Business Transformation Advice, with EY Vice Chair of Consulting - CXOTalk #762

Business Transformation Advice, with EY Vice Chair of Consulting - CXOTalk #762

Show Video

People, generally speaking, don't want to  transform. They actually quite like doing   what they did yesterday and the day before because  there's a level of comfort that comes from that.  That's Errol Gardner, Global  Vice Chair for Consulting at EY.  We operate in over 150 countries  and we've got close to 350,000   employees as part of that consulting, which  is now at about 100,000 employees on a global   basis. A lot of what we're doing is focusing  around transformation and what that means for  

our clients, so we're doing consulting in its  generic sense – business-related technology,   technology related, as well as people and change. Errol, you are the vice chair for consulting.   Can you give us some insight  into what your role involves?  I'm very much overseeing the nature of the  business that we're running, so it's very   much around defining the strategy of that business  in terms of where we want to be as a business over   a three- to five-year time horizon. Also then  working with the leaders across our business on   the performance (on a day-to-day basis, quarterly,  monthly, and annual basis) making sure that a lot   of the global assets and infrastructure that we  have and leverage are in place and are working   for the benefit of all of our practitioners on  a worldwide basis. And I also sit on the global   executive of the firm and obviously represent the  views and needs of consulting in that context.  As an aside, as well, I also sponsor our global  diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative,   which is a social equity task force that we've  set up looking at some of the diversity issues   that we have around underrepresented minorities  (both within EY, with our vendor and ecosystem   community, as well as with our clients). EY has been in the news quite a bit lately   about a potential restructuring. Do  you want to say anything about that? 

We are undergoing a strategic review  of our business. It's not the first   time that we've done this. We have made  an announcement in the last couple of   days here that we will be taking a  decision to our partners across the   organization as to essentially splitting  into two multidisciplinary organizations.  There's a whole series of  reasons why we're doing that,   and some of the benefits that we imagine that  will give to our clients, bring to our people,   help with our regulatory position on how we're  viewed. That's in essence why we're doing this.  Maybe there are some questions out there. Maybe  they'll come in while we're doing this. That's   maybe as much as I need to say at this point. When you think about business transformation,  

what does it actually mean? It's one of  these terms that we hear tossed about, like   digital transformation, but what does it mean? The critical part is the transformation aspect,   if you like, rather than the label that goes  before it. Ultimately, this is anything that   we're doing, an organization is doing, that  is fundamentally changing some aspects of what   that business, that organization does. Every business has a rhythm in which it   operates on a day-to-day basis. Some call that  business as usual, if you like. But what it does,   how it operates, how it is historically  being able to deliver products to market,   satisfy customers, optimize its workflows,  et cetera. Transformation, by definition,  

is doing something fundamentally different to  that. By definition, a little bit disrupting   that rhythm with a specific objective and outcome  to achieve something different as a consequence.  It could be looking at the top line in  terms of what you want to do in terms   of growing your market share, sales and revenue  opportunity. It could be about optimizing costs   and efficiency and making sure that you are  competing effectively from a profitability   standpoint. It could be changing the business  model, the nature of products and services   that you're selling. Or it could be some of the  strategic risks that you face as an organization.  On LinkedIn, Suman Kumar Chandra makes the  point that this terminology can mean very   different things to different people. Do you  find that there is confusion out there around  

what do we mean by business transformation? It doesn't matter what people append to the   term transformation, per se. It's really you're  a corporate, you're a government institution,   an NGO. Whatever you are, if you have a set of  objectives – they could be commercial objectives,   they could other objectives – how do you go  about achieving those on a day-to-day basis?  If there is a step change in the way  that you will do that in the future,   you can achieve that through transformation.  That could be of your business model. It could  

be digital and technology-enabled. It could be the  operating structures that you have in place. All   of those things are examples of transformation. But I think the critical thing probably in today's   age, and maybe we'll talk about this more,  is I think transformation is becoming more   endemic as opposed to transactional, if you  like, or happening every three to five years.   I think it's, in many ways, becoming the  business as usual for most organizations.  When transformation becomes endemic and becomes  business as usual, what does that imply for   managing an organization, leading an organization? What this is about is mindset. Call it corporate  

mindset, but, as much as that, obviously  leadership mindset of those responsible   for driving the organization forward. If you're an organization that has a mindset   that you can embark a big step change program  once every three years, once every five years,   and that will make the difference, then I  think you're going to face challenging times   ahead. But I think what the last two, three,  four years have highlighted when you've had   the interplay of some of the geopolitical  issues that we're currently experiencing,   you've had the pandemic that people have had to  respond to in its different cycles and the impact   that that's had across the world, you've had all  of the supply chain issues that are being caused   by kinks and consequential impacts of some  of those both geopolitical reasons as well as   some of the pandemic related reasons. But then you overlay some of the other,   more pervasive business drivers that were always  out there like digital (you've mentioned), so how   do you move forward to be more technology-enabled  as an organization? Then similarly, the new one,   which is sustainability, how do you become a  much more sustainable business and operation?  I think all of these things, when you layer  them on top of each other, are going to drive   organizations to think and contemplate over the  next five to ten years. There is a lot for them to  

absorb, change, and transform in order to succeed. You're talking with the leaders of many different   kinds of organizations, many of them very large.  Are there common patterns that you're seeing in   terms of the way that they are relating to  this shift where transformation is ongoing?  If I can maybe talk of a specific example, one of  the benefits of the pandemic brought was a degree   of a burning platform that I think made businesses  shift, pivot, change in a much more accelerated   fashion than they historically have done so, which  I think now people and leaders (in many ways)   recognize therefore the impact that had as to how  did we manage to pivot and change so quickly given   that set of circumstances, whereas historically  it's been so much more difficult in the past. How  

do we almost try and recreate those conditions  without creating the negative aspects of that,   of course, but recreate the conditions  that make something like that successful?  The nature of the burning platform, getting  the level of engagement and buy-in in order   for people to feel part of and the necessity  of that change going forward, and then also,   of course, embracing technology and doing that  in a very agile and accelerated fashion. I think   these are some of the behaviors that are changing  now that leaders are in need to embrace. But I   think there's always a danger that people will  revert back. So, I think the challenge is the  

interdependencies between some of these different  forces that are driving the change, and it's   really important that leaders get a holistic view  of those as they embark on how they're thinking   about their strategic journey going forward. I urge you to subscribe to our YouTube channel   and hit the subscribe button at the top of  our website so we can send you our newsletter.  Errol, when you speak with business  leaders, can you identify certain traits,   characteristics, or success factors for those  organizations that are making this transition   more smoothly and more easily than, say, others? The pervasive nature of technology and all of the   changes that we're looking to put in place that  enable supply chains to optimize more effectively,   to connect digitally with your customers  and launch new products and services,   and drive better distribution channels  to your business, all of these changes   ultimately still come down to people. The common factor that, generally speaking,   makes most transformations unsuccessful is  something to do with people. It's either  

the people at the top, so the leaders and the  extent to which they created and evangelized   the compelling vision for change and done that in  a way that is not about purely the corporate part   of that but also the emotional part of that. How  do you connect to that, be it you're a customer   of the business, you're a stakeholder in the  business, you're an employee in that business?  Secondly then, the people that have to be critical  to executing that program of change, so there's   usually a core project team that are doing that,  so how are they incented? How are they motivated?   What behaviors are encouraged within that program  team in terms of openness to difficulties,   to challenges, to risks, to failures, versus  having a good news culture and making sure   that only the best of information is reported? Then the third element is, I mentioned business   as usual earlier. Those not necessarily involved  on a day-to-day basis on the change initiative or   driving that forward, but ultimately, those  that would be the custodians of making it   successful by transitioning it into the way  that they operate on a day-to-day basis. So,   be it adopting new technology, a change of process  using new data sources, whatever it may be,   are they open to doing that? Are they  making – are they embracing that?  I think the organizations that connect with  those three critical human interfaces and make   sure that they're doing better in all of those  regards (so, leaders communicating, articulating,   engaging on a consistent basis with their  teams) will be key. Teams that are delivering,  

executing these types of programs, having  the air cover from their leaders to operate   in an open and transparent way to talk about  difficulties as well as to talk about successes.  Then thirdly, having the organizational ecosystem,  all the teams that ultimately will have to embrace   and drive this change forward, that they are  also bought into it. They're communicated with.   Their concerns are taking into consideration.  What is in it for them as part of the journey,  

they story, the benefits up to what it will do to  their workday, the efficiency of how they operate,   the kind of information that they have, their  ability to serve customers better? That is a   critical part of some of the key changes that  we look for organizations to put in place.  You said that leadership must develop an emotional  connection with folks in the organization. That's   a very interesting point and not a point that  one hears often. Would you elaborate on that?  When you looked at the attributes of  transformation programs that were unsuccessful,   a lot of them were connected to very negative  emotions and what people felt during the journey   of doing that. That's again both the people in  the core team, the leaders and sponsors of that  

program, as well as those within the organization. The research that we did actually spoke to both   leaders and some of the C-suite that drove these  programs, but also workers, so those that have to   do the heavy lifting and make this work. A lot  of the words that those people describe and the   feelings that they had in terms of the journey  that they went on was super negative and gave a   real sense that it's a real obvious predictor of  the likely success of something like that because   those emotions will not get people all working  towards the same kind of goal in the same way   and be as effective. Whereas the flipside was  then very much the case, you saw those that were   successful, their different emotional journey. And so, when you double-click into as to why   aren't they different, it's some of those points  of the engagement, the way that leaders connect,   the way that leaders tell the story of what it is  that they're looking to put in place. But also,   the way they look after their workforce on  the journey and not just set a vision at the   outside and say, "Right. Go off and execute,"  and then just beat them up every three months,  

every six months if progress is not being  made. Keeping people absolutely engaged,   committed, but also showing empathy during the  cycle, recognizing that change is different.  There is this strong sense of connectedness. Transformation, by definition,  

is a macro change. It needs to be applied  across an organization and, therefore,   the more people that engage buy-in and connect to  that and want to make that happen, you will get   the benefits. It's almost self-fulfilling in that  sense. But without it, you'll get into a cycle of   why is it now working and how do we address this  and, in many ways, it becomes worse because the   behavior is then retrenched into an even more  difficult place when you get into that cycle.  Finding the ways that individuals –  it could be a call center, it could   be somebody working on a factory, it could  be all of these individuals who ultimately   will be touched by this. It could be those that  obviously have customer-facing relationships.  

If they don't understand that North Star as to  how that is going to be different for them and   what behavior they need to show up differently  the next day, then they will never do things.  We have a comment/question from LinkedIn  right on this set of issues from Suman   Kumar Chandra. He comes back again, and  he says, "Business transformation does   require a shift of that leadership mindset  that you were describing." But he wonders,   "Do you think that most senior leaders have an  agile mindset to begin with, or do they undertake   transformation due to market forces?" basically  being forced to transform. Here's the point. "And   then expect the rest of the organization  to change, adapt, and make it successful." 

I think that, for sure, there are  market pressures that organizations,   obviously listed organizations, have to react to.  But obviously, also competitor market pressures,   private companies, or governments  have expectations their citizens   place on them in terms of various standards. Of course, those things are always there.   A lot of that competitive thread will drive  behavior and activity within organizations   to respond and to do that quickly and then maybe  not go so much on the journey that I've described.  But I think, if you ultimately – you've touched  as well on the word when you picked up on me   saying emotional. If you look at the emotional  versus the rational, and take this view that,   as your questioner has said, they don't  have the agile mindset, a lot of leaders   have got into the roles and the positions  they are by taking very rational decisions   but thinking about things and the impacts  that they will have in a very rational way.  If you ultimately see the data that  says to embark on a transformation   and it to be successful, it requires these  attributes but to have an unsuccessful one   requires a different set of attributes, then  why would you rationally embark on one that   displayed a bunch of the attributes that meant  you were more likely to be unsuccessful? That   doesn't actually rationally make any sense. I think then what's incumbent on the leaders  

who may not have some of those EQ (emotional  connection skills) is then rationally to say,   "Well, how do I solve for that? How do I  find the right people, the right influencers,   the right leaders, bringing people in,  potentially, who can do that, that are   therefore going to make this an easier journey?" I think that some will want to go on that journey   themselves individually and get a coach, do some  things differently, do some reverse mentoring,   all of these things to get to a better place  themselves. But of course, not everybody can   change. If you know you can't, rationally,  it still makes sense to put the provisions   in place to make sure that you do that. I think which then begs the question,   how does an organization begin transformation?  I mean just for example inside the consulting   business itself is undergoing all kinds of  change, so how do you think about driving   transformation? If I can ask you directly  because you're in this unique position. 

Yeah, and it's interesting (being in the business  that we're in) and, to a certain extent, we are an   organization that enables and hopefully supports  our clients on their transformation journeys. I'd   say quite openly, for us as an organization,  it's as hard for us to do to ourselves as it   is helping and working with others to do that  because fundamentally, with respect to people,   people (generally speaking) don't want to  transform. They actually quite like doing   what they did yesterday and the day before because  there's a level of comfort that comes from that. 

I think, ultimately, you've got the two,  three, four triggers that are clearly out   there in terms of I mentioned earlier about  the pandemic. That was a burning platform   that came that you didn't have to make  the case. It was very clear and obvious.  Talk about the services business, my business  in EY, but also a number of our competitors.   We had to shift the business model literally  overnight that was working directly on client   sites with our customers, with our clients,  all of our people as a business. We had   to shift that in person, light touch, and  visible with clients to remote, on video,   working collaboratively with other people on a  remote basis and yet still making change happen. 

Fundamentally, it changed our business model  and how we work and operate. But I think the   transition, the clients made it, we made it, other  organizations made it. The technology enabled it   in a fantastic way. I think that enabled  the change to work much more effectively.  You've got other examples, though, that clearly  get triggered. We talked about some of the other  

factors there. We've been through, for instance,  with the war in the Ukraine, we've had to make   choices about our business footprint and what  we do in Russia as a business. A number of   companies have had to do that, so how do you  make that kind of change? How do you do that?  That's been a hugely difficult, emotional process  with teams and splitting up people, and all kinds   of things that has been very difficult for  us. That again is another example of the   nature of a change that gets forced upon you very  quickly and that you need to make that change. 

Maybe on digital transformation, think about  us as a business. We are affected. I mentioned   earlier EY is an organization with 350,000  people, so we are a people-based business.   But we also need to transform digitally. Our clients or the expectation of stakeholders   continues to be that we provide and challenge  ourselves to drive much more effectively,   much more digitally in terms of every  interaction that we have with them. Obviously,   working remotely is an example of that. But in  the sales process and in our delivery process,  

how we transfer knowledge across our business,  IP, how we codify solutions so that clients   can get accelerated benefits from that, that's  really important in the nature of our business,   but it's really difficult to make happen (for us). Just as it is for our clients to make those   changes, it's really difficult to engage such  a breadth of folks across so many different   industries, so many different countries into  the need to come to a common and standard way   of doing things. It's a lot of change  management. It's a lot of convincing of   folks that this is the right model. All of these are the ways that  

we get into challenges like that, and we  have those as an organization ourselves as   much as we help others to achieve and work  their way through these challenges as well.  We have a question from Twitter on exactly  this point. You mention digital transformation   and Arsalan Khan, on Twitter – and Arsalan is a  regular listener and he asks really insightful,   thoughtful questions – he says this. "We  know digital transformation should be an   organization-wide effort." Here's the kicker.  He says, "But why should anyone who is not  

inside IT or leadership actually care?" Digital is a lot about the adoption of   modern technology and data to drive new  ways of working and business practices.   Predominantly, the most significant use case  has been around the pivot to being much more   customer-oriented, much more experience and  engagement oriented around your customers.   That then driving much more into the value chain  of how you digitize in order to fulfill that.  If I use that as a premise, then I go back to the  question and say, "Who are the people within an   organization who deliver on that promise?" Now, I  think IT are a stakeholder in that, but I think,   ultimately, customers very rarely interact with  IT in any way, shape, or form. They interact with   technology, but they very rarely interact with IT. Generally, if something goes wrong, depending on  

how they interface with the organization, the app  that they're using, the website that they use,   it could be something that happens in terms  of product delivery. Whatever it may be,   the first person they talk to is  very rarely somebody who sits in IT.  It's somebody in customer service. It's a  call center rep. If those individuals are not   absolutely front and center in representing how to  fix, how to help, how to make sure these changes   are adopted and adapted as fast as possible, then  digital transformation will never be successful.  If digital is about, "Well, let's get onto cloud,  and let's implement data and AI capabilities in   a much more effective way, let's build apps and  modern software engineering techniques to deploy   technology as fast as possible into our business,"  if you don't take the people that interface with   your stakeholders [into account] – it could  be your customers, it could be your vendors,   it could be your regulators, citizens, whoever it  may be – then you'll find that your organization   has not digitally transformed. You've just  actually spent a lot of money on technology again. 

We have a lot of organizations that  have always spent a lot of money on   technology but fundamentally didn't  get the real benefits from them.  I have to say I love the questions from the  audience. You guys in the audience, you should be   asking lots of questions. You guys are so smart. We have another great question. Lisbeth Shaw says,   "Okay. So, if transformation is  a journey, how can organizations   survive and thrive throughout that journey?" The first way to thrive and survive (in any   context) is being open and honest about the  fact that that's the new normal and engaging   your people, be it your customers and whoever you  think will be impacted by that, in that being the   way you see your business going forward. I think what that does then is give  

permission for people within the  organization, especially employees,   to be clear about what they can and can't achieve  within that context, how they can support that,   what that means to them, how that's going to  change their way of working and way of operating.  I think it's really important that you engage  in a discussion around that. Obviously,   at the leadership level, but that needs  to cascade through the organization. 

Ultimately, it is about cultural change. It's a  way of looking differently at how you do business   that says we aren't necessarily going to be doing  the same thing tomorrow that we did yesterday.   Actually, part of making sure that we still  exist tomorrow is that we need to change today   in order to make sure that happens. The more you do that incrementally,   the easier it is. The more you kind of store  that up to be something that's massive and   significant, I think then the harder it is  to then survive and thrive, if you like.  I think the more you accept this is culturally  the way it needs to be, and you are open and   honest with your employees to go on that  journey, and that mean as well that you   reward different types of behaviors, skills,  capabilities in order to help on that journey,   I think that's the way you get through this. It seems clearly to me that your theme here  

is this human element of connection when it  comes to transformation of really any type.  I say that because I'm very passionate about that  being the case. It's my experience in my 30+ years   of doing this, in working and seeing organizations  who culturally say they want to change but   culturally don't embrace any of the behaviors  or changes required to enable that change.   Then also, the research, as I mentioned,  now is very much supporting that. 

If you unravel what I do now today from  a management, a leadership perspective,   ultimately, my core skill and competence is  driving and executing on technology transformation   programs. We call them digital transformation  programs. As much as I understand the importance   of technology, and as much as I understand the  capability of what technology can do and drive   and deliver and the benefits we can deliver  to organizations, what I know is that unless   the organization embraces it, it's a waste of  money. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of   resources, and oftentimes, doesn't leverage  the true benefits of that technology. 

Marrying up the huge advances that we've seen in  capability of technology and, bear in mind again,   if you look at it from a B2B, a business  perspective, if you like, the corporate   organizations don't embrace technology to the  sophisticated level that consumers do. You're   now with a very consumer-literate organization  who have technology in every aspect of their   lives and are very comfortable with it. Then they  work in corporate organizations and think, "Wow,   this technology is really clunky. It doesn't  work in the way that my normal life works."  You have a captive audience now who are prepared  and want to use better technology in the corporate   environment. So, you have potential to engage  those people to do it. It's just then about   how do you tell that story that you're making  their corporate lives much more easier based on   how things work in their personal lives. Picking up on this idea of telling that   story so that it's engaging so people feel that  emotional connection so that they respond to it,   Arsalan Khan, on Twitter, comes back, and he  says, "Okay. How do we make transformation  

not just another idea that leadership  wants to do? How do we make it alive?"  I'll ask you to answer relatively briefly because  we're simply going to run out of time soon.  I don't think transformation is an idea in  that context. I genuinely think the forces   of change that I've described mean that there  are existential issues for many organizations   that they have to address. I think this  is critical and compelling for them.  My general sense, speaking with most clients  that are out there, is that they understand   and embrace that. I'm not sure I would agree  with the premise of the question. I don't   think people think it's just an idea. I think  the evidence of what's happening in the market  

would suggest organizations are embracing it. The real challenge then is how do they do it   in the most effective way. At the very outset,   you mentioned diversity. Can you talk about  the importance, the role of diverse teams?  If you have teams that you want  to deliver change to, you have to   acknowledge that your workforce is diverse.  If all of the people that you're trying to   drive and leverage (in terms of transformation)  are of a singular mindset – it could be that   they're all male, it could be that they're all of  a particular color, it could be that they're all a   particular mindset, it could be that they're all  of a particular geography (if you're doing it on   a global basis or multi-country basis) – that,  by definition, is going to deliver suboptimal   outcomes because most workforces are diverse.  Most customer bases, for sure, are diverse.   If you don't take that into  consideration, you'll miss things. 

But then if I also go to the point about  open styles (and we talked about rational   versus emotional), again the diversity that you  have will, by definition, make sure that that's   embedded, if you like, because people will be  more respectful of each other in diverse teams,   as opposed to accepting more of the command and  control, more of the, "You do it because I told   you to," as opposed to wanting to hear any  feedback or challenge in response to that.  I think diversity in its broadest sense, in  the true nature of the word, is critical in   terms of mindset, in terms of different  types of individuals in its truest sense,   needs to be part of that in order to make sure  that the outcome is also built in that fashion.  What advice do you have for business leaders? If  you could kind of sum it up, what advice do you   have for business leaders that are looking at a  major transformation project and just thinking,   "This is daunting. This is really hard"?  What advice do you have for those folks?  Change is hard, and I think acknowledging that  is important. Not to make it daunting, but to  

be honest about what you need to do in order to be  successful in that regard because the alternative   is not changing is not an option. I think it's  important that you get into the current mindset.  We've talked about the people aspect and the  engagement. Now I won't repeat that. But there   are, I think, some key interventions and practices  an individual can take in order to drive that.  The most important thing, I'd say, is that they  have to think about this as something they have   to work on for themselves. If it's daunting,  if it's challenging, and it's difficult, then   how do they know they have the skills to do it? Unless they've done it three, four times before,   who are they getting as a coach to  help them on that journey? What skills   are they getting coached on? Now, some of that is technical   skills, and they'd need to know whatever  technology platform solution is being put   in place. But as I mentioned on the people side,  it could be also on the business outcomes side. 

What else do they need to know? What are the  gaps that they have? It could be for them   personally. But then also, change is delivered  by teams. It's not delivered by individuals.  Who do you need? What skills do you need in  your team that will optimize your strengths,   but also then cover your weaknesses? That's the way I would   outline that for those that find that daunting. One of the issues that I've seen in some   organizations is the leadership has a vision for  the transformation. They clearly are describing   it. And yet, the transformation itself seems  to not go anywhere. It seems to fizzle out and,   inside the organization, there are people  pushing back. What advice do you have for folks   who are in that kind of situation, for leaders,  business leaders, that are in that situation?  There is a reason why people are pushing back.  It's either that they don't want the change to  

happen or that they are fearful what the change  and encouraging it will mean for them personally.  The only way you're going to address that  is by conversations with those individuals   to work that through and then by  a process of changing their view,   changing the story in terms of how they see  this, or actually maybe changing your own   view of what the change needs to be in order to  deliver the outcome will help you through that.  Let's say you don't deliver transformation  unless the people you've said are pushing back   are pushing, leaning in, and pushing forward on  this thing. So, you have to address that. There's   no alternative to that, and it's something a  number of organizations who have middle management   do make it hard for things to land appropriately. I think it's really incumbent on leaders to   connect with those middle managers and find  ways through that that empower and motivate   them because, generally speaking, middle managers  want to succeed, want to transition, want to   also get progressed within the organization.  Finding the means to connect with them that enable  

them to do that, I think, is a pathway to success. Well then I need to close out by asking you advice   for those middle managers who are in that  situation who they're not comfortable with   what's going on, and they're not compensated  in the right way, or whatever the issue might   be. What advice do you have for those folks? It's important that they let their voice be heard   and try and organize themselves in order to make  that happen. I say that with some hesitation  

knowing that I'm sure some – if there are any  on this call – would say, "Yeah, that's easy   to say, but it's next to impossible to do." I think finding ways (with their colleagues,   for instance) they could talk through this and  make representation to leadership about not   challenging what they want to do or the outcome  that they want to achieve, but maybe offering   alternatives that, based on their proximity to  the field, if you like, or the real business,   their point of view on how they could affect  that much more easily, more efficiently,   with less challenges, I think being positive about  raising challenges, I think is a means to do that.  I think then otherwise working and being  prepared to challenge yourself with others   that are clearly influencers of change  and are positive to say, "Well, why are   they positive towards this but I'm negative?" You can't always assume that your view is the   right one. If there are people advocating  for this, then is it something you're   missing? Be open-minded and be prepared  to see the alternative point of view. 

As I say, you can resist change in an  organization. It may mean that the transformation,   therefore, is not successful. That generally  is not good for any middle manager's career.  Okay. Be open-minded on both sides. Listen  and try to understand what the other side is   finding important, problematic, or positive. Yeah.  With that, we are out of time, so I want to say a  huge thank you to Errol Gardner. He is the global  

vice chair for consulting at EY. Errol, thank  you so much for taking your time to be with us.  I appreciate it. It's been  great and fascinating questions,   so I appreciate those coming in, and  appreciate talking with you as well.  To everybody who asked questions and who watched,  thank you. You guys are an amazing audience.   I urge you to subscribe to our YouTube channel  and hit the subscribe button at the top of our   website so we can send you our newsletter.  Check out We have excellent,  

really excellent shows coming up on the schedule. Take care, everybody, and we'll see you next time.

2022-09-29 09:37

Show Video

Other news