coincidence but in all the cases I'm thinking of the companies involved were multinationals.

And finally: Your great people are your best asset. Your worst people are your greatest laibility.

the occasional head-on-a-pike

Let's be clear that I only advocate replacing "the small percentage of complete resisters who can not be reached by a change initiative" which is an uncommon occurrence.

I don't agree that "you have to replace your staff every time you need to change" for the reason that you "look for people that fit your requirements with regard to your change culture", i.e. one replaces intractible resisters with flexible people - it's a one-off event.

I am passionate about avoiding unnecessary layoffs (anyone who went on my courses at CA or has read Working in IT knows that). But I have to say that the occasional head-on-a-pike isn't always a bad thing. It's not all carrot.

Hold the horrid tyrants head high

I'm not sure it is such an uncommon occurrence, but it does seem to vary with a lot of factors.

When they do occur their impact is devastating. Not only are they devastating when trying to introduce change but they are usually people who have been having a toxic impact on the workplace for sometime. Indeed I would suggest they are often also the workplace bully*.

Their "sacrifice" is not a token gesture to keep the cowering masses in their place, it is the surgical removal of a de facto office dictator, freeing the masses to do what they know needs to be done to achieve success.

Rather than leaving a demoralised workforce behind it raises morale, if done properly.

There are three difficulties.

1. Management can struggle to differentiate between heroes and villains, especially since the villains disguise themselves as heroes
2. The villains are by nature good at exploiting weaknesses and knowing which alliances to develop. Plus they know where the bodies are buried.

As a consequence of 1 and 2 management don't act resolutely and with precision so:

3 If they do anything the danger is their actions will be misinterpreted and impact the wrong people, either directly or indirectly, or will be so late the heroes have already left.

That's when morale take a hit.


* In my audit days we uncovered a very positive correlation between middle managers who had allegations of sexual harassment against them being investigated by HR, and our likelihood of uncovering their involvement in fraudulent behaviour.

Hysterical cries of tyranny

James beat me to it. If dismissal is justified then most staff will agree it was warranted.

Nothing is black and white in people management. My passion in this area is driven by seeing badly conceived layoffs.

I am in the smug posiiton of never having had to fire someone. Happily most problem children are unhappy and leave anyway. I've never shot a deer either but I know I could do it if I have to. Just because many dismissals are wrong doesn't make them all wrong. An employer has the right to withdraw employment just as much as an employee. It is a right that should be exercised with extreme discretion but it is sometimes warranted and that's a fact.

One of the most common situatiojns is where an employee is obstructing essential change. I successfully run a course specifically designed to help tech people embrace change (The Seven Trials of EnGrok) but the success rate is not 100%.

Hysterical cries of tyranny usually come from those who equally vocally support the worker's right to strike.


I have a sneaky suspicion you've been editing your post whilst I've been writing my response.

Something I've only cottoned on to this year is that heroes and villains can look very alike to the averagely gullible person who wants to think the best of everybody.

Sadly I've been around ITIL long enough to know that lots of us who like to appear soft and fluffy made our names by headcount reduction, and realistic enough to know that it isn't a bad thing that we did so.

I don't know about NZ and Australian railways but in the UK we still had firemen on the footplate a long time after they were really needed. Personally I've always struggled with the mainland European (UK Newspaper headline: Fog in the Channel: Europe cut off) inability to face up to works councils whilst nat the same time lamenting we don't have anything comparable in the UK.

There's the IF though


Absolutely, but how often do we see a cull that targets the wrong people, and how often does an HR department recognise who are the right people to keep? Does anyone actually know the answer to that? I don't believe it is easy.

I was having a conversation with a depressed service manager yesterday and had to point out that a degree of misery goes with the job and proved she was suited to the role. Likewise I would never trust a change manager who finds it easy to sleep at night I've always favoured problem managers who wear bow ties, but I'm not quite sure why. I like process designers who say "my tool can't draw that my tool is wrong" I like tool providers who say "No it doesn't do that, but trust me, the next release will"

I like consultants who say "That idea didn't work, but I think I know why, so let's try this instead" OK, that one is usually me ;-)

How do we recruit for these traits? The only approach I've used that I think works is to involve those who are good at the job in the recruitment process, and get them to ask one or two killer questions.

When recruiting ITSM consultants mine was "How do you know what the business wants?" The worst and most common answer was "I would go and talk to the business, the best was "The business want lots of different things that often contradict each other, and who is the "business" anyway?"

Look at business personality tests. When did you last come across one that came out with the result "This person is a socio-pathic, sycophantic bully who wants your job"

Killer question? So why would you be required?

"How do we recruit for these traits? The only approach I've used that I think works is to involve those who are good at the job in the recruitment process, and get them to ask one or two killer questions."

How would you identify those who were good at the job if you haven't sufficient knowledge yourself to establish the criteria for what makes them good? How would you know if the killer questions were killer questions or even fair questions? If you can't yourself come up with questions that would be a deciding factor in an interviewees suitablility, then you are depending on others to make an honest judgement of the applicants response. You are assuming the calibre of existing staff, because you can't measure them through 'killer questions' and effectively your recruitment hinges on their 'killer questions'. If it does not hinge on these killer questions, then why do you need the questions, and why are they killer? Do you watch the interviewee's reaction to make a decision or just base your judgement on the correctness and completeness of the answer? Is it both, and if so what ratio do you apply for reaction:answer to judge interviewee suitablility? How do you know if the answer is indeed correct and how do you judge the reaction as positive or negative? How would you in this situation judge an interviewees response to a dumb question that you assumed was a killer question? What if the interviewee appeared confused because the question in itself was based on dumbness? What would make you the decision maker in the process, based on the above, and why would you therefore be required?

Is mise le meas,
Visitor ;-)

HBR Article

This doesn't directly answer your question, but it adds to the debate

I would support the contention that recruitment is weak in many organisations,

There is some interesting material in "First,break all the rules" as well.

Sleep at night

Likewise I would never trust a change manager who finds it easy to sleep at night

I despise a manager who sleeps well when "managing people out".
I like process designers who listen most of the time.
I like tool providers who say: "No it doesn't do that, but you can achieve the result you aim for by using this." or "No it doesn't do that, it is not targetted for that situation." instead of "Sure it does that, it just needs a little configuration / customization / parameterization".
I like consultants that say: "OK, that can be improved, how do get that in place around here" (and yes, that's me as well ;-) )

How do I find these people in recruiting? It is very hard and can not be done by a few killer questions. A proper consultant can answer them, since that is what a proper consultant does (** irony **).

I for one show the people our values and if they are not enthusiastic about that, that is bad.
I ask what they have done in different situations and if they are passionate about that, it is good.
I put them in a sample situation and see their reaction. If it shows values I have talked about earlier they may be a quick learner and agile. So that's good.
Never do your interviews alone, do impose some stress on your recruits and see how they react to it.
Bit it will go wrong a few times, I know.

James: If you find such a personality test, please tell me (even if I had to look up sycophantic).

Managing Out, A different perspective

"Likewise I would never trust a change manager who finds it easy to sleep at night" ...

I had an issue early on in my career, 30% of the admin staff would be downsized when our application suite went live. I was the business analyst who developed the programs and led the implementation....and was having trouble sleeping as we neared the go live date. A mentor took me aside and gave me a lifeline to cope.
She asked what the problem was, I said, so many good people loosing their jobs, its distressing... She changed my perspective with one sentence....
"You've got it wrong, you are not eliminating three, you are saving seven" without the restructuring and the modernization everyone would lose their jobs. I could sleep after that, but I still hurt. One of the displaced even asked if I could be more of a jerk so that she could be angry at me.

One of the traits I look for is empathy, the other is lateral thinking. Succession planning requires both.

Regarding the traits to look for...
I suggest you consider David Maister's books
Managing a Professional Service Firm ISBN 0684834316, 9780684834313
and True Professionalism the courage to Care. ISBN 0684865041, 9780684865041

Best advice I ever got on managing someone out...Submit their CV to your corporate head hunter, let them find them a job where they are a better fit, as they recruit your team a replacement.. Its making it Win Win as much as possible.

management is inherently a sociopathic function

Just to really stir this pot: I have a hunch that management is inherently a sociopathic function, and the higher you get in the hierarchy the more sociopathic, if not downright psychopathic, you need to be. I wrote in my personal blog:

Many philosophers of politics tell us that a national leader needs to be totally ruthless and impassive when making decisions. A ruler is subject to conflicting emotional appeals: they need to make decisions that are efficient for the collective. Most major decisions by a ruler will involve grief and hardship for some subset of their people. And they must sometimes wage war in the interests of the group: war calls for decisions that only a psychopath could make.

Could it be that we need a certain percentage of psychopaths in our society to give us the effective leaders?

Taking it further do we need some sociopaths (milder lack of empathy, now known by those endlessly inventive psychologists as Antisocial Personality Disorder ) for the lieutenants (managers)?

Leaders v leaders

Perhaps there is a difference between Leaders as a personality type and people who lead in more subtle ways? Also cometh the hour cometh the person, we need different leaders in bad times than in good, as Churchill learnt to both his benefit and his cost.

In the very old British Civil Service, that I was around to see in its death throes, the view was that the higher up you went the less you "managed" and the more you "administrated" That might seem quaint to modern eyes until you read recent articles questioning what exactly do CEOs do - are they just uber managers or are they there to do something no one else can do.

We often seem to forget that the people who make up "the business" are typically representative of society as a whole. Not all good, not all bad, and certainly none of them perfect. There are people I love to work with who I would hate to associate with socially, and those whose company I enjoy socially but I would hate to work with.

You will also find leaders at all levels in an organisation. I've always found the different roles of officers and NCOs interesting.

If you look at the really great leaders did they really lack empathy? I think it was rather that they could see that the individual sometimes has to be sacrificed for the good of society, which is drastically different from the psycho/socio path who can only see things from their own perspective, not any sense of an external greater good.

I'm fairly certain that those with ASPD and variants of it are those who contribute most to the toxic workplace

I agree with you fully, naturally

Sociopathic pack of twats, managers. Except for some. I had 2 good managers. One left the company. The other has no hair.

"Could it be that we need a certain percentage of psychopaths in our society to give us the effective leaders?"

No - I'd say. We don't need them. Wipe them off the face of the earth. People also follow true leaders who are not psychopathic... Jesus, Gandhi, etc.

the next Gandhi

If we have to wait for the next Gandhi we have a long wait.

Besides only a psychopath would willingly embark on a program of mass extermination of psychopaths so i think your plan has a fundamental flaw.

Idealism is so touching but it didn't keep the Japanese out of my homeland or the Germans out of yours: fierce and ruthless generalship did. Anyone who can send thousands of his men to their deaths isn't right in the head, but I'm glad he was around.


We should bear in mind that someone might be an excellent candidate, but not for the role we have on offer. Conversely we should also be open to the "suprise fit" candidate - the one who doesn't conform to our preconception of what the role requires but will do a brilliant job.

As fior the tests, I suspect they exist in the psychiatric world, but can you imagine the court cases if we started using them in business ;-)

No head-on-a-pike

You may call me a softie, but if I have to put a head on a pike I am allways putting my head on the pike as well. It shows my failure in selecting, managing and growing the head that I had to put on the pike. My team will not work better, be more productive, creative or change embracing after having seen a team member shown the door. If it is unavoidable I will replace someone (esp. if he/she is in a position to do a lot of damage, e.g. management!) but I will never use that as a head-on-a-pole example.

It is not that I do not want to have a stick (compared to the carrot), but I know that it is a bad thing to use it and it will hurt me as well.

changing people's minds not finding new people

Agreed. I mean it is incidental to any individual change. the focus of my article is that you need to change the people you have in order to enable a change. yes sometimes if you cant change the people you change the people, but that is a drastic last resort in the context of any one project. Recruiting/HR/retraining is a higher/longer timeframe/more strategic concern that the culture change required to enable an individual transformation. incidental was too strong a word, but the core consideration for any one IT change we make is changing people's minds not finding new people. we owe staff the respect and the right to try them first before we evenb think about turnover. Churn destroys more culture than it creates and leaks IP

Syndicate content