Change Readiness: helping clients prepare for change and implementation is systemic, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

During my decades running training programs in companies, I’ve run across a fair share of coaches, consultants, and fields of study that believe the client is responsible for implementing their solution suggestions regardless of whether they’re prepared to execute or not. As a result, clients aren’t always able to apply the solutions offered.

I believe clients pay practitioners to solve a problem, not merely provide the components of a solution. But any solution suggestions have a good chance of being resisted, regardless of how necessary or suitable they are, if clients aren’t change-ready at the start of a project.

In this paper I’ll describe the elements involved in facilitating Change Readiness. For a more detailed discussion, read my book HOW?.

WHAT/WHY CANNOT RESOLVE A PROBLEM

Standard change models are tactical, giving practitioners the job of creating solutions by:

• ‘understanding’ a problem by gathering ‘good’ data (too often from only a subset of the stakeholders needed to fully represent the problem);
•  attempting to obtain buy-in (often from folks not involved in goal setting or change management);
• developing and delivering a solution (to groups often not change-ready).

But these points face obstacles because…

• Questions: Questions are biased by the needs, words, intent, and verbiage of the questioner. As such they may gather specious, incomplete information making ‘understanding’ difficult, risk a possibility, and leading to flawed or incomplete suggestions.
• Listening: we can only accurately understand 10-35% of what a speaker is saying due to the way brains delete and distort incoming content. In other words, neither Speaker nor Listener are able to hear each other accurately leading to false assumptions and inaccurate data gathering.
• Baseline Assumptions: current models in coaching, leadership, System Dynamics, and sales believe the practitioner is the one that ‘needs to know’. But because of the biases involved, this leads to flawed data gathering, suggestions based on a practitioner’s assumptions, and resistance.

…and make the following assumptions:

• The right questions are posed to the right people without bias;
• The full set of correct data is extracted and accurately assessed;
• Good information will trigger behavior change;
• Outsiders (consultants, practitioners, coaches, leaders) are the ones responsible for understanding the facts underlying client change;
• The correct assumptions are made and generate the right solutions;
• Buy-in can be achieved and resistance can be avoided via ‘good’, ‘rational’ data and leadership;
• Clients are change-ready at the start of a project so they can utilize the suggested solutions.

Lots of assumptions and biases, making it difficult, if not impossible, for outsiders to fully understand what’s really going on or generate appropriate solutions. The sticking point is the difficulty for either practitioners or clients to understand or fix a problem given its origination point is largely unconscious and can only be unwrapped at the source.

Permanent change is systemic: trying to fix a problem by focusing on changing behaviors creates resistance because making changes without buy-in; without matching the goals, norms and beliefs of the originating system; and without an execution plan that the full complement of stakeholders have agreed to puts the underlying system at risk.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEADING CHANGE?

Given the complexity and unconscious unknowns, a problem is hard for anyone to resolve, certainly an outsider using a content- and problem-focused approach (WHAT/WHY).

Certainly, external practitioners get hired to facilitate problem solving and change. But that doesn’t mean doing it for them or trying to lead them to a solution the practitioner culls from their flawed assumptions and data gathering.

When practitioners (coaches, System Dynamics practitioners, OD consultants, sellers, etc.) try to understand a problem or develop solutions, they’re using their own biases that take away the client’s agency – disrespecting their ability to generate their own solutions based on their own norms. Not to mention, as per Einstein, all change must emanate from the system that generated the problem.

I believe it’s a practitioner’s job to facilitate clients to generate their own solutions. But this requires listening without bias, formulating brain-directional (not information gathering) questions, and a goal to lead clients to where in their unconscious system the problem was generated and maintained.

With the goal to facilitate discovery and congruent systemic change, practitioners can help clients get to the system that expressed the problem, make the appropriate modifications to achieve the outcomes they desire, and become change-ready… not merely do things differently. I call this process Change Facilitation, and it’s a HOW.

Sample

To understand Change Facilitation, it’s necessary to view change as systemic. We forget that problems are merely the expressions of the flawed system that expressed them, not isolated events.

Trying to change just the output – the problematic activity, the behaviors – causes the system to be at risk and will trigger resistance, regardless of the efficacy of the proposed solution.

CHANGE IS A ‘HOW’ DRIVEN BY SYSTEMS

Since you can’t change a behavior by trying to change a behavior, any solution must not only reconfigure the norms, beliefs, and rules of the system that triggered the problem but get buy-in from the stakeholders who will touch the solution and who must understand/accept the risks of change.

In other words, starting by attempting to gather information or ‘understand’ a problem cannot get to the full set of systemic, and largely unconscious, elements that triggered the faulty outputs.

It’s much more successful and congruent to first enable clients to get to their own unconscious triggers and help them generate new outputs that will fit congruently within their system. Unless

• a client is set up for change;
• a suggested change matches the core beliefs and identity of the prevalent system;
• everyone involved has been included in goal setting and change management iterations;
• everyone involved understands and agrees to the risks of making changes;

the underlying system will feel violated and resist any change suggestions.

CHANGE READINESS

Before any information gathering or solution design, I suggest practitioners first ascertain the client’s level of Change Readiness. If they’re not change-ready, practitioners must begin a project by facilitating the client to

• get agreement from representations of all stakeholders on the goals, rules, beliefs, and values (the structure of the system) before any change practices take place;
• understand the risk of change before they agree to it;
• identify new goals and underlying values to be met;
• develop solutions from ideas and buy-in from all who will touch it;
• generate a plan to regularly evaluate the change once implemented with a multidisciplinary team to assess and offer suggestions through time.

This ensures accuracy of problem definition, buy-in, implementation, and avoids resistance. Concurrently all clients/ customers must add ‘Full Implementation’ as deliverables to their contracts.

Facilitating Change Readiness requires different types of questions and unbiased listening. Using systems thinking, Gregory Bateson’s Logical Levels, NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP), the System Dynamic work of Dana Meadows’ 1-5 Leverage Points, and systemic tools I’ve spent decades inventing – Facilitative Questions™, Systems Listening, the 13 Steps of Change, Implementation Facilitation, Buying Facilitation® – it’s possible to enable Change Readiness.

KPMG CASE STUDY

When working with KPMG years ago, they received their first RFP from a global multinational who had been known to work with now-defunct consulting group Arthur Anderson (AA). My clients began developing their proposal – in those days a million dollar ‘dog and pony’ show – with excitement. Finally! They were going to get this company’s business. But what’s stopping them from using AA again? I asked.

My client Dave called them and asked. Their response: “We are going to use AA again, but we needed a second bid.” Oops!

When Dave sent me the RFP I noticed none of the HOWs were included – just data points of what they wanted to achieve without including pre-change work, stakeholder buy-in, or risk management. I wrote a letter for KPMG to send to the prospect, explaining that since they were going to use AA anyway they didn’t need a proposal from ‘us’ (KPMG) but we’d offer them points that we found missing in the RFP that had to be included to fully resolve their problem.

I then wrote up two pages of Facilitative Questions™ that would lead them through Change Readiness. Dave sent the packet and heard nothing for 6 weeks. He then got a call from his prospect who said that the Facilitative Questions™ made them realize they had prework to do that AA hadn’t addressed. They hired KPMG for the multimillion dollar job – with no proposal.

CONCLUSION

When the goal of practitioners is to facilitate behavior-based change, and clients aren’t change-ready, suggestions won’t be executed regardless of their efficacy.

For real change, and before trying to understand a problem or design a new solution, help clients facilitate Change Readiness so they’re prepared to implement your solution without resistance.

Once they’ve managed the systems issues – the full set of stakeholders are identified and involved, the risk is agreeable, and they gotten buy-in for change – it’s then time to gather information (it will be accurate!), pitch your ideas (based on what you now know about the client’s needs and ability to accept) and generate a new solution based on their system. Obviously there won’t be any resistance as all will have been included and the system will not be at risk.

If you’re interested in learning Implementation Facilitation to help clients with Change Readiness before you begin your project, please contact me: sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com

_________________________    

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com, https://sharondrew1.substack.com/, and https://medium.com/@sharondrew_9898/. She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.

Sharon Drew Morgen November 3rd, 2025

Posted In: News

Leave a Comment

Solving a Problem is Systemic: avoiding resistance and ensuring permanent change is more complex than changing behaviors, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

Problems are incongruent behaviors that have arisen from the system that triggered them. To solve problems permanently and without resistance it’s necessary to take corrective measures at the source, in the neural circuits where the problem was initiated. Unfortunately, we attempt to solve them by trying to change the incongruent behavior.

Until now, behavior change has been the preferred approach to problem solving. Folks trying to effect change in others – coaches, leaders, managers, sellers, docs – pose the ‘right’ questions and listen attentively to better understand the problem, assuming once they understand they’ll lead the Other to their answers.

But questions aren’t what they seem, and brains cause deficient listening, causing a fail rate for behavior change at over 90%:

• Questions: Standard questions are biased by the words, phrasing, goals, assumptions, and needs of the Asker. As such they may not obtain ‘good’ or complete information. This problem is compounded by brains that can’t ‘listen’, making it likely that neither Speaker or Listener accurately understand each other.
• Listening: Sadly, there’s only a 10-35% chance we accurately hear each other. The way brains listen is filled with distortions and deletions causing misunderstandings, mistranslations, and false assumptions. (My book WHAT? explains this). I know we all assume that listeners accurately hear what we say. They cannot, even when we attempt to speak in ways we’ll get heard.
• Curiosity/understanding: We can only be curious about what we notice or think – both of which are restricted by what we already know. All that we think, hear, see, feel, know is triggered from neural circuits in our brain. There’s no way to notice anything unless it’s already there, making it impossible to be curious about anything that our brains don’t recognize. In other words, even our curiosity is biased.
• Risk: for some reason, influencers and change agents forget to factor in risk. If the risk of change is greater than the risk of staying the same, no change will take place. Obviously an outsider can never understand another person’s risk.

Since the data we gather is potentially biased by our questions and restricted to what Askers think they need to understand; and what we each hear is potentially inaccurate due to the way brains listen; there’s a high probability that information collected will be biased, insufficient, inaccurate and will lead to potentially flawed suggestions.

ELEMENTS IN PROBLEM SOLVING

Decades ago, when I begin my career, I couldn’t understand why permanent change was so difficult. Surely, with accurate, rational reasons, behaviors should change. But they didn’t. Trying a different approach I began studying brains: where decisions get made within the brain’s neural circuitry; and the interplay between the unconscious electrochemical brain and the conscious, action-oriented mind.

What I discovered goes against standard practice: to generate new, permanent behavior, change must originate at the source, in the neural circuits that triggered the original, problematic behaviors so they can generate new ones. I’ve since developed Change Facilitation models for several industries, trained 100,000 people and written extensively.

Below I offer a primer to my thinking, ideas and skills for those coaches, System Dynamics practitioners, Change Management consultants, OD professionals and leaders willing to work beyond the standard change models to lead clients through to permanent, integrous change – without resistance, and with buy-in.

I’ll begin with the fundamental question: when helping Others make needed changes, why do we need to understand anything? The actual task of facilitating permanent change is a neural circuit/systems issue within the Other’s brain before it’s an understanding or comprehension issue for an influencer.

While the specific act of understanding is a What/Why, change itself is a How issue – How to get to the specific neural circuits where the change is implemented: What/Why is tactical; How is systemic and strategic.

Too often influencers assume their important advice will lead to permanent change and omit this important element. Without knowing how to get to the originating source where the problem was triggered, a client can’t implement the guidance and it will be resisted.

Sample

Different from information gathering or understanding the story and details of a problem, the skills needed to enable clients to get to specific circuits and make necessary changes is a How, and precedes What/Why. Here are the elements involved:

1. All activity, all behaviors – all that we see, hear, do, think – emerge from neural circuits in our brains that are formed by systems. Any change must include new or reconfigured circuits so new choices will be triggered at the source.
2. A behavior is merely the expression, the representation, of the system that triggered it. For permanent behavior change, the originating system and the circuits trigger different behaviors.
3. Our brains have 100+trillion neural pathways, each one expressing a unique system, each one triggering specific activity and behaviors. These are where all behaviors and decisions emerge from and which send signals to the mind to take the action.
4. Change must not put the system at risk or it will be rejected, made possible when the change emerges directly from the neural circuits.

Current behavior change models focus on the influencer understanding the problem then leading the client to change via the influencer’s assumptions rather than enabling clients to discover their own, and is responsible for the low success rate (97% by some estimates). Turns out this is a systems problem: to better understand change it’s necessary to understand the role systems play in creating a new solution.

SYSTEMS

A system is any group of ‘things’ that agree to the same rules, beliefs, values. You’re a system. Your family is a system. Each country has a system. They are the bedrock of all cultures and create/maintain the status quo, with behaviors the expression. Here are some facts about systems that must be incorporated into any change process:

1. A solution must embody the underlying system that has dispatched the offending behaviors. The system itself must be changed so it emits different behaviors. Change the system and new behaviors emerge. Gathering data and providing answers does not change a system, merely gets mistranslated and seen as a risk.
2. The rules of the system must be maintained in any change, or it will be resisted. The rules of the system define the solution. For change, help Others discover the rules, norms, beliefs of their system.
3. It’s not possible to change a behavior by trying to change a behavior. Behaviors are the expressions, the physical output of a system and as such are meaningless on their own; they don’t arise from the sea like Venus.
4. Problems are features, not flaws. Because the ‘problematic’ actions are merely expressions of the underlying system, whatever shows up has been triggered by the system it’s expressing. Again, providing ‘good’ information will not change a system.
5. Change must come from, and follow the norms/rules of, the circuits that initiated the perceived problem.
6. When influencers try to merely change behaviors, they’re working from their own biased assumptions and potentially discounting the norms and rules of the system. This causes resistance, sabotage and opposition.
7. If the risk of change is greater than the risk of staying the same, no change will occur. The job of the influencer is to help clients understand their risk of change, and all stakeholders must have a say in any proposed change or they will resist at the point of implementation.
8. Implementation and execution will be problematic unless

a.  All stakeholders who will be involved in the bought into the change;

b.  The risk of change is acceptable to the stakeholders;

c.   The rules of the system have been maintained.

Without addressing these points, any attempts at change are driven by the biases of the practitioner and may miss the underlying system that generated them. This is especially relevant for System Dynamics, Change Management, Coaching, Leadership, Management, Healthcare, and Sales.

To enable permanent change requires wholly new thinking and new skills based on facilitating folks to the original circuits that expressed the problematic behavior so they can make their own change. No information gathering. No guidelines for change. Just impartial skills that lead Others to the specific neural circuits where the problem was initiated. This includes: Facilitative Questions™, Meta Listening, the 13 Steps of Change. And the biggest one of all: assuming Others have their own answers instead of trying to provide them what you believe to be answers.

I’ve invented change facilitation models that facilitate change at the source and am happy to teach them to you. Visit www.sharon-drew.com to read some of my articles. sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com

If you had the skills to lead your clients to their own unconscious place to make their own necessary changes, would you be willing to give up the control you think you have?

_____________________________    

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com, https://sharondrew1.substack.com/, and https://medium.com/@sharondrew_9898/. She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.    

Sharon Drew Morgen October 6th, 2025

Posted In: News

‘Send me an email’ indicates rejection, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

I just read a discussion stream on LinkedIn debating why you’re told ‘Send me an email.’ when prospecting. It’s simple: you’re being rejected. People want to remove themselves from your push. It’s a problem created by the sales model itself.

I want to begin with a question that has plagued me since I ran a How Buyers Buy training program for KLM in 1987 when teaching them how to integrate the Buy Side into sales: Would you rather sell, or have someone buy?

You’ll say you’d prefer that someone buy. But your continued focus on the Sell Side largely ignores the Buy Side, causing you to struggle unnecessarily getting call-backs, closing, making appointments. Or equally ineffective, you assume your solution, your knowledge, your personality will facilitate buying. It doesn’t.

Surely you’ve realized that the Sell Side is quite different from the Buy Side. Two different activities and mind sets, both involved in a purchase, yet only one of them is addressed in your sales process.

SELLING VS BUYING

Buying is a How, a strategic change problem. Selling is a What and Why, a tactical solution placement problem. Buying involves cultural change and risk to the jobs, resources, and norms of the buyer. Selling involves finding people to give you money for your solution. Two different things requiring wholly different skills, goals, and intentions.

Selling doesn’t cause buying; buying is a change/risk management issue before it’s a solution choice. The very act of selling and your approach to each contact; the very questions you pose and assumptions you make; the content you share causes resistance with all but those 5% ready to buy.

Before people self-identify as buyers they have work to do…work not related to need or purchase, and certainly not involved with what you’re selling: until people manage and get buy-in for their risk of internal change and have tested workarounds – How, rather than What and Why – they cannot risk bringing in something new. In fact, a new solution is the last thing they need. Literally. And the sales model does not address this majority element of a buying decision.

SALES PLACES SOLUTIONS

The goal of sales is to place solutions: Find people who need what you’re selling, ask questions to confirm, then pitch. It assumes:

1. you’re asking the right questions at the right time in their change/decision cycle and you can listen without bias;
2. the prospect knows specifically what an external solution must include to be incorporated into their system congruently;
3. the prospect has completed their 13 steps of change, tested workarounds, and gotten necessary buy-in;
4. the person you’re speaking with speaks for the buying decision team, and knows all their criteria for change and risk;
5. the risk of bringing in your solution has been managed.

Folks who haven’t yet completed their necessary change/risk management process ignore sellers: they’re still trying to solve their problem internally and haven’t considered going ‘outside’ for a fix. These are the folks who agree to meetings just to take your information. Or the folks who won’t take a call, even though they might later (once they’ve got all their ducks in a row) discover they need you.

By starting with a different goal (i.e. NOT need, but Change Facilitation) and skill set (Listening for Systems, Facilitative Questions™, 13 Steps of Change, etc.), these folks can be easily found and quickly facilitated through their steps of change with their stakeholders included. Once this is done, they buy quickly. With no rejection.

Sample

All people must figure this stuff out before they self-identify as buyers, with you or without you. Because of the rigid focus of the Sell Side, they do this without you, leaving you selling to the low hanging fruit – a 5% close rate.

WHY SALES FAILS

The sales model turns a seller into a hammer looking for a nail. It ignores three quarters of the real buyer’s decision journey.

Back in the day when Dale Carnegie told you to sell to need the buying process was much simpler. By maintaining that model, sales has become a stigmatized process that pushes content per the needs of the seller – the reason sales closes such a small percentage, and the reason sellers are told to ‘send me an email’.

Buyers have one criteria:to fix their problem with the least disruption to their system or they will maintain their status quo! The risk of the change must be equal to, or less than, the risk of staying the same. The time it takes them to figure all this out is the length of the sales cycle.

A buying decision is a risk management problem before it’s a solution choice. And the sales model – the Sell Side – doesn’t include facilitating change and risk – the Buy Side – which must be completed before people self-identify as buyers.

So long as you use the sales model as your only tool to facilitate a buying decision, you will have difficulty closing. That’s just not how buyers buy.

FACILITATE BUYING FIRST; SALES SECOND

What if you begin selling by

• using a Change Facilitation model to first search for people solving a problem your solution can resolve,
• then facilitate them through their risk and change,
• help them get buy-in from all who will touch the new solution,
• sell when they’re ready to buy.

It would require new skills but you’d find real prospects on the first call and close in half the time. Are you willing to learn a new skill to facilitate buying?

I’ve invented Buying Facilitation® (Stage 1, Buy Side) process to first find folks during their problem-solving phase and help them through their change/risk management and buy-in. Then sales (Stage 2, Sell Side) places the solution.

You need both. Call me if you want to learn Buying Facilitation® and increase your sales to 40% close. Do you want to sell? Or have someone buy?

__________________

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.

Sharon Drew Morgen July 28th, 2025

Posted In: News

Reduce Resistance and Optimize Buy-in: Systems Management can ensure risk-free cultural change, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

With the best will in the world, with great leaders and well-intentioned methods, our projects are beset by time delays, lack of buy-in, and resistance. But it doesn’t have to be that way. With a few modifications, with the understanding that change involves systems management, we can avoid these problems altogether.

Change Management (CM) processes seek to modify something that has worked well-enough for some time and has been habituated into the daily norms. Unfortunately, these processes sometimes fail to incorporate the systems involved:

• when leaders assume they know the problem without involving the voices of the folks with firsthand, in-depth knowledge of the day-to-day activities;
• when folks with the closest association to the problems don’t get the chance to offer ideas or explanations during goal setting;
• when new activities are mandated to people who’ve had no voice in generating them;
• without including specific implementation practices that incorporate the new into the full set of elements that define the culture;

projects may not proceed as intended. Too often leaders merely try to change behaviors without changing the underlying system that generated them.

CHANGE MUST INCLUDE THE WHOLE SYSTEM

A request for change represents a threat unless it’s accepted and conforms with the norms of the existing system. It’s not as simple as merely doing something different.

Unfortunately CM initiatives focus on altering the problematic behaviors/activity without ensuring the values, beliefs, norms and mental models of the existing system that generated them are addressed. But with a shift in thinking it’s possible to prevent resistance and encourage buy-in and new, creative ideas.

THE RISK OF CHANGE MUST BE IDENTIFIED

Before agreeing to any sort of change, and to ensure buy-in and implementation, it’s important to understand the systemic elements that must be addressed:
How will the new match the existing beliefs, values, norms, rules, routines? Are they compatible? Are the core beliefs/values of the group maintained?

How will daily tasks and working/reporting relationships change?

How are individual ego beliefs and job identity factors managed? Are the folks most affected by the new included in information gathering and goal setting at the beginning so they have input around their own (new) jobs? Do these folks get a voice in generating the goals and outputs for a new solution? In sharing their unique experiences to best understand the problem?

What must be relearned and in what time frame?

Will the new represent the output needed by those most affected? Have their voices been included from the beginning and have a say in the change process to avoid resistance? How will resistance be managed?

Unless there are answers to questions like these; unless the risk of the proposed change is known, understood, and managed; unless the stability, beliefs and norms of the system are agreed-upon and maintained by those with the greatest proximity to the solution, change becomes a threat to the system and folks will resist doing anything different.

THE STEPS OF CHANGE

In my work developing systemic change models for sales, leadership, change management and System Dynamics, I’ve unpacked 13 Steps of decision making and change, some of which must take place before a problem can be accurately diagnosed or the goal defined. Here are the main categories:

1.   Where are you? What’s missing?

The voices of everyone who touches the existing problem and will be involved with the new solution must be heard from before the problem is defined or goals are set. Starting a project with partial information and flawed assumptions automatically triggers resistance and failure.

2. What caused and maintains the problem?

The originating system must recognize an incongruence and understand the risk of change or it won’t consider doing anything different, regardless of the need or efficacy of the solution. Since whatever is in place has been working well-enough for some time and a part of the system, it’s necessary to examine:

• What is keeping this problem in place? (rules, beliefs, norms, activities, jobs, culture)
• What has prevented this problem from being resolved already?
• What beliefs/values/norms of the existing activity must be retained?
• Is there anything we already have that might solve our problem if used differently?

3.   Brainstorming

Brainstorming sessions to discuss ideal outcomes and the risks of each must take place before goal-setting and include the voices (or their representatives) of the folks familiar with the originating problem:

• • The foundational beliefs/values incorporated into the current activities that must be retained in the new;
  • Ideas for solutions from each department/working group;
  • Understanding the elements holding the old in place and what would change if it’s altered;
  • Understanding the risks to making, or not making, a change. Is the risk of change more/less than maintaining the status quo?
  • Possible solutions including potential workarounds) must include all voices and potential danger signs brainstormed.

4. Managing risk

The risk of change must be equal to or lower than the risk of staying the same. Change can’t proceed successfully unless the risk of change is understood and approved by all. Problems crop up:

• • • Without a full complement of accurate data: flawed assumptions get made that will affect the long term success; goal-setting might be biased; resistance and time delays may result; unknown risks may cause inadequate buy-in.
    • unless the core beliefs and values of the company or team are factored in during goal setting.

5. Implementation

Implementation is a ‘how’, not a ‘what/why’:

• • • What/Why are information focused; How is implementation focused.
    • What/Why are content based; How is systems based.
    • What/Why resides in the conscious mind; How gets generated from the unconscious brain.
    • What/Why captures information; How processes and manages risk.
    • What/Why is tactical; How is strategic.
    • What/Why requires information gathering and research; How requires buy-in and an understanding of the risk of change.

Too often CM practices focus on the rationale – the What and Why – behind a change and fail to understand the strategic nature (the How) of the change and how closely tied it is with the culture. If a system believes the risk of change is greater than the risk of staying the same, they will do nothing.

• Sample

HOW TO VS WHAT/WHY TO

If you’re a leader or outside consultant helping clients through a CM initiative – a seller, consultant, System Dynamics practitioner, coach, OD consultant – remember: Change is strategic, not tactical.

Let me take a moment to explain the skills necessary for the ‘How-To’. To gather accurate information, to assemble the right people, to recognize and incorporate the foundational elements of the system (the norms, rules, beliefs, values, mental models), to manage risk, requires different skills than the ones currently used in standard CM practices.

Behavior change can occur only after the originating neural circuits that instigated the problem get revisited. and possibly reconfigured. That causes a problem: when change is approached tactically (Why/What), the neural circuits where new instructions for new behaviors must emerge can’t be discovered.

Standard questions include too much bias to gather accurate data, and the way brains ‘listen’ (not very well) is filled with so many distortions and deletions that we only hear 10-35% of what a speaker intends.

So using biased questions, speaking to each other without fully understanding, focusing on reasons for change rather than fixing the underlying system that caused the problem causes lack of buy-in and resistance. And without the culture understanding the risk of change (certainly an affront to Systems Congruence), it’s pretty hard to get cultural change accepted.

I’ve invented a wholly new form of brain-directional question that works with the Stategic and the How to locate the origination point of the problem; a new form of listening that avoids bias; and a change model that includes 13 steps specifically designed to make it possible to define the proper goal, understand the risks, garner new ideas and buy-in, and implement.

Should you wish to learn the elements involved in systems management or help your team through the implementation process I’d love to support you. sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com

              _________________________    

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.

Sharon Drew Morgen July 21st, 2025

Posted In: News

Building A Truly Inclusive And Accountable Workplace, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

We all prefer safe, inclusive, and accountable workplaces, but sometimes the culture lets us down. Certainly companies try by running programs to lead us to greater awareness and better choices.

Yet these often fail to achieve the desired results. Why? Can training change behaviors to ensure all employees feel safe and respected?

WHAT IS A BEHAVIOR?

My definition of a behavior highlights the difficulty instigating change. While AI defines behaviors as ‘an organism’s response to external stimuli, including actions and inactions,’ my definition goes to the source to where, when, if, and how they arise:

Behaviors are outputs from, and representations of, our underlying foundational, norms, rules, beliefs and values.

Beyond merely responses, behaviors are observable expressions of who we are, triggered automatically by neural circuits in response to external stimulation.

Standard training attempts to change behaviors by trying to change behaviors, thereby failing to change a behavior at the source, leaving the neural circuitry and underlying values that triggered the actions in place, ensuring they’ll continue. So as a vegetarian, presenting me with proof as to why I should eat meat would lead to me resisting because my beliefs remain intact.

Sample

RULES GOVERN CHOICES

Once offending words and actions show up in the workplace, the problem becomes one of culture. When employees exhibit unsafe, non-inclusive, or not accountable actions, their behaviors have been tacitly sanctioned by the workplace culture; the core beliefs, norms, and rules of the company don’t specifically rule them out.

Take gender discrimination as an example. For intolerance to show up there are either spoken or unspoken agreements within the culture that make it ok. While management makes clear that discrimination is not allowed, maybe complaints are not conveyed to HR, or HR tells the victim they need to behave differently with the offending person, or the offender may be admonished and sent back to their desk. Eventually the employee leaves the company, almost ensuring that the existing cultural norms persist.

To ensure a culture of safety, fairness, and accountability, it’s necessary to actually state – in the corporate vision, rules, identity and daily communication – that any form of prejudice is cause for dismissal. Indeed, hiring practices would include vetting for respect.

Of course rules of conduct are endemic and unique to each company culture. Most are unspoken, some are obvious: we know to wear a T-Shirt at Facebook and business casual at IBM; we know not to wear a bathing suit to visit a client. But often the rules are unstated and hiring practices don’t specify what is not acceptable.

Obviously, hiring employees with a natural respect for the values we seek to engender is a good place to start. During the hiring process, comments like:

What would you do to provide safety, fairness, and respect in your team?

Please be aware that safety, fairness, and respect are the bedrocks of our culture, and any actions that don’t promote these are grounds for immediate dismissal.

provide clarity and intention. Over time, the employee population will represent the new values.

THE PRACTICE OF CHANGE

We currently assume that problematic behaviors can be altered when ‘good’ information is shared, understood, and practiced. But permanent change requires a modification to the system that generated the problem to begin with.

Companies seeking a safer and more respectful workplace environment must change the values and norms of the company. Much more complex than merely changing behaviors, change of this magnitude requires buy-in and risk management to ensure everyone behaves using the same principles. This includes several steps:

• Assemble, or have represented, all who will touch the final solution and agree on the desired goal;
• Identify the foundational values, beliefs, norms, and rules essential to achieve their goal;
• Compare the difference between the new beliefs and the status quo to recognize what, specifically, the new objective would include;
• Understand, and generating working groups to navigate and resolve the risk to the system of adopting different activities;
• Understand and agree on the types of resources (a Listening course? Visiting companies with established inclusive workplaces?) necessary to achieve the new goal;
• Design an active implementation with assigned tasks, timelines, and lines of communication to include regular shout-outs to all employees in order to maintain the daily focus on the new company identity;
• Ensure hiring practices include specific mention of what’s expected and what will be tolerated;
• As a continued follow-on, create a grievance committee, comprised of a group of employees that represent the different departments and roles, to take each complaint seriously;
• Maintain semi-annual on-line training on change facilitation so employees understand the company’s commitment to the norms of safety, respect, fairness, and inclusiveness.

Changing a company culture is an arduous task. And it’s certainly a vital one.

THE RISK OF CHANGE

There’s one more element to discuss: the risk of change is the elephant in the room.

Any change in norms that a company promotes represents a risk to folks who accepted their job without knowledge of the new requirements and who don’t comply naturally. These are the folks we want to reach, of course, but since their behaviors are most likely unconscious, we must help them integrate new beliefs and values to meet our new expectations. As stated above, merely telling them what is no longer tolerated won’t cause permanent change.

The question becomes, what is our risk when folks hired before the new norms were in place continue their unsafe activities? And what about those folks who can’t change but whose jobs are vital and can’t easily be replaced?

Risk management in change of this type is pivotal: how does the innate risk get addressed once a company that has tacitly overlooked racist or sexist comments, for example, draw new boundaries of what’s acceptable?

To manage risk, it’s necessary for the topic to be brainstormed across the company culture. Questionnaires sent to each employee to be discussed within their departments. Managers will discuss the necessity and risk of change at supervisory sessions.

Conclusion:

We all want our workplace to be a safe, inclusive place to work, where we hire employees to carry the company vision to each other and to our clients. For this it’s necessary to hire people who will carry out the desired values, and develop training programs that get to the neural sources to where behaviors originate.

The question becomes: How will you and your company know when it’s time to take the necessary steps to ensure a safe, inclusive, and accountable workplace culture. And what steps are you willing to take to achieve it?

___________________________

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.

Sharon Drew Morgen June 23rd, 2025

Posted In: News

Seeking Appointments is Costing You Sales, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

Have you ever wondered why people agree to an appointment from your prospecting calls? Obviously, it’s not because they need your solution or they’d close more consistently after your visit. You’re charming, your solution great, your pitch deck is creative and your content informative. So it’s not you or your solution.

But ask yourself: if people agree to a meeting but are not likely to buy, why did they take the meeting? Choose one from below:

• They needed information to help them resolve their problem internally, without you.
• One or two people from a team are gathering information to convince others of possible solutions for a need not yet fully established.
• They’re comparing your information against your competitors.
• One or two people are representing the team as they progress toward resolving a problem and they need ideas to discover their own workarounds.

With a goal to get an appointment, you’re wasting valuable time chasing after folks who aren’t ready to buy, or aren’t buyers at all. You’re:

1. creating a double sale – the first being to get them to buy the appointment;
2. calling people who haven’t (yet) self-identified as buyers, are in the middle of their discovery process, and don’t see a need for an appointment or they would have contacted you;
3. placing hundreds of calls to get one appointment when you could use the same time/effort to actually find a real buyer and make a sale.

By seeking anyone who will take an appointment, you’re making it possible for folks to use you to glean information. But there’s a bigger downside: you’re not recognizing or serving people on route to becoming buyers – real prospects who WILL buy when they complete their change/decision process.

Sample

WHAT YOU MISS WHEN SEEKING AN APPOINTMENT

With a ‘need’ and ‘appointment’ focus, you’re missing real prospects on route to becoming buyers but haven’t completed their journey.

Instead, seek out folks in the process of becoming buyers and facilitating their necessary Pre-Sales change management journey – the Buy Side. After all, until they’ve got their ducks in a row, and understand their risk of change and get buy in, they won’t even look at marketing or sales content!

Unfortunately, the sales model overlooks this entire group of highly viable prospects. But if you seek folks in the process of solving a problem in your area of expertise and help them through their change and risk management decisions, they’ll buy quickly.

The missing piece here is the difference between the two buying processes: the Sell Side and the Buy Side. And the Buy Side has very specific considerations currently overlooked by the Sell Side.

THE SELL SIDE VS THE BUY SIDE

By contacting people with only a sales hat on, before they’ve

• completed assembling their full set of stakeholders,
• recognized the criteria that defines their problem,
• tried familiar workarounds,
• assessed their risk and found it manageable,

you’re discarding highly qualified prospects (40%) who won’t take a meeting but could use your help. By overlooking the Buy Side decision process, you’re missing your sweet spot: helping people as they fumble through their factors to determine if their risk of going ‘outside’ (to buy something, to bring in a consultant, etc.) is worth the disruption that bringing in something new causes.

Turns out that risk is the deciding factor if someone buys, not need; defining and controlling for it constitutes 70% of their decision path! And this must occur before they can buy anything, regardless of need.

SELLING DOESN’T CAUSE BUYING

The sales model has no relevance in the Pre-Sales change management decisions all people take before self-identifying as buyers. Consequently, selling doesn’t cause buying as they are two wholly different concepts: A buying decision is relational – change management and risk driven; sales is tactical – solution placement driven.

When people have a problem they don’t BEGIN by considering or making a purchase (tactical), but by figuring out all the systemic stuff they need to figure out (relational) to end up with a change that aligns with internal norms. No one wants to buy anything, merely resolve a problem at the least risk to their culture/system.

By focusing on getting appointments, you’re not only overlooking and discarding these very viable prospects, you’re neglecting a perfect opportunity to get on their side of the table and provide value-add that would facilitate them through the steps they must take before they’re buyers. It’s only when their

• change management work is complete
• AND all (all!) stakeholders are involved
• AND they’ve realized they cannot resolve the problem on their own
• AND they have the buy-in to proceed
• AND they understand the ‘cost’ (risk) of any change caused by a new solution,

that they’re buyers.

This is where they ‘go’ when you think they’re dragging their feet or having ‘indecision’. By helping them precisely where they need help, you’re collapsing the sales cycle by at least half and creating a competitive advantage. And most of my clients end up on the Buying Decision Team because they’ve been so helpful.

But this requires you begin with a different goal and new skills, seeking people on route to change in the area you can support. Because their Pre-Sales change work is based on people, policy, buy-in, change, and resource, you’d be meeting them on the Buy Side.

Remaining on the Sell Side ensures you’ll only find the low hanging fruit – people who are ready to buy and considering your competitors – when it’s so easy to find folks on route to buying and facilitating their journey.

DALE CARNEGIE DID IT SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO

In 1937, Dale Carnegie told you to make face-to-face sales calls. In those days, there was little choice: cars were rare and quite expensive, phones were party line, and advertising was the Sears Catalogue that came out once a year.

These days, the internet transmits your content making your pitch unnecessary. But it’s much bigger than that; buying decision teams are no longer in one venue; people have partners and old vendors willing to help them resolve problems; and the time it takes them to understand if the risk of change carries too much disruption is the length of the sales cycle.

Before anyone becomes a buyer they have internal change work to do. To truly facilitate this end of the buying decision path, it takes a new goal at the beginning (find folks IN their change process instead of trolling for ‘need’ or appointments) and wholly new skills.

I’ve invented a facilitation model (Buying Facilitation®) that begins with a ‘change’ focus and finds and serves these folks on route to becoming buyers but can’t consider themselves buyers until they’ve managed all the change issues and understand their internal risk.

With a goal of finding people during their change/decision cycle, Buying Facilitation® closes 40% from first call by facilitating them down their essential change/decision steps and then selling: Once they’ve discovered ALL the stakeholders, understand the full fact pattern, gotten buy-in and establish risk tolerance, then they’re ready to buy. They might even ask you to visit them and will have 10 people present. Then you’re a true servant leader.

I’m suggesting you expand your skill set to add ‘facilitate the Pre-Sales buying decision path’ before you sell. You can use this on your cold calls and close 40% from first call. Otherwise, you’re wasting so much of your valuable time seeking appointments with people who aren’t buyers.

______________________________

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.

Sharon Drew Morgen June 9th, 2025

Posted In: News

Listening Assessment: Do you have listening biases?

Most of us believe we accurately hear what’s been said. But given our historic brain circuits that translate incoming sound vibrations subjectively and out of our awareness, it’s difficult to be certain that what we think we heard is accurate. It is possible, however, to at least know what our tendencies are.

When I wrote my book WHAT? I discovered that words don’t enter brains as anything more than ‘puffs of air’ that go from sound vibrations into signals that get translated automatically by electro-chemical circuitry: what our brains tell us was said, what we think we hear, is merely our brain’s translation of these signals according to our historic circuits – what we’ve heard before.

Sample

Unwittingly, we end up interpreting meaning according to we’ve interpreted before and new incoming data often gets misunderstood or mistranslated because there aren’t appropriate circuits to translate it. Obviously, there’s a good chance we’re biasing a lot of what we hear.

To help you understand how, if and when you uniquely (and unwittingly) bias what you hear, I’ve developed an assessment tool. Once you have a baseline knowledge of your unconscious choices you’ll know what areas to pay specific attention to and if you need to add new skills.

_________________

PART 1: When do you take extra steps to ensure you accurately hear what your Communication Partner (CP) intends?

Directions: Check off any that apply.

Relationship-related

 _When I’m with my partner/spouse (i.e. all the time).

_When I’m having a disagreement with my partner/spouse.

_When I’m trying to clean up a problem/misunderstanding.

_Only when it’s someone I care about.

_I don’t take extra steps. I just assume I hear the message as intended.

Circumstantial

_When something important is at stake in my life and I need to know the Other’s takeaway.

_When I’m aware I don’t understand someone.

_When I have a message I want to impart and want to make sure I’m being understood as I prefer.

_When communicating with someone of a different culture, background, and I’m not certain we’re mutually understanding each other. But I sometimes do nothing about it because I don’t know what to do differently.

Are there times it’s especially important to ensure you hear what your CP intends to convey?

_When the conversation is going badly.

_In all business-related, profit-related conversations, or where I’m getting paid.

_ In all/some conversations related to my spouse or family.

_No. I prefer to accurately understand what’s said in every conversation and am usually successful.

_I prefer to accurately understand all of my CPs but not sure that I do.

Take a moment to think about your responses in all of the above and answer the following questions, in writing, as a summary.

•  Are there specific times you regularly take responsibility, take extra steps, to make sure you hear your CP accurately?
•  Why are you more comfortable with your natural listening skills in some situations than in others? Are there patterns to when you have misunderstandings?
•  Are you fully aware of the outcomes of all of your conversations, and generally assume that everyone understands each other accurately?
• How do you know if you’ve accurately understood someone?

PART 2: Do you know your communication biases?

Directions: assess your predispositions as a communicator on each of the following. Check off the ones that apply:

When I enter into a conversation, I enter with

_An ‘ear’ that listens according to my history with that person.

_An unconscious/conscious agenda of what I want from the conversation.

_ A need to be perceived in a specific way or to impart the message I want.

_An ability to enter each conversation without bias, with a mental ‘blank slate’.

_The needs of the Other in mind at the expense of my own.

_My beliefs about what this person might need from me given his/her background.

_An understanding that my unconscious biases might keep me from fully understanding so I regularly check that me and my CP are on the same page.

_ No conscious thought. I just assume I’ll hear what’s intended and respond appropriately, regardless of how different my CP might be from my own cultural experience.

During a conversation I

_Might get annoyed by something said due to my own preconceptions and history.

_ Assume I have the skills to recognize when there’s a misunderstanding and make things right if there is a problem.

_Notice when my CP is responding differently than I intended and say something to get us on the same page.

_Notice when my CP is responding differently than I intended and I say nothing.

_Don’t notice if my CP is responding differently from the message I’m sending and don’t know if I’ve hurt/annoyed them.

_Work hard at maintaining a ‘blank slate’ in my brain to listen through.

_Just be me, because I know I’m not biased and I listen accurately.

_Am aware I may not be speaking, listening, or responding in ways that regard the differences of my CP but don’t do anything to speak, listen, or respond differently than normal.

_Would prefer I’m not saying anything disrespectful, or hearing with unconscious biases, but I’m not sure if I know how to do this.

_Would prefer I’m respecting my CP but have done nothing to learn new skills to be able to speak or listen to match another’s unconscious cultural assumptions.

PART 3: Do you have the choices you need for an unbiased communication?

Directions: Please write down the answers to these:

If you don’t consider how accurately you hear what others intend to say (as distinct from what you think you hear) during a conversation, what you would need to know or believe differently to make this part of each communication? To think specifically if responses are congruent, if communication lines are balanced, if both CPs speak about the same amount of time and follow the same topic?

If you don’t know for certain if you’re hearing without bias, or if you’re listening with a ‘beginner’s mind’ to lessen your unconscious biases, what has stopped you until now from taking steps or learning new skills to listen without bias?

If you don’t know for certain if something you think you heard is inaccurate, what do you do to check? What stops you from stopping the conversation and asking?

How can you tell if your CP is understanding YOU accurately and without bias? Do you have the skills you need to monitor and manage this?

PART 4: Whose responsibility is a shared understanding?

Directions: Answer Yes or No for each of the following:

Beliefs

_I believe it’s the Sender’s responsibility to send her message properly to match the needs of the Receiver.

_I believe there’s a shared responsibility between CPs to understand each other; both are equally at fault if there’s a misunderstanding.

_I believe it’s the Receiver’s responsibility to hear what the Sender is saying, and tell the Sender when there is confusion or misunderstanding.

Responding

_I formulate a reply as soon as I hear something that triggers a response in my head, regardless of whether or not the person has finished sharing their ideas.

_I know I’ve been heard when someone responds according to my expectation.

_I know I’m hearing another’s intended message accurately when I feel comfort between us.

_If I disagree with my CP’s dialogue, I interrupt or show my disagreement without asking for an explanation.

_If I disagree with my CP’s dialogue I allow her to complete her message before sharing my disagreement.

_I try to listen without my biases and respond to what has been said, but I’m aware I probably can’t understand because of our differences. But I’ve not taken steps to learn how to listen without biases.

_If I have an idea to share that’s different from my CP’s topic, I just change topics.

_When I don’t understand my CP’s response to what I said, I just keep going or try to say something better.

_My responses conform to what I think I heard and I don’t check.

_I respond to what I think was said and don’t consider I might have biased and misinterpreted what I heard.

Understanding the message

_When I don’t understand someone, I can tell immediately and ask for clarification.

_I rarely think it’s me when there is confusion during a conversation and take no action, assuming it will work itself out.

_I can tell I’ve misheard/misunderstood when I get a negative reaction or a confused look.

_I can tell I’ve misheard only when I hear my CP say ‘WHAT?’ or ‘I don’t understand’ after my response.

_I cannot tell if I’ve misunderstood or misheard, and respond according to what I think I heard.

_I don’t know how to listen differently to people who are different from me and just respond like I do in any conversation.

_I assume I understand Others who speak English, regardless of our differences.

Communication problems

_As soon as I realize I have misunderstood someone, I ask her to repeat what she said so I can understand her message.

_When I realize I’ve misunderstood, I assume they aren’t being clear.

_When my CP tells me I misunderstood him I know it’s not my issue because I know I hear accurately.

_When my CP tells me she thinks I misheard, I ask what I missed so I can get it right.

_I can’t tell if I’ve misunderstood someone, and aren’t aware if there are negative consequences to my repsonses.

_I use my normal communication skills in all conversations regardless of cultural differences.

When you’re done, please write a paragraph on what you discovered.

Now, write a paragraph on this whole assessment experience. What did you take away? What do you need to do differently? Write down a plan to move forward in a way that will help you hear what others say with the least possible bias.

How did you do? Are you willing to make changes where you need them? Do you know how to make changes? Did you find areas you’d like to have more choice? Were you able to notice your predispositions?

It’s important to notice where you find yourself resisting change as those are the exact areas in which you might occasionally mishear or misunderstand. Determine if you want to continue your current patterns and don’t mind the cost of being wrong some of the time.

For those of you seeking more understanding on how our brains hear, check out my book: What? Did you really say what I think I heard? or call me to train your group: sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com

_______________

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.

Sharon Drew Morgen May 19th, 2025

Posted In: News