Top Tweets for #RightTime

Having an active “champion” is an important part of delivering a change or improvement initiative. Or is it? Do local change champions create a vulnerability when it comes to sustaining the project longer term? Newly published research by Hannah Stark & Jane Page defines champions as people in a change situation who “actively promote, protect & troubleshoot [the change] through their influence, advocacy, & practical problem-solving." The researchers found the factors that make champions effective at initial implementation stage may also create systemic vulnerabilities that threaten sustainability of the change. Champions build momentum through their specialised knowledge, personal commitment & ability to translate evidence into practice. But the research found three mechanisms through which these same strengths generate fragility: - Knowledge concentration: Expertise accumulates in individuals rather than being embedded in organisational systems. - Dependency creation: Organisations become reliant on champions for quality assurance, problem-solving & continuity. These dependencies only surface when champions leave; at which point, multiple capability gaps emerge at once.2 - System capacity prevention: When champions hold things together through personal effort, organisations don't feel urgency to build systematic infrastructure. Their effectiveness conceals structural gaps underneath. These form a self-reinforcing cycle. The more effective the champion, the less pressure to develop collective capacity that would survive their departure (see the graphic). What does this mean for us as leaders of change? 1) What are we actually building? When we appoint a champion, we need to ask whether we’re strengthening organisational capacity or creating a workaround for absence of capability. The two may look identical in the short term. 2) Role design matters. The researchers propose reframing champions; not as permanent drivers of improvement, but as transitional resources whose purpose is to build collective capability & become unnecessary. Selection criteria should extend beyond individual competence to include capacity for knowledge transfer & succession planning. 3) We must get smarter about how we measure sustainability. Just because a programme is still running doesn't mean it's on solid ground. An organisation can look perfectly healthy while everything depends on one or two key people. The real test is whether the programme would hold up if those people left tomorrow; whether knowledge is spread across the team, whether documented processes exist so a new person could pick things up & whether standards can be maintained through people changes. Our instinct to find brilliant champions for change & improvement isn’t wrong. But it’s incomplete. This research shows that building the system around the work - not just the person in the work - is what makes change last. Link to the article (open access): https://t.co/u0UAwu9aqp.