Evan Davidge

Let me get this straight, someone on ave. salary £35k a year, WORKING, will now be £1,400 worse off after the budget  BUT someone with 5 kids on benefits NOT working will be £10,000 better off This is becoming a disgrace. Rewarded for not working, PUNISHED for working

Nvidia and OpenAI’s massive chip deal shows how fast the AI market is accelerating, but adoption remains uneven. Here’s what leaders can learn from the dot-com era to make smarter investments and stay ahead. Read the full article by @pcarvao here: s.hbr.org/43oNSPv

I’m ashamed of European leaders even considering the Trump-Russia plan for ending the Ukrainian war!This dishonours Ukraine.European leaders should outright reject it & put forward their own plan which is the withdrawal of Russia from all Ukrainian land&embraces Ukraine in NATO

96% of HR leaders say employee well-being is a top priority — but only 65% of company owners agree. EBN’s 2025 Workplace Well-being Survey reveals a growing disconnect in how orgs approach wellness. #EmployeeWellbeing #HR #Leadership bit.ly/49ClDAN

If we want sustainable organisational change, which group is more important? (a) People who are active in response to the change (even if they are resistant); or (b) People who accept the change? Newly published research suggests (a); it is more important to get people active in change than it is to get favourable responses to it. Active dissenters/resisters/opponents are preferable to passive, seemingly accepting people who go along with the change. Many existing change frameworks focus on “valence”: the extent to which people are positive or negative about the change. This research highlights the importance of another dimension: “activation” - the energy or action level in people’s response to change - whether they are engaged, energetic & visible (active) or quiet, withdrawn, & non-participative (passive). The authors have created a four box framework called “the Change Response Circumplex Scale”. I’ve added some strategies for working with the different categories alongside their graphic. Active resistance is preferable to passive disengagement because it: -keeps the lines of feedback & dialogue open -surfaces important information & risks that passive compliance might hide -enables leaders to create psychological safety for diverse reactions to change. -Creates the conditions for long term engagement in change. Implications of this research for leaders of change: 1. Go beyond reducing resistance: Don’t just focus solely on minimising resistance or seeking passive agreement; aim to foster active, positive engagement from people -what the authors term “change proactivity.” 2. Understand engagement levels: Differentiate between passive acceptance, disengagement & truly active, positive support. Use the framework to understand people’s responses to your change initiative. 3. Create interventions accordingly: Disengaged people need approaches to increase involvement, passive assent can become active support & resistance can become constructive dialogue. 4. Leverage the value of dissent: Rather than viewing resistance solely as an obstacle, explore what motivates active dissent & use it as a resource for learning & adaptation. I appreciate this model because it challenges so much of the existing (dubious) advice for change leaders to “overcome resistance to change”. Instead we should work to activate engagement in change. The research shows that both high activation responses (change proactivity & change resistance) show the most promise for long term change engagement. Activism is what changes the world. There are two research articles about this framework. The 1st, from 2024, validates the framework (This is a version from Scrid so it is it accessible): scribd.com/document/89056213…. The 2nd, which sets the framework in a wider change context, is from 2025 & is attached to this LinkedIn post from Cheese Cheeseman: linkedin.com/posts/cheeseman…. By Shaul Oreg & Noga Sverdlik.