Skip to main content

Our thinking

A point of view.
Not a blog.

We write when we have something worth saying. Grounded in thirty years of operational experience, behavioural science, and the MSc research currently underway at the University of Wolverhampton. Not thought leadership for its own sake — thinking that's meant to be useful.

Evidence-informedResearch cited where it genuinely illuminates. Never to impress.

Practitioner-ledEvery piece rooted in real situations, not theoretical scenarios.

ActionableInsight you can take into a conversation or a decision this week.

Featured · Behaviour & change

Why 70% of change programmes fail — and what the other 30% do differently.

The evidence has been clear for decades. McKinsey first reported the 70% failure rate in 1996. It hasn't improved since. So why do organisations keep making the same mistakes — and what does the research actually say about what works?

Stephen Dixon-Mould FCIPD

Currently studying MSc Organisational & Business Psychology, University of Wolverhampton

Read the piece →

"The problem isn't that organisations don't know change is hard. It's that they consistently misdiagnose where the hard part actually is."

The diagnosis problem

Most change programmes begin with a structural or process intervention — a reorganisation, a new system, a revised operating model. These are visible, measurable, and easy to report on. They are also, consistently, the wrong starting point. The academic literature on organisational change is unambiguous: the primary reason change fails is not poor design or insufficient resource. It is the gap between intended and actual behaviour.

"Change fails not because the strategy was wrong. It fails because behaviour was treated as an afterthought — something that would follow naturally once the system changed. It rarely does."

What the 30% do differently

The research points to the same underlying truth: sustained change requires both structural and behavioural conditions to be present simultaneously. Not sequentially. Not one then the other. Both, at the same time.

All pieces

Three perspectives worth sitting with.

AI & leadership

The C-Suite AI question nobody is asking

It's not "what can AI do?" — it's "how do we lead an organisation that's learning to use it?" The boards asking the first question are missing the one that actually matters.

Read the piece →

Organisational performance

Sticky plasters — and why smart organisations keep applying them

The psychology of why leaders avoid the hard fix — and how to create the conditions to face into it.

Read the piece →

Stephen's perspective

Thirty years of being in the room — distilled.

These are not opinions formed in a seminar. They're observations made across thirty years of working inside organisations under genuine pressure — NHS Covid response, global M&A recovery, stalled programmes, resistant organisations.

They're also informed by the MSc in Organisational & Business Psychology currently underway at the University of Wolverhampton — where the research often confirms what practice already knew, and occasionally challenges it.

On change

"The presenting problem and the real problem are rarely the same thing. Thirty years hasn't changed that observation once."

Every engagement starts with a diagnosis — not a solution. The discipline of finding where the real problem lives, rather than treating the one that's visible, is the most valuable thing we bring.

On behaviour

"People don't resist change because they're difficult. They resist it because the conditions for change haven't been created."

Resistance is information, not obstruction. It tells you what conditions are missing — if you're willing to listen to it rather than manage it.

On spin

"We live in a world of outputs dressed as outcomes. The organisations that break that pattern are the ones that actually improve."

Completion rates are not outcomes. Attendance is not behaviour change. Movement is not improvement.

Coming next

What we're writing about.

When the leader is the problem

The most important — and most avoided — conversation in organisational change.

Building organisations that don't need you

The goal of any serious advisory engagement is to make itself unnecessary.

What NHS Covid taught us about pace

1,700 people. 14 facilities. Eight weeks. No rule book. The operational lessons.

The habit of change — HabitTracker™

Why behaviour reinforcement technology changes the calculus on sustainable transformation.

Get the thinking directly.

New pieces when they're ready — not on a schedule. No newsletter cadence. No content marketing. Just Stephen's thinking, when it's worth sharing.

No cadence. No marketing. Just the pieces worth reading.

Does any of this resonate?

If the thinking connects with something you're working on, that's probably worth a conversation.

Start a conversation

No pitch. No proposal until you're ready.