Thursday, February 19, 2015

Why We Avoid Change and What To Do About It

Dire realities for nonprofit organizations make change difficult-- and in some cases, nearly impossible. Let's not sugar coat anything here. Nonprofits are afraid to lose support or money. They are afraid to embrace the Herculean effort needed for change because planning, organizing, executing and evaluating is exhausting. They are afraid to shake things up because the majority of them operate without excess. Change isn't easy, but it can be unworkable when money controls all actions and the budget is tight. It's also not easy to shift away from the status quo at an organization because habits and leadership styles can become so ingrained that no one knows the root of the problem. Heard this story before? So, what's the magic bullet? How can an organization make change less difficult?Perhaps it lies in establishing a set of cultural norms up front.

For example, here's a list of five preventative cultural norms that an organization can adopt to be more amenable to change--more flexible, more prepared and happier with a constant state of flux:

1. Establish a culture of confidence
In a 1989 interview for The Harvard Business Review, Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric shared what he felt made him successful. Statements like: "Insecure managers create complexity, real leaders don't need clutter," (p. 112) and "don't get paralyzed about the 'fragility' of the organization... the best way to play your hand is to face reality--see the world the way it is and act accordingly" (pp. 113-114) are examples of the style of thinking that Welch and his team used in their working environments. Welch talked about candor, processes that focus on change and a commitment to a stimulating, free and adaptive atmosphere. All of these characteristics must be cultivated up front and they must be priorities for an organization to capitalize on the tide that change can bring.

2. Cultivate a culture of strategic intent 
A strategy similar to Welch's, outlined in the Harvard Buisness Review by authors Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad focuses on intent, strategic intent precisely. Strategic intent "is stable over time," it "sets a target that deserves personal effort and commitment," and it "captures the essence of winning" (p. 64). Challenges always stretch an organization, but if the working environment encourages competitive focus, an ongoing sense of urgency and appetite for quick adjustment, staff will find themselves more nimble and capable of quick adjustment.

3. Practice a culture of optimism

In the article Transformational Leadership, author Kim Cameron notes a number of optimistic mindsets that can be practiced and expected--on a daily basis at any organization. "Create preferences rather than respond to existing preferences," "focus on things-gone-right," "continuous improvement" and "offensively pursuing high-quality" (pp. 4-5). An organizational culture based on these tenets is to sure to be more comfortable weathering change.

4. Support a culture of variation
Kim Cameron's article also made a number of succinct references to how an organization creates readiness for change. Training and retraining staff members, changing up personnel, discussing opportunities and threats and using a new language to define old problems are all ways that an organization can enhance their change preparedness (pp.7-8). Doing so will provide staff members with the skills and tools to adjust to instability with less friction than doing so without practice.

5. Insist upon a culture that plans
David Renz et. al note in The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management that organizations with a strategic plan soar above those without one. The strategic planning process in itself brings staff, board and the community together in a way that anticipates change--and prepares for it. Strategic planning is a specific way that any organization can increase their preparedness for the future, which might just make the unknown a little less scary.

Cameron, K. (1991). Transformational leadership. In Developing Management Skills. New York: Harper-Collins.

Charan, Ram and Noel Tichy. 1989. “Speed, Simplicity, Self-Confidence: An Interview with Jack Welch.” Harvard Business Review. No. 89513:110-120.

Hamel, Gary and C.K. Prahalad. 1989. “Strategic Intent.” Harvard Business Review No. 89308: 63-76.

Renz, David O, ed. 2010. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.

How to Tackle Change

Increased complexity, diversity, and flexibility. Those are some of the most common buzzwords and they can seem a bit worn out. In contemporary management literature they dominate the conversation and call for frequent changes. And while phrases like “a world of increasing complexity” can be thrown around a bit too often, there is something to it as well. Otherwise it probably wouldn’t have been a buzzword in the first place. Change is, however, not as easy as is sounds, and it almost always generates resistance in an organization. This resistance, uncomfortable and challenging as it is, needs to be tackled head on, and not pushed aside, if changes must have any real effect. Here I present some of the ways to overcome it.

Envisioning the Future - Together
In order to implement changes successfully, the first key step is to ensure commitment among the stakeholders in the organization. Include staff in envisioning the future to create alignment (Brown, 2010). Also it is vital to stress a sense of urgency (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989). There needs to be a clear answer to why change is required for the organization. Change is hard and challenging, so if you’re not sure why it’s necessary, why bother making the effort?

Inclusion: Just Another Buzzword?
Once everyone is on board with why the organization needs to undergo change, the next phase is to make sure the process is one of inclusion. While this can also come across as a worn out buzzword, it is never the less necessary. A holistic approach should seek to include all stakeholders not only to create ownership and defenders of change, but also to make sure that every important aspect is included in the strategy. A strategic plan can be formulated solely on the strategic/executive management level, but when it comes to the implementation phase there is a big risk that it isn’t supporting day-to-day operations, and is thus going to require further time and money in order to be accommodated into the organization (Tregoe, 1983).

Leave No One Behind
One aspect of why change can be terrifying is the uncertainty regarding your role in the future. What if your skills become redundant as a result of the new path the organization is embarking on? Training and retraining of staff – paid or unpaid – is paramount to overcome this barrier of fear when initiating change. In “Transformational Leadership” it is pointed out how 25 % of IBM’s workforce is involved in a training activity every single day (Cameron, 1991). Not only does retraining have the benefit of making sure that staff is ready for change, it also motivates them to look for opportunities of change themselves, and thus contribute valuable input to the ongoing discussion of which direction the organization is headed at.

Continued Communication
Okay, so the sail has been set and the major changes initiated. What now? Continued articulation of the vision and frequent updates on how far we’ve travelled on the road to change is necessary to keep everyone on track (Cameron, 1991). Preferably in a variety of ways: everyone gets tired of hearing the same messages repeated over and over again.

Balanced Measurement – a Long Run Solution
Inclusion will also foster a better measurement system. Performance measures have long been implemented to affect the behavior of organizations. “What you measure is what you get”, as Robert Kaplan and David Norten argues (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). However systems that focus mainly on financial performance are out of step with today’s knowledge society, where research has shown that they are at best with no effect or at worst even demotivating for staff (ibid.). Developing a more holistic measurement system of organizational performance is more of a long run solution to barriers of change. It can be seen as a way to make way for future changes and secure better receptivity in the organization, since employers will see how their input benefits the organization and how they are contributing to the realization of the mission and vision. 


Brown, William A. (2010). Strategic Management. In: Renz, David O, ed. 2010. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. 

Cameron, Kim (1991). Transformational Leadership. In: Developing Management Skills. David A. Whetton and Kim S. Cameron. New York: Harper Collins.

Hamel, Gary. & Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review, pg 63-76.

Kaplan, Robert S. & David P. Norton (1992). The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review p. 71-79.

Tregoe, Benjamin. 1983. “The Challenges of Strategic Management.” In Top Management Strategy. Benjamin B. Tregoe and John W. Zimmerman. New York: Simon and Schuster. 

Change in Organizations: Why is it So Hard?

Change isn't easy for most people. It involves risk, taking on the unknown and, often, addressing one's own shortcomings. Change in organizations is not easy either.  On a base level, studies of organizational behavior show that people tend to prefer the status quo, and that they also prefer to avoid losses versus trying to make gains (known as loss aversion).

The real challenges organizations face, however, can be pinpointed to more precise issues. Below are five such challenges and some ways to overcome those barriers to change.
  1. Your organization doesn't understand its needs. An organization's shortfalls may seem obvious on the surface, but getting to the root causes of organizational issues requires a thorough analysis. Strategic planning offers a way for organizations to delve into its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Literature on strategic planning abounds, but your organization can also hire a consultant to help walk you through the strategic planning process.
  2. Change could mean HR complications. Organizational change inherently involves staff; even if they are not directly impacted, nervousness about what change might bring (the unknown) is likely to influence employee morale. Organizations should include employees in their discussions of change; they may bring a perspective of the organization that managers have not thought of. Managers should also consider the impact changes might make on employee roles, salary, and benefits. 
  3. Your Board isn't...well, on board. The relationship an organization has with its Board of Directors is complex; these relationships vary greatly from organization or organization in terms of Board involvement, influence, etc. Including Board members in strategic planning is a good way to get a sense of the organization from a non-management perspective. At the same time, it is important to remember that at the end of the day, an organization's head manager can override Board decisions. 
  4. You don't know if the change is actually working. When instituting change, it is essential to put measurements in place to gauge the impact of those changes. After implementing a new fundraising policy, for example, an organization might measure the increase (if any) on funds raised after three, six, and twelve months into the new policy.
  5. Your resources are lacking. Organizations are all competing for a limited amount of resources. Working together with similar organizations to create a network for change is one way to share resources and decrease silos. Internally, strategic planning will help an organization find areas where spending can be cut or reallocated. 
This list of challenges and possible solutions is by no means exhaustive. It is important to remember that while anticipating barriers to change is essential, it is also necessary to try to predict what the outcomes of various organizational responses to those barriers might be. These predictions will help management choose which path to take in response to challenges. 


Cameron, Kim. "Transformational Leadership." Developing Management Skills. New York: Harper Collins, 1991.
Gowdy, Heather. "Convergence:  How Five Trends Will Reshape the Social Sector." The Irving Foundation. Nov. 2009.
Kaplan, Robert and David Norton. "The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance." Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb 1992. 71-79.
Tregoe, Benjamin and John Zimmerman. "The Challenges of Strategic Management." Top Management Strategy:  What it is and How to Make it Work. Simon & Schuester, NY. 1980. 99-114.

Why is change so HARD for organizations???

It’s painful to change. It’s uncomfortable. It’s difficult. And avoiding pain is innate.

Change often is frightening and scary as people face the unknown.  People in organizations may lack the desire to change as it brings uncertainty and additional work and it feels uncomfortabe, leading people to resist change. Gallup in this blog post by Chee Tung, identifies what behavior economics terms "status quo bias (preference for keeping things the same) and loss aversion (the tendency to prefer avoiding losses more strongly than acquiring gains)" as psychological barriers to creating change in an organization. 

However, as the article Convergence highlights, nonprofits will face rapidly changing challenges that they will need to adapt to, including demographic shifts, technological advances, sectors are blurring, interest in volunteerism is rising, and opportunities for networking and collaboration are increasing. 

Below I will go over some ways to overcome barriers to change:

Strong sense of mission and vision for the organization
With a strong sense of the mission and vision of the organization (through strategic planning), organizations can stand back and recognize upcoming challenges and opportunities.  People in the organization can identify why they are doing what they are doing and where they are going by doing what they are doing.  Identifying mission and vision can help show why change is necessary and what changes need to occur.  It can also help relieve the fear of change as leading to the unknown by clarifying what the change will be and how it will affect the organization.

Going through the process of strategic planning can identify what to change and why.  Strategic planning can also be part of bringing people on board with change leading to:

Engaging stakeholders, motivating people
Part of the strategic process is engaging the organization's stakeholders.  Not just the leadership need to be on board with the change, but also employees, clients, volunteers, and other stakeholders.  They need to know why a change is happening, but also be emotional invested in the change.

Jack Welch in an HBR interview offers an example of a leader attempting to release what he terms "emotional energy" at GE by transforming attitudes and encouraging feelings of ownership and self-worth.

For rational and emotional investment to occur, people need to have the resources so that they can accomplish the change:

Making sure resources are available
Change often requires resources to implement, including tools, space, skills and time.  For change to be successful, all appropriate resources need to be available.

Often one only thinks of the physical objects one might need.  In Strategic Intent, Hamel and Prahalad also identify that providing employees with the skills they need to implement the change.  To provide these skills might mean trainings, collaborating with other organizations, hiring new staff, etc.  New staff or new programming might also require more space be available.

Hamel and Prahalad also highlight time as an important part of successful change.  Organizations need time to digest change.  People need time to become acclimated, to develop new processes, and to work on the kinks leading to:

Allowing failure and adaptation
Even with the most thoughtful and comprehensive strategic planning, things will arise that were not planned for.  In addition, making changes within an organization often means that mid-process tweaks will occur.  It is important that throughout the process, there is space for adaptation.  In addition, failure will happen.  If failure is framed as a learning experience and as part of the process of change, then people in the organizations will more likely to move forward with change, take risks in the process, and creativity engage.

Allowing for failure and adaptation can lessen the pain of change.  Leaders are an integral part of opening space for and communicating that failure and adaptation is part of the process.

All of these suggestions lead to Transformational Leadership
In Cameron's Transformational Leadership, transformational leaders take their organizations through the steps I identified above, but locates the leader as the driver of the process.  Leaders can signal a shift by "instituting symbolic events" by indicating that the past is dead and "creating a new language" to create different interpretations of the old way and the new way for the organization.  Part of the language change is making the vision for the future interesting, compelling, and personal. Leaders also need to engage both the rational and the emotional sides of people in their organization to generate commitment to change.  Leaders also need to continue to communicate the vision over time.

In sum, change is hard.   But change is necessary and often rewarding.

Change: What Makes it Hard and How We Can Make it Happen

Change can be difficult but it can also be vital to an organizations success. So what are some of the roadblocks that make change difficult in an organizational context, and what strategies can we use to overcome those roadblocks? There are many things we could list, but it might be helpful to consider two groupings: specific factors which may need to be targeted for change to occur, and broader factors that inhibit the process of change.

Two examples of factors that may specifically need to be targeted for change to occur include implicitly held beliefs and their impact on decision making1 and expectation of funders and managing fulfillment of those expectations2. Tregoe uses the term “sacred cows” to describe the implicitly held beliefs individuals in an organization hold which silently guide behavior through dictating what and how things should and should not be done1. Given the unspoken nature of such beliefs they may prevent discussion or realization around how things could be done differently and how change may be necessary. In considering the expectations of funders, nonprofits may be pressured to avoid allocating money to building the infrastructure, internal cash reserves, and staff capacity necessary for change as funders may expect their money to be nearly exclusively dedicated to programming2.

Specific factors such as the two described above may be viewed from a broader framework of why change is difficult to occur. Drawing on Cameron’s model of transformational leadership3 we can see change does not happen or is not sustained for four primary reasons: individuals who influence the organization do not know or believe there is a need for change, they do not know what that change should look like, they experience difficulty committing to change, and they experience difficulty integrating the structures and beliefs necessary for change into the organization.

So how do we tackle these more global roadblocks to change? Well, Cameron developed behavioral guidelines of the transformational leader3 which can give us direction as we seek to make change in our own organizations. Here I will mention the four broad actions she identifies (which parallel the reasons change does not happen) and additional specific actions she notes can promote and/or strengthen the broader action.

The broad actions Cameron discusses taking are: generating a readiness for change, defining a vision that is motivating and energizing, fostering commitment to the vision, and institutionalizing the vision.  In promoting a readiness for change leaders can highlight a variety of standards that are not being met and compare current performance to those standards; they can also identify external threats that call for a need for a different course of action. Once people believe there is a need for change a vision statement can be used to guide what that change is going to look like and the statement itself should emphasize core values, use engaging language that is direct, and exhibit expertise. To help foster commitment to the vision leaders should communicate it often and in multiple ways and should also create opportunities for members of the organization to make public commitments to the vision. Finally, leaders can institutionalize the vision and integrate change into the organization by doing things such as providing trainings that support the vision and modifying reward structures to align with the vision.

There are other more specific ways these roadblocks can be overcome and I encourage you to look at Cameron’s work for some more ideas and for an elaboration on the actions presented3, but this will give you a start in identifying roadblocks to change and determining how to overcome them.

1.    Tregoe, Benjamin B., and Zimmerman, John W. “Top management strategy: What it is and how to make it work.” Simon and Schuster, 1983.
2.    Gowdy, Heather, Hildebrand, Alex, La Piana, David, and Mende Campos, Melissa. “Convergence: How five trends will reshape the social sector.” San Francisco: The James Irvine Foundation, 2009.

3.    Cameron, Kim S. “Transformational Leadership.” Developing Management Skills 2. Eds. David Whetten and Kim Cameron. New York: Harper-Collins, 1991.

Meeting New Needs Through Organizational Change

In a world where demands on the nonprofit sector shift rapidly, it seems counterintuitive that many organizational structures remain so resistant to change. As Donna Butts, Executive Director of Generations United, notes, the distinct goal of nonprofits is to serve a dynamic client population, and yet many nonprofits lack the mechanisms to adapt to changing needs (Gowdy, Hildebrand, La Piana, & Mendes Campos, 2009). Why is it, then, that necessary organizational changes are so difficult to implement? Several major reasons include:

  • Staff burnout. When employees are already overwhelmed with responsibilities, overworked, or frustrated by previous organizational failures, it can be incredibly difficult to introduce new, additional responsibilities needed to implement change.
  • Organizational politics. In deciding on the next best step for an organization, egos can collide, leading to a lack of consensus.
  • Lack of effective planning. As Gallup Manager Leong Chee Tung reports, “Poorly defined objectives, milestones that seem impossible, and metrics that are unclear or not objective can further complicate a change process.”
  • Unnecessary bureaucratic impediments. Effective change cannot be fully realized unless leadership is able to “speed decision cycles, move information through the organization, provide quick and effective feedback, and evaluate and reward managers on qualities such as openness, candor, and self-confidence” (Tichy & Charan, 1989, p. 114).

Despite these obstacles, it is clear that change is needed. As this ever-transforming nonprofit landscape continues to evolve, organizations must ensure that they have mechanisms in place to respond to contextual change and, subsequently, adapt to meet the challenges of emerging needs and demands. All of this, of course, begs the question: what exactly can leaders do to successfully drive organizational change? Fortunately, there are multiple successful strategies available for implementation, as outlined below:

1. Implement a strategic planning process. The strategic planning process defines detailed steps for developing a results-based accountability system (Bryson, 2010). Through a collaborative process, organizations are able to: a) define their organizational mission and vision, b) assess the planning environment, c) define strategic issues, d) complete probability and impact analyses, and, e) implement, monitor, and evaluate new action steps, agendas, and policies (2010). This process helps to minimize political differences, increase staff buy-in, and move beyond prior frustrations.

2. Promote diversity. Research clearly demonstrates that diverse groups and organizations had advantages over homogenous ones (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; Mandell & Kohler-Gray, 1990). One particular advantage of a diverse organization is that diversity promotes creativity, driving dynamic, innovative strategies for new approaches to implementing change (Cox, 1994). Promoting diversity within organizations ensures that a variety of perspectives are brought to the table, thereby decreasing the likelihood that potential solutions to organizational stagnation will be overlooked.

3. Cultivate transformational leadership. Using Cameron’s (1991) Model of Transformational Leadership, individuals within organizations can create a readiness for change by implementing specific steps, such as comparing performance with standards, instituting symbolic events, and creating a common language.

4. Develop approaches based on strategic intent. Through the utilization of Hamel and Prahalad’s (1989) Model of Strategic Intent, leaders can establish criterion for: charting organizational progress, focusing the organization’s attention on succeeding, motivating employees, encouraging individual/team contributions, sustaining enthusiasm, and becoming increasingly intentional in resource allocation.

5. Invest in streamlining communication and feedback mechanisms. All too often, organizational change is fettered by a lack of efficiency in inter-organizational communication and feedback. It is crucial that leaders develop and implement communication and feedback loops to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic lag (Tichy & Charan, 1989).

When each of these steps is implemented with fidelity, leaders will become better equipped to meet the rapidly changing challenges and demands of the nonprofit sector.


Bryson, J. M. (2010). Strategic Planning and the Strategic Change Cycle. In D. O. Renz (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (230-261).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron, K. (1991). Transformational leadership. In Developing Management Skills. New York: Harper-Collins.

Cox, T. H. (1994). Diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers.

Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 827-847.

Gowdy, H., Hildebrand, A., La Piana, D., & Mendes Campos, M. (2009). Convergence: How five trends will reshape the social sector. In James Irvine Foundation: NonprofitNext.

Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review.

Mandell, B. & Kohler-Gray, S. (1990). Management development that values diversity. Personnel, 67(3).

Tichy, N. & Charan, R. (1989). Speed, simplicity, self-confidence. Harvard Business Review.

Change Does Not Have to Be That Difficult

”It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” 

Charles Darwin was aware of this in the 19th century, and it is probably even truer today. Unfortunately, the difficulty of change seems to be more talked about than the need for it. Why is it so difficult?

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s theory of two systems gives a reasonable explanation to why:  Most of our thinking is made in the system of intuition which is fast, effortless and associative. Consequently most of our decisions are governed by habit. Activating and running the other, slower, conscious system requires considerably more effort – explaining the difficulty of breaking habits to promote change (Schrage, 2003).

While this theory gives explanations, other studies provide opportunities  - suggesting that once faced with difficult decisions, individuals need some extra motivation or confidence to make changes affecting status quo (McGonigal, 2010). Leaders can be that push for change – and I will therefore outline five effective steps that leaders can use to overcome barriers.

1. Know who you are

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” 

I interpret it as though Leo Tolstoy understood that in order to lead others, you must first know yourself. A course in Self Leadership[1] (similar to the idea presented in “The Leader Within”) taught me that once you are able to let your values and personality shape your leadership, you can be the authentic leader that convincingly drives change. (Johnson, 2004) Fortunately, employees in nonprofits more often perceive that the nonprofit’s goals are aligned with their own values and objectives. (Watson, 2010) When you are convinced about that the organization needs change, it is time to create a sense of urgency (Hamel, 1989).

2. Get everyone aboard

Use environmental factors to outline why change is important to employees and potentially also other stakeholders (Hamel, 1989). The goal of this step in the process is to involve, make sure that people are informed about the change and the reasons for it. Employees and other stakeholders have valuable insight and ideas on how to improve the organization. Furthermore, involving the people affected by the change makes them feel ownership of the process. If you were to exclude individuals from this process, it could result in the feeling that they have lost control of their territory, with resulting resistance to change (Moss Kanter, 2012).

3. Develop a strategic plan

When it is time for the organization to start wandering, strategic planning makes sure it does so with a purpose (Bryson, 2010). The process involves several steps, but formulating the strategic plan helps overcome barriers because it focuses the organization’s attention on the target, communicates it and motivates individuals to contribute (Hamel, 1989). It also forces the team to foresee and work proactively with implementation difficulties (Bryson, 2010).

4. Invest in change

A leader should enable the organization to achieve its purpose – and if change is needed, the leader has to make sure employees get the chance to gain the knowledge needed for implemtation (Johnson, 2004 & Moss Kanter, 2012). A leader has to invest not only in necessary education, training and support systems, but in time, so that the ones most effected by the change do not become overloaded. (Moss Kanter, 2012)

5. Evaluate

It is crucial to track the progress towards the targets– that way the change process becomes unavoidable for everyone in the company (Hamel, 1989). Furthermore, in setting targets and evaluating, it is important to consider the many layers of nonprofit accountability (Ebrahim, 2010).


Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning and the Strategy Planning Circle. In: Renz, David O, ed. 2010. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
Hamel, Gary. & Prahalad, C.K. 1989. Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review, pg 63-76.
Ebrahim, Alnoor. The Many Faces of Nonprofit Accountability. In: Renz, David O, ed. 2010. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
Johnson, Cecil. 2004. Look at how employees see you. Wall Street Journal. 12/20
McGonigal, Kelly. 2010. Why Habits Are Hard to Change (And Printers Hard to Buy). Psychology Today. Retrieved from:
Moss Kanter, Rosabeth. 2012. Ten Reasons People Resist Change. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from:
Schrage, Michael. 2003. Daniel Kahneman: The Thought Leader Interview. Strategy+Business. Winter 2003. Issue 33. Retrieved from:
Watson, Mary R. & Abzug, Rikki. Effective Human Resources Practices. In: Renz, David O, ed. 2010. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.

[1] A course by SelfLeaders, in cooperation with Stockholm School of Economics