Are your leaders ready for the next disruption?

Kathryn Clubb, Head of BTS' Change & Transformation practice, and David Bernal, Vice President, explore the mindsets, capabilities, and behaviors leaders can leverage to be change-ready.
June 1, 2020
5
min read
Subscribe to the BTS newsletter
Follow us on Linkedin
Follow BTS on Linkedin
Authors
No items found.
Share

The speed and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic took most leaders and organizations by surprise. While this disruption is a dramatic outlier, leaders need to recognize that disruptions happen all the time. Some are unexpected, like COVID-19, while others are not. Businesses often disrupt themselves to innovate or react to new market demands. The bottom line: planned or not, disruption is here to stay. So how will you prepare your leaders for the next one?

When does disruption occur?

Understanding when disruption happens is a critical first step in preparing for it. Most disruptions are smaller than COVID-19, yet still have a significant impact on the business. Often self-initiated, disruptions occur when the business sets a new vision and goals or makes changes in strategy and operating models to adapt to marketplace forces. Culture transformations, acquisitions, mergers or other organizational change efforts also create disruptions. Frequently, more than one of these changes is happening at a time.

Why is disruption occurring more frequently now than ever?

In today’s environment, change is the new constant. Since the end of the twentieth century, the advent of the Internet and rapid advancements in technology have dramatically increased globalization and connectivity, accelerating the rate of change beyond anything seen before. In turn, this has shifted how leaders must approach change.

What did change look like before?

In the past, change was viewed as a straightforward process – a controllable event with a beginning, middle and an end. To prepare for change, leaders would plan for it, manage it and course correct to get to the end and be done with it.

Leaders embraced the mindset that with change comes risk. They believed change must be controlled to mitigate the various risks involved. This mindset allowed leaders to create the illusion of steadiness and calmness – something that historically came after change. This is called the stability mindset.

Change is uncomfortable for most people, so leaders often try to use the stability mindset to make their teams feel safe and secure, which enables them to perform at their best. However, in today’s business environment, this natural reaction is misguided. Persistent change means that treating change like a fixed set of events doesn’t align with reality.

Leading in today’s world

To be successful, leaders are now required to embrace the new belief that change is good fortune. Leaders must hold an opportunity mindset, embracing change as ongoing and necessary for growth and cultivating the belief that opportunity only comes with change. This new mindset turns on its head how leaders of the past perceived risk. Instead of associating risk with change, today’s leaders must understand that risk actually comes from NOT changing and remaining with status quo. Inertia causes organizations to lose ground and fall behind. Thus, change is not only necessary, but advantageous for businesses to adapt. Leaders who embrace an opportunity mindset can navigate change with a sense of confidence rather than hesitation or doubt.

Mindsets matter

The way leaders think about change is one of the biggest determinants of how successful change will be1 . Therefore, it is critical to examine preexisting organizational and individual mindsets about change. Typically ignored, these can provide critical information to help unlock transformation.

To help identify your individual and your organization’s mindset towards change, below are four different types of executives and organizations. Each example profiles an organization’s underlying relationship with change and identifies whether it embraces a stability or opportunity mindset.

Change Receivers:

Leaders who perceive change as pushed upon them feel a lack of control, resulting in a flight response. When leaders are in the habit of being a receiver of change, they are passive in their reaction and feel out of control, as if there is nothing they can do to prevent what is happening. Leaders with this response to change abdicate their own authority. The change receiver holds a stability mindset.

For example, a high-tech manufacturer set in motion a significant go-to-market global transformation. The changes brought by its new strategy shifted expectations for sellers, but these changes also touched product development, supply chain, customer support and finance. Senior leaders just below the c-suite reported that the “decisions are made by HQ” and even referenced “looking up” for direction as a behavioral norm in the company. These leaders tended to:

  • Wait for direction or decisions from others before moving forward
  • Refrain from taking action in new situations to avoid conflict
  • Escalate decisions, assuming such judgements are “above my pay grade”
  • Accept decisions or direction even when they don’t think they will work

Change Resistors:

Leaders who try to maintain their power and authority by pushing back against change. These leaders strive to protect the past by resisting the change with the belief that it will go away in the near future. Leaders will freeze, choose inaction or only take actions that they can control. Resistance can take many forms, such as questioning the authority of the change leaders, seemingly agreeing and then doing nothing, and citing reasons why the change does not apply to them. These leaders hope to wait out change. The change resistor holds a stability mindset.

For example, a global manufacturing company would routinely rotate high-level senior leaders as part of their development plan. During the rotation process, these senior leaders sometimes faced resistance, skepticism and inaction from their new team of leaders. The local leaders knew from their past experience that they could passively resist the new direction and continue doing what they were doing because their new senior leader would change again soon – as would the direction. In this case, resisting change was the leaders’ best path to stability. This led them to:

  • Refrain from speaking up, even when holding an alternative perspective that would provide needed insight
  • Bring up reasons that something could not be done based on precedent or history
  • Agree, and then find reasons not to execute on the stated commitment
  • Poke holes in the plan as a means to avoid taking action
  • Criticize change efforts without offering alternative ideas or help

Change Controllers:

Leaders who believe that they can control change and its effect around them. These leaders create detailed plans, launch initiatives, manage events, or do anything that gives them a sense of control. Why is this a fight response? Taking action feels good, but even when executing the most well-crafted plan, a leader will encounter unexpected circumstances.

If the leader believes they have controlled the change with their plan, then obstacles and missteps are failures. When this happens, there can be a tendency to ratchet up reporting and accountability, micromanage or even to seek to blame for mistakes or lack of progress. This behavior gives them a sense that they are managing change. They often believe that it is up to them to help get their team or organization “through” the change. The change controller holds a stability mindset.

For example, an Oil and Gas organization recently launched a new strategy. As part of identifying what was needed to move the strategy forward, they reviewed critical processes designed to aid strategy execution. During the review, the senior team realized that their approach to quarterly business reviews would hurt progress toward their strategy rather than moving it forward. The senior team determined that their detail-oriented questions were “backward looking” and provoked ineffective behaviors rather than learning and forward progress, so they completely changed it. These change controllers tended to:

  • Make decisions independently with limited input from colleagues
  • Seek information that supports their personal agenda
  • Ask detailed questions about why progress is slow or results were less than planned
  • Give detailed instructions on what to do rather than inquire about what has been tried
  • Discount obstacles raised by others to keep to the original plan

Change-Ready LeadersTM

Leaders who see change as normal, constant and the source of new opportunities. Leading change from this perspective requires a new set of great behaviors from leaders. A leader can choose to lead change rather than avoid it, resist it or try to control it. To lead change means leaders are scanning the environment, anticipating what is coming, and seeing opportunities where others see challenges. In some cases, it means thinking through a Plan B (and Plan C) because they know that Plan A will not work perfectly. Leaders focus more on aligning their teams on direction and purpose rather than telling people what to do. They create an environment where people learn, adapt and change together. The change-ready leader holds an opportunity mindset.

Change-ready leaders also focus on gaining emotional agreement from teams around the change being implemented and the reasons for doing it. This is a departure from the common idea that leaders only need to focus around explaining the “why” behind the change when communicating to individuals. Alignment around the vision is more beneficial for teams so they become invested in changing rather than focused on the why behind the change. Great leaders understand that letting people find their own reason for change and developing that understanding is critical to building trust.

How do great change-ready leaders lead? They try new tactics and implement new leadership competencies that they may not have used before. These competencies are brought to life in the form of behaviors, which are a result of having a different mindset and response to change. A change-ready leader holds an opportunity mindset and believes that change is expected, normal and constant. In order to make that mindset come alive, great change-ready leaders:

  • Rally others around the positive reasons for continual change
  • Accept the conflicting views, assumptions and feelings of the team
  • Promote the company’s purpose while simultaneously balancing the reality of today and future possibilities
  • Engage diverse teams to work together on difficult challenges while holding them accountable
  • Encourage the team to accept change, paradox and complexity as facts of life that yield new opportunities

While these change-ready leader behaviors may seem to be common across companies, they are actually represented uniquely in each organization. Mindsets are universal across organizations, yet their application is contextual. This means that great leadership is not a carbon copy across all companies – an organization’s culture plays a significant role in terms of what makes a leader great on the job.

To become change ready, it is critical for leaders to understand and codify both the “how” and “when” to lead change within the context of their own organization. This works best if leaders can define what great change leaders do differently relative to average leaders in the form of capabilities and behaviors. In tandem with change leader capabilities and behaviors, identifying the pivotal moments where leaders need to demonstrate the capabilities and behaviors is an excellent tool for development.

Identifying these pivotal moments allows leaders to immediately recognize the situations where, by changing their actions, they will have the largest impact..

To prepare for the next disruption, leaders need to uncover their current response to change, understand why and how it served them in the past, and then shift to seeing change as a new constant. Once this change in mindset happens, behaviors will shift consistent with being a change leader within the context of their organization. Adopting a more productive relationship to change during the COVID-19 crisis will help leaders navigate the current situation and come out of it more prepared and confident for the next disruption. With tools in hand, perhaps they will even seek opportunities and create disruptions of their own.

Learn how to design conversations that actually move decisions forward.
Download the report

Related content

Blog Posts
May 5, 2026
5
min read
Eight weeks, 24 countries, one diamond: The pattern behind our applied AI breakthrough.
Part 2 in a series. BTS CEO Jessica Skon shares stories and lessons on what made the first Applied AI diamond spread, what it felt like inside the team that built it, and what we see as clients adopt this approach.

In Part 1, I told you about the three decisions we made two years ago and the simulation flywheel that produced our first Applied AI diamond.

Here’s the field-notes version.

Over 80% of our global business have now adopted a new Applied AI approach for doing simulations in the first eight weeks, across 24 countries and every practice.

The flywheel didn’t stop with simulations. It moved into finance, sales enablement, legal, operations, and client delivery. Teams started building agents and bringing them onto their own org charts. We didn’t plan for any of that. We built the conditions for people to find their own breakthroughs.

What it felt like inside the flywheel.

When the simulation team went live with their first clients on the new way of working, the lead person hit a wall. Their words:

“You’re asking too much. You’re making me be a full-stack developer. Up until this point I did a small part, and I sent it to the team, and they built off the back end, and they brought it back. And now I have to end-to-end soup to nuts, basically alone.”

There was graphic UI work nobody had been trained for, the fear of delivering quality below what BTS expects of itself, and the weight of not having a playbook. This was not the joyful adoption story most consultancies tell.

Then something shifted. Six members showed up for product testing, where the usual was two or three. The work created teamwork I hadn’t seen at BTS in years. The breakthrough was not an instantaneous change from skepticism to celebration. It was a breakdown in confidence, then rally, then bonding. If we didn’t make room for the breakdown, we would have lost the rally.

The other breakthrough was global teamwork; not yet a BTS core strength. Our culture is beautiful: high-freedom and entrepreneurial. But people’s first identities are to their countries. Almost every prior attempt we’ve made at a global initiative has failed. The one exception was Covid. So, when I say what happened next surprised me, I mean it.

I asked to join the simulation team’s Slack channel rather than pulling them into status meetings. What I got to watch in the mornings was someone in South Africa waking up, posting “I tried this and got stuck,” then London adding on, then San Francisco weighing in, then a surprise breakthrough overnight from Tokyo. We didn’t engineer that. Curious and determined BTS’ers did. The problem was interesting enough that the org chart didn’t matter. It was amazing to see and a glimpse into the next evolution of the BTS culture.

The pattern: Explore, expand, institutionalize, renew.

What we’ve now seen play out, both inside BTS and with clients, follows the same four-step pattern. Each step asks a specific decision of the leader.

Explore.

Stay stubborn on the aspiration and fluid on the path. Our breakthrough wasn’t the path we originally took. We changed tools and approaches. Nobody could have foreseen that. And if the team had taken the first six months of learnings from AI as their definitive “this is the detailed path we will follow,” we never would have gotten the disruption. Five different tool combinations were tried before we found the one that worked. Companies that lock into a single path or tool too early are betting against compounding capability that doubles roughly every seven months. That is not a bet I’d take.

Expand.

Run the old way and the new way side by side. When the simulation team’s breakthroughs got real, the instinct was to retreat into more internal testing. We did the opposite. They ran old way and new way in parallel on 6 or 8 live client projects across all three geographies. Every single one ended up going live the new way. The backup was always there. They didn’t need it.

Institutionalize.

Burn the boats. The simulation team committed that no new client work would be done the old way after January 1. The other practice leads then committed to dates within Q1, even though most of them had not yet experienced the new way themselves. They had to trust their colleagues. If you can do it for the most complex thing, you could probably do it for the less complex ones. By February 15, we had approaching 90% global adoption across 24 countries, across all practices. I was shocked and proud. We had spent years failing at exactly this kind of global rollout.

Renew.

Treat your agents as contractors. People on our diamond teams are now managing 30+ agents they built themselves. Our teams give agents performance feedback. We terminate their contracts when they don’t deliver. We expand the responsibility of agents when they outperform. The frontier question we’re wrestling with now is token budgeting. Two friends of mine running engineering-heavy companies believe that within 6 - 9 months, their token cost per engineer will exceed the cost of the engineer. Whether that’s the right framing is open. The question is real, and every CEO will be asked some version of it within the year.

What had to be true for this to scale.

Once we achieved this amazing global innovation, the leadership sat down to figure out what made it work. We named five things. None of them were about the technology.

Real pain points as the starting point. We had so many people frustrated from those ways of working, all the back and forth and all the wasted time, that this was gold for them. The old way was already painful. The new way wasn’t a forced disruption; it was relief. Find the workflow where the pain is loudest and start there.

The diamond unlocked creativity, it didn’t constrain it. This was the most differentiated insight, and the one most leaders miss. It wasn't "here's the new tasks and rules." It was, "once you learn how to do this, the sky's the limit. You can be even more creative." If your rollout feels like a new set of rules constraining your people, you’ve built the wrong thing.

Pair deep expertise with fresh eyes. The disproportionate share of our breakthroughs came from a tenured tinkerer with total command of the work, paired with someone new to the role who hadn’t yet built the muscle memory of how it had always been done. Without that pairing, you get incremental improvements to the work you already know how to do, instead of a reinvention.

Refuse the “people are too busy” reflex. When I brought the rollout to the global leadership team, the excuses came fast. “Our people are too busy. They’re burnt out. Q1 is going to be busy. No one’s going to have time.” My response: “This is a chance to eliminate the tasks you dread and expand what you love. I know it is a short push of extra work, and I think after the fact you and your team will feel joy and pride and say it was the best time we ever spent.” This is the moment most AI rollouts die.

Senior leaders must lead by example and do the work themselves. This is not middle manager’s job. This is not something you delegate. Even though you don’t build simulations anymore, you must know what this is. One of our partners proactively put time on senior leaders’ calendars and forced them to do the work. Once they started building, the excitement grew, and they could advocate for the rollout because they understood it. If your executives haven’t put their hands on the keyboard, you don’t have a rollout. You have a memo.

What we’re seeing across clients.

We’re now running this play with client organizations across industries and geographies. The companies whose flywheels are accelerating paired their A-players with their early-career talent, pulled IT and legal into the working sessions, refused the “too busy” reflex, and put their senior leaders’ hands on the keyboard. The companies whose flywheels are stuck almost always have a leadership pattern at the center of the stall. Not a tooling pattern. Not a governance pattern. A leadership pattern.

If this resonates, let’s talk.

If you read Part 1 and asked yourself whether your flywheel was turning, the question I’d add now is sharper: do you have the conditions in place for a diamond to appear? If yes, you’re already moving. If no, the technology will not save you.

Here's where we're starting with clients: a working session, half day to a full day, with a small group that owns one of your highest-friction processes. Together we map where your first diamond is most likely to land, how to set up the side-by-side trial, and what your version of "burn the boats" should look like.

The destination, if we do this right, is a self-reliant culture of applied AI inside your company. 5, 10, 15 diamonds compounding into a fundamentally different way of operating. From what I have experienced this is a once in a career opportunity for dramatic shareholder value creation if you get that muscle going. I say that because I'm watching it happen, in real time, inside our own company and across our client base.

If you want to get your flywheels spinning and map your first diamond, start here. Bring your hardest workflow. We'll bring the playbook.

Two men sitting at a table discussing documents, one wearing a checkered shirt and the other in a suit with glasses.
Blog Posts
February 1, 2013
5
min read
Leadership development eliminating the obstacles
Inspired by Irvin Yalom, this blog shows that growth happens when we remove the obstacles holding leaders back, one step at a time.

Last night I started reading a book by Irvin Yalom, a psychiatrist who has written several novels that I’ve loved. But right now I’m reading something different—a book of short lessons he’s learned from many years of working with patients.

Early in his career, Yalom was inspired by something he read. The gist of it was that all people have a natural tendency to want to grow and become fulfilled—just an acorn will grow up to become an oak—as long as there are no obstacles in the way. So the job of the psychotherapist was to eliminate the obstacles to growth.

This was a eureka moment for Yalom. At the time, he was treating a young widow. Suffering through grief for a long while, she wanted help because she had a “failed heart”—an inability ever to love again.

Yalom had felt overwhelmed.  How could he possibly change someone’s inability to love?  But now he looked at it differently.  He could dedicate himself to identifying and eliminating the obstacles that kept her from loving.

So they worked on that—her feelings of disloyalty to her late husband, her sense that she was somehow responsible for his death, and the fear of loss that falling in love again would mean. Eventually they eliminated all of the obstacles. Then her natural ability to love—and grow—returned. She remarried.

Reading this story made me think of the responsibility of leaders toward the people they need to develop—and for the growth and learning that leaders themselves require to be the best that they can be.

Many leadership development challenges seem overwhelming—even impossible. The leaders that we coach usually have a list of areas where they want to get better, but how?  How do you “build better relationships with your peers and direct reports”?  How are you supposed to “get out of the weeds and demonstrate enterprise-wide thinking” or “build executive presence”?  All of these goals are as abstract as they are huge.

So the best approach is to not focus on the huge and fuzzy goal.  What we try to do is to break these goals down into concrete actions through working on real-time business problems. To put it simply, though, we do just as Yalom does: We identify the obstacles and work toward knocking them off, one at a time.

Leadership development is not usually a quick fix. You’re not going to develop executive presence through a half-day workshop or a one-time meeting.  If you’re interested in meaningful, lasting growth—whether for yourself or for those who work for you—it’s a commitment.

But don’t ever forget that we’re all capable of growth throughout life and our careers. The trick is to find the right coach or mentor who will guide you through that obstacle course.

Modern conference room with oval wooden table, brown leather chairs, glass door, and blue abstract painting.
Blog Posts
December 9, 2012
5
min read
Executive presence: what’s your “talk track”?
How your executive presence is affecting your professional brand.

In my work as an executive coach, I meet at least once a month with each of my coaching clients.

I often talk to them on the phone and exchange emails with them as we work on their real-time business challenges. So, what happens in those conversations? Recurring themes start to come up. I find that many leaders  have a “talk track” of words and phrases that they use all the time—without always being aware of the impact. For better or worse, this talk track ends up becoming part of their executive presence and their brand as a leader.

One of my clients had a talk track for many years that led to a reputation for negativity. In one meeting alone, I noticed that he had described about ten different work experiences as “nightmares.” Strong word! So we talked about this talk track. And the next time I heard him lapse into that way of talking, I decided to delve into it. “What I just heard from you was an example of that ‘talk track’ we’ve talked about,” I said. “So let’s talk about this. You say it was a ‘nightmare.’  Okay—why do you call it a nightmare?”

The upshot was that he had made a sales presentation but didn’t get the deal. I said, “Let’s use accurate language to describe the situation.” Was it a nightmare? No. Maybe it was a disappointment. Maybe he could have said, “Unfortunately, we didn’t get the deal” or “They decided to go with another vendor” and state why, objectively. My goal was to get him to stop “catastrophizing” when something didn’t work out.

This leader didn’t want to be defined by that negative “talk track” anymore. So I told him that the only way to do that is to turn up the volume on a very different talk track—one that captures the brand and presence that you want to project.

I’ve had clients who always talked about how difficult or challenging or complex things seemed to them.  You’ve probably had a boss or colleague with any number of talk-track themes:

  • “I’m so exhausted/overwhelmed/unhappy/unappreciated….”
  • “Everyone here is useless/stupid/incompetent….”
  • “It’s such a difficult environment/project/client/travel schedule…”
  • “That will never work/We won’t get that deal/It’s a dumb idea/What were they thinking?”

Often people aren’t even aware of how much they harp on a conversational theme and how negatively this lack of executive presence is affecting their professional brand. So what can you do to make sure your talk track is working for you and not against you as a leader? Take these four steps:

1. Identify your talk-track themes.

What are the words and phrases that you find yourself constantly using in conversations at work? Write down the things you seem to say almost every day—or think about what themes come up all the time for you in conversation at work or elsewhere.

2. Consider the impact of your talk track.

As a leader, your words carry more weight than others.  You’re setting the tone for your team or division or organization.  Whether that tone is absurdly optimistic, cynical, critical, upbeat, energized, or overly emotional, it’s going to be the model for others. Make sure that your talk track is consistent with the values and behaviors you want to drive.

3. Challenge the reality of your talk track.

How accurate is your talk track?  Do you have a natural tendency to see the part of the glass that’s empty?  How do you respond to setbacks?  Do you gloss over the pain?  Do you make a mountain out of a molehill?  It’s crucial for leaders to be balanced, objective, and real about what’s happening.  Your language choices need to reflect that.

4. Consider what you could say differently.

It’s easy to lapse into your talk track.  When you catch yourself saying the same old things, try to catch yourself as if an alarm was going off.  Can you find another way to say it—something that’s consistent with the brand and presence you want to project.

Don’t get me wrong.  Leaders do need to be “real” about challenges and setbacks, and a somber tone may be appropriate and even helpful at times.  The goal is to become more aware of your talk track and what it’s doing for you and others.  As a leader, people take their cues from you.  Before you know it, your talk track can dominate or drive the culture.

Changing your talk track is a challenge. Our ways of talking and viewing the world are pretty ingrained through several decades of life experiences. But change is also very possible. Pump up the volume on a more positive talk track for the holidays, and your presence will be viewed as a gift.

Related content

Insights
May 5, 2026
5
min read
Eight weeks, 24 countries, one diamond: The pattern behind our applied AI breakthrough.
Part 2 in a series. BTS CEO Jessica Skon shares stories and lessons on what made the first Applied AI diamond spread, what it felt like inside the team that built it, and what we see as clients adopt this approach.

In Part 1, I told you about the three decisions we made two years ago and the simulation flywheel that produced our first Applied AI diamond.

Here’s the field-notes version.

Over 80% of our global business have now adopted a new Applied AI approach for doing simulations in the first eight weeks, across 24 countries and every practice.

The flywheel didn’t stop with simulations. It moved into finance, sales enablement, legal, operations, and client delivery. Teams started building agents and bringing them onto their own org charts. We didn’t plan for any of that. We built the conditions for people to find their own breakthroughs.

What it felt like inside the flywheel.

When the simulation team went live with their first clients on the new way of working, the lead person hit a wall. Their words:

“You’re asking too much. You’re making me be a full-stack developer. Up until this point I did a small part, and I sent it to the team, and they built off the back end, and they brought it back. And now I have to end-to-end soup to nuts, basically alone.”

There was graphic UI work nobody had been trained for, the fear of delivering quality below what BTS expects of itself, and the weight of not having a playbook. This was not the joyful adoption story most consultancies tell.

Then something shifted. Six members showed up for product testing, where the usual was two or three. The work created teamwork I hadn’t seen at BTS in years. The breakthrough was not an instantaneous change from skepticism to celebration. It was a breakdown in confidence, then rally, then bonding. If we didn’t make room for the breakdown, we would have lost the rally.

The other breakthrough was global teamwork; not yet a BTS core strength. Our culture is beautiful: high-freedom and entrepreneurial. But people’s first identities are to their countries. Almost every prior attempt we’ve made at a global initiative has failed. The one exception was Covid. So, when I say what happened next surprised me, I mean it.

I asked to join the simulation team’s Slack channel rather than pulling them into status meetings. What I got to watch in the mornings was someone in South Africa waking up, posting “I tried this and got stuck,” then London adding on, then San Francisco weighing in, then a surprise breakthrough overnight from Tokyo. We didn’t engineer that. Curious and determined BTS’ers did. The problem was interesting enough that the org chart didn’t matter. It was amazing to see and a glimpse into the next evolution of the BTS culture.

The pattern: Explore, expand, institutionalize, renew.

What we’ve now seen play out, both inside BTS and with clients, follows the same four-step pattern. Each step asks a specific decision of the leader.

Explore.

Stay stubborn on the aspiration and fluid on the path. Our breakthrough wasn’t the path we originally took. We changed tools and approaches. Nobody could have foreseen that. And if the team had taken the first six months of learnings from AI as their definitive “this is the detailed path we will follow,” we never would have gotten the disruption. Five different tool combinations were tried before we found the one that worked. Companies that lock into a single path or tool too early are betting against compounding capability that doubles roughly every seven months. That is not a bet I’d take.

Expand.

Run the old way and the new way side by side. When the simulation team’s breakthroughs got real, the instinct was to retreat into more internal testing. We did the opposite. They ran old way and new way in parallel on 6 or 8 live client projects across all three geographies. Every single one ended up going live the new way. The backup was always there. They didn’t need it.

Institutionalize.

Burn the boats. The simulation team committed that no new client work would be done the old way after January 1. The other practice leads then committed to dates within Q1, even though most of them had not yet experienced the new way themselves. They had to trust their colleagues. If you can do it for the most complex thing, you could probably do it for the less complex ones. By February 15, we had approaching 90% global adoption across 24 countries, across all practices. I was shocked and proud. We had spent years failing at exactly this kind of global rollout.

Renew.

Treat your agents as contractors. People on our diamond teams are now managing 30+ agents they built themselves. Our teams give agents performance feedback. We terminate their contracts when they don’t deliver. We expand the responsibility of agents when they outperform. The frontier question we’re wrestling with now is token budgeting. Two friends of mine running engineering-heavy companies believe that within 6 - 9 months, their token cost per engineer will exceed the cost of the engineer. Whether that’s the right framing is open. The question is real, and every CEO will be asked some version of it within the year.

What had to be true for this to scale.

Once we achieved this amazing global innovation, the leadership sat down to figure out what made it work. We named five things. None of them were about the technology.

Real pain points as the starting point. We had so many people frustrated from those ways of working, all the back and forth and all the wasted time, that this was gold for them. The old way was already painful. The new way wasn’t a forced disruption; it was relief. Find the workflow where the pain is loudest and start there.

The diamond unlocked creativity, it didn’t constrain it. This was the most differentiated insight, and the one most leaders miss. It wasn't "here's the new tasks and rules." It was, "once you learn how to do this, the sky's the limit. You can be even more creative." If your rollout feels like a new set of rules constraining your people, you’ve built the wrong thing.

Pair deep expertise with fresh eyes. The disproportionate share of our breakthroughs came from a tenured tinkerer with total command of the work, paired with someone new to the role who hadn’t yet built the muscle memory of how it had always been done. Without that pairing, you get incremental improvements to the work you already know how to do, instead of a reinvention.

Refuse the “people are too busy” reflex. When I brought the rollout to the global leadership team, the excuses came fast. “Our people are too busy. They’re burnt out. Q1 is going to be busy. No one’s going to have time.” My response: “This is a chance to eliminate the tasks you dread and expand what you love. I know it is a short push of extra work, and I think after the fact you and your team will feel joy and pride and say it was the best time we ever spent.” This is the moment most AI rollouts die.

Senior leaders must lead by example and do the work themselves. This is not middle manager’s job. This is not something you delegate. Even though you don’t build simulations anymore, you must know what this is. One of our partners proactively put time on senior leaders’ calendars and forced them to do the work. Once they started building, the excitement grew, and they could advocate for the rollout because they understood it. If your executives haven’t put their hands on the keyboard, you don’t have a rollout. You have a memo.

What we’re seeing across clients.

We’re now running this play with client organizations across industries and geographies. The companies whose flywheels are accelerating paired their A-players with their early-career talent, pulled IT and legal into the working sessions, refused the “too busy” reflex, and put their senior leaders’ hands on the keyboard. The companies whose flywheels are stuck almost always have a leadership pattern at the center of the stall. Not a tooling pattern. Not a governance pattern. A leadership pattern.

If this resonates, let’s talk.

If you read Part 1 and asked yourself whether your flywheel was turning, the question I’d add now is sharper: do you have the conditions in place for a diamond to appear? If yes, you’re already moving. If no, the technology will not save you.

Here's where we're starting with clients: a working session, half day to a full day, with a small group that owns one of your highest-friction processes. Together we map where your first diamond is most likely to land, how to set up the side-by-side trial, and what your version of "burn the boats" should look like.

The destination, if we do this right, is a self-reliant culture of applied AI inside your company. 5, 10, 15 diamonds compounding into a fundamentally different way of operating. From what I have experienced this is a once in a career opportunity for dramatic shareholder value creation if you get that muscle going. I say that because I'm watching it happen, in real time, inside our own company and across our client base.

If you want to get your flywheels spinning and map your first diamond, start here. Bring your hardest workflow. We'll bring the playbook.

Three business professionals collaborating over a laptop at a modern office table.
Insights
April 20, 2026
5
min read
The myth of more: Why coaching needs structure
This blog explores why intentional design, built on consistency, continuity, and completion, is what turns scalable coaching into lasting leadership development.

Organizations have long wanted to scale coaching, but have been limited by cost and capacity. With AI, that's beginning to change as new platforms make coaching more accessible, flexible, and available on demand, extending support beyond a select group of leaders to entire populations.

For talent leaders, this shift creates both opportunity and complexity. With greater reach comes a new set of trade-offs: how to balance access with depth, flexibility with accountability, and efficiency with meaningful development.

The limits of unlimited (coaching).

Unlimited coaching sounds like the obvious answer. Remove the barriers, give everyone access, let people engage on their own terms. What's not to like?

In practice, quite a bit.

When coaching has no defined structure or cadence, engagement tends to become episodic - people show up when something feels urgent and step back when it doesn't. The coaching relationship never quite deepens. Conversations cover ground but don't build on it. And the development that was supposed to happen keeps getting pushed to the next session, and the next.

Three patterns emerge:

  1.  Sporadic engagement over sustained development. Without a rhythm to anchor the work, coaching becomes reactive. Clients bring whatever is most pressing that week rather than working toward something larger. Progress happens in bursts, if at all.
  2. Insights that don't compound. Great coaching reveals patterns over time - things a client can't see in one session but can't unsee after several. Without continuity, and without a consistent coaching relationship to hold the thread, each conversation starts close to zero.
  3. Outcomes that are hard to measure. No milestones. No defined endpoint. No clear way for the organization, or the client, to know whether it's working. Activity fills the gap where impact should be.

The result is a model that's easy to scale and hard to defend. Which is exactly the problem talent leaders are navigating right now.

The relationship is the lever.

Decades of research into what makes coaching work keeps arriving at the same answer: it's the relationship. Not the platform, not the methodology. The relationship.

When a coach and client build trust over time, developing shared language, and returning to the same themes with increasing depth, something shifts. Conversations get more honest. Insights stick. The client starts doing the work between sessions, not just during them. That's when coaching becomes genuinely transformative, and it can't be rushed or replicated in a one-off session.

The ICF and EMCC are clear on this: continuity is what dives outcomes. The coaching engagements that produce lasting change are the ones where each session builds on the last, not the ones that simply offer more access.

Three principles make that possible: Consistency, Continuity, and Completion.

1. Consistency

The foundation everything else is built on.

The temptation when designing a coaching program is to treat flexibility as a feature - let people book when they want, swap coaches freely, engage on their own schedule. But frequent coach changes reset the clock. Every new coach has to earn trust, learn context, and find their footing with the client. That's time spent getting started, not getting somewhere.

A stable coaching relationship works differently:

  • The coach starts to see around corners, uncovering patterns the client can't see on their own
  • The client stops performing and starts being honest
  • The relationship itself becomes a source of accountability, not just the sessions

Consistency doesn't constrain the work. It's what makes the deeper work possible.

2. Continuity

What turns a series of sessions into genuine development.

Without continuity, coaching tends to be additive at best- each session offers something useful, but nothing compounds. With it, the work builds on itself in ways that can't happen in isolated conversations.

What continuity makes possible:

  • A limiting belief surfaced in session three becomes a thread that runs through the rest of the engagement
  • A behavioral pattern the client couldn't see at the start becomes impossible to ignore by the end
  • Space opens up for the harder work - the kind that requires sitting with discomfort across multiple sessions, not resolving it quickly and moving on

That slower, deeper work is where lasting change actually happens. It doesn't come from more sessions. It comes from the right sessions, in the right order, with the same person.

3. Completion

The most underrated principle of the three.

In a world of unlimited access, there's no finish line, and without one, it's surprisingly hard to know what you're working toward, or whether you've gotten there. A defined endpoint changes the entire shape of an engagement.

A clear endpoint creates urgency and focuses every session on what matters most.

  • Shifts the question from "what should we talk about this week?" to "what do we need to accomplish before we're done?"
  • Gives both coach and client a body of work to look back on, not just a log of conversations

For talent leaders, this is also what makes coaching legible as an investment. Sessions logged is an activity metric. A cohort of leaders who completed a structured engagement and can articulate what changed, that's a result.

Don't just scale it, design it (here’s how) 

The opportunity in front of talent leaders right now is significant. The organizations that will get the most from this moment are the ones that treat coaching design as seriously as coaching delivery.

Practical design decisions:

  • Define the arc before you launch: set the number of sessions, the cadence, and the goals upfront, not after people have already started booking
  • Protect the coaching relationship: Make coach switching the exception, not the default, and design your program to discourage unnecessary re-matches
  • Build in milestones: create structured check-ins at the midpoint and end of each engagement so progress is visible to both the coach and the organization
  • Separate on-demand support from developmental coaching: Use AI-enabled tools for in-the-moment guidance, and reserve structured engagements for the deeper work
  • Measure completion, not just activation: Track how many people finish an engagement, not just how many start one

Questions to pressure-test your design:

  • Does every participant know what they're working toward before their first session?
  • Can your coaches see enough context about a client's journey to pick up where they left off?
  • Would you be able to show, at the end of a cohort, what changed, and for whom?

Access opened the door. Intention is what makes it worth walking through.

Insights
April 29, 2026
5
min read
Why we didn't wait: A CEO's field notes from two years of applied AI
AI value is compounding, not linear. BTS CEO Jessica Skon shares how experimentation fuels flywheels, and how breakthrough “AI diamonds” emerge and scale.

Three decisions that changed everything.

Two years ago, we made three deliberate decisions about how BTS would move with Applied AI.

We would become our own Customer Zero.

While others were building strategies, defining governance, and waiting for clarity, we made a different call: we decided not to wait. Not because the stakes were low, but because they were high. And because in a space evolving this quickly, clarity wouldn’t come from planning. It would come from movement.

So instead of starting with a roadmap, we started with three principles:

  1. No top-down mandate. The people closest to the work figure it out.
  2. IT must evolve from gatekeeper to enabler - leading AI trials and fast experimentation.
  3. Don’t wait for certainty.

We set the organization in motion, and once we did, things started to move quickly.

What if we started this company today?

Waiting for certainty is itself a choice, and it’s costing companies more than they realize.

We started where we knew the work best: our simulations. No perfect plan, just teams moving, trying, and iterating.

Simulations are core to who we are at BTS. Companies that simulate don’t just make better decisions; they execute faster and build more engaged cultures.

The team asked a simple question:

"What if we were to start our company today?”

That question started the flywheel.

They asked IT for a few licenses and started building - vibe-coding, writing agents, and testing tools - moving at a pace that would make any VC-backed start-up smile.

The messy middle.

At first, the team was underwhelmed.

The early reports were blunt:

“Not good with math.”
“Poor graph capabilities.”

The team wasn't discouraged. They kept tinkering - jumping between tools, staying on top of new releases, experimenting constantly.

This was a small team, across 24 countries, building off each other’s ideas. Laughing at crazy creations. Breaking things. Iterating in a sandbox alongside real clientwork.

Each cycle produced something:

  • A sharper scenario
  • A faster build
  • A more powerful simulation

The flywheel was turning, and it was generating something real.

When the diamond appeared.

Then something shifted.

The team moved into client trials across five countries. They figured out ISO compliance and built the architecture to handle the complexity, the “spaghetti.”

And what emerged wasn’t incremental:

  • What used to take weeks started happening in days.
  • Limited creativity started to feel like unlimited innovation.
  • Clients became self-serving.
  • Agentic simulations were built directly into client systems for real-time updates and preparation.

This was our first AI diamond - a high-impact outcome created by many cycles of experimentation compounding into real value.

It only appeared because we kept the flywheel turning, each cycle increasing the odds that something would break through.

95% adoption in eight weeks.

Then it was time to take the AI diamond global.

BTS is decentralized and highly entrepreneurial. We operate across 24 countries and 38 offices, where local teams have real autonomy.

And historically? That’s meant a low appetite for adopting something built somewhere else and pushed from the center.

So we expected resistance.

Instead, something surprising happened.

In the first eight weeks, we saw 95% adoption across our global footprint.

It felt completely different from our own digital initiatives, ERP implementations, top-down rollouts of the past.

This moved on its own. Why? 

We realized it didn’t start with a framework or a model, it started with a feeling.

The feeling of being at the leading edge of one’s craft and profession.

  • Joy
  • Excitement
  • Pride

As we watched this play out across teams it stopped feeling like isolated wins.

There was a pattern to it. A repeatable, organic, innovation motion.

And the flywheel didn’t stop with simulations.

It spread across finance, sales enablement, legal, operations, and client delivery. Some cycles led to small improvements, and others revealed new diamonds.

Not becausewe planned for them, but because we built the conditions for people to find them.

The question I'd ask any CEO right now: Is your flywheel turning, or are you still waiting for the perfect plan?

In part 2, I’ll share the key success factors behind the breakthrough, and what we’re now seeing across more than 120 global clients.