Change Management For Remote Teams

Last year, I was speaking with a VP of Sales who confidently asserted: “Our buyers rely heavily on Gartner and Forrester reports, and LinkedIn is just noise.” That claim led us to a deeper look. So we ran a rapid social intelligence audit across their 10+ ideal enterprise target accounts and the reality was revealing: 👉 significant stakeholders actively adding connections in LinkedIn. 👉 a few of those routinely engaged on LinkedIn content. This wasn’t casual scrolling… it was conscious participation and relationship building. Some buyers were raising ‘purchase-intent’ questions as well. All transparently surfaced on LinkedIn - in public threads and peer groups. Data illuminating exactly where the research action happens pre-RFP. We scripted a custom GTM strategy: 👍 Enterprise Signal Posts: Engineered deep-dive, persona-tagged case studies, optimized to get clipped into internal research decks and circulated among architects, PMOs, and senior engineers. 👍 Dark-Social Authority: By engaging in high-value vendor comparison (and likes) threads, our client’s leadership profiles gained credibility and trust inside private channels invisible to traditional analytics. 👍 Decision-Stage Content: Launched proof-backed narrative video for "solution-aware" prospects, resulting in high-conversion SQLs. With consistency. The outcomes? 💪 Significant % of new enterprise meetings originated directly from LinkedIn-driven content touchpoints and network engagement. 💪 RFP win-rate increased, correlated to significant buyers explicitly referencing LinkedIn case materials. 💪 Sales cycles compressed because buyers entered conversations highly informed and confident. Why does this work in enterprise buying cycles? Vendor Validation: B2B procurement is increasingly cross-functional; live peer discussions on LinkedIn serve as a real-time, trusted “research layer” far beyond static analyst reports. Peer Proof: Enterprise decision-makers weight peer-shared insights more heavily than vendor-curated collateral, especially within their own secure collaboration channels. If you’re still dismissing LinkedIn as “just noise,” you’re strategically ceding ground during arguably the most critical phase of buyer evaluation. In 2025, enterprise buying journeys don’t start with vendor meetings… they start with social proof, digital authority, and dark social signals. And the winners are the brands that embed themselves authentically and intelligently in these ecosystems. #SocialSelling #DarkSocial #LinkedIn #RevOps #AIGTM

Atlassian doesn’t win because they hire the smartest people. They win because they hire adults—and treat them like it. Their “Team Anywhere” policy isn’t some feel-good perk. It’s a strategic bet on trust, flexibility, and outcomes over presence. Years ago, I thought engagement meant pizza Fridays and ping-pong tables. Now? It’s about autonomy. Intentional connection. Clear expectations. 1️⃣ Trust by Default • Give every hire a clear mission, then get out of the way 🗺️ • Publish decision logs so anyone can trace the why 🔍 • Track outcomes, not chair time 📊 2️⃣ Intentional Connection • Set a weekly 30-minute show-and-tell to swap wins 🎤 • Rotate “pulse buddy” pairs for fast feedback 💬 • Celebrate silent contributors in public channels 🎉 3️⃣ Systems for Anywhere • One source of truth: async docs > endless meetings 📄 • Cameras on only when purpose is collaboration 🎥 • Budget quarterly offsites like product launches ✈️ Checklist for Leaders in Tech ✅ ☑️ Trust people to own their clocks ☑️ Make it safe to challenge any idea ☑️ Invest in tooling plus face time, never just one Stop paying for ping-pong. Build a culture where adults and ideas thrive. Ready to level up? 💬 Comment with your biggest remote struggle 🔗 Follow me for weekly playbooks

You can’t call it partnership if stakeholders only hear from you once before launch. True engagement isn’t a courtesy email. It’s about making stakeholders 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 from day one to follow-through. 4 shifts that make the difference: 1. Map before you move Not all stakeholders need the same level of attention. Use mapping tools to identify who has influence, what they care about, and how they prefer to engage. 2. Align objectives early Don’t wait until the end to prove impact. Bring stakeholders into planning to set KPIs, success metrics, and business outcomes together. 3. Keep communication alive Use clear, jargon-free updates. Share progress, invite feedback, and celebrate wins. Trust grows when stakeholders feel part of the journey. 4. Champion transfer, not just learning Make managers and sponsors active player, e.g. mentors, accountability partners, and reinforcement leaders. Because learning in the classroom means nothing if it doesn’t show up on the job. When engagement is tailored this way, L&D stops being a service provider… and starts being a strategic driver of business results. A question for you: What’s worked best in your experience: mapping, alignment, communication, or transfer support? _____________ High functioning ≠ high capacity. I consult with L&D teams to turn busyness into business impact.

🎄 Day 14 of the #AdventOfOR 2025! The single biggest mistake in optimization projects? Engaging stakeholders once. Most teams nail the "Early" part (kickoff, problem framing, initial requirements). But then they disappear into complex code. Weeks later, they return with the perfect solution... but trust has eroded. Engagement isn't a single event. It's a continuous cadence: Early AND Often. Why is this continuous interaction essential? 🤝 Maintains trust: Consistent updates prevent the project from becoming a black box. 🎯 Ensures relevance: Requirements shift; regular check-ins keep your model aligned with business reality (just like we got new requirements on Day 12!). 🪡 Drives adoption: Stakeholders own the solution when they help build it. The secret to making it work is lowering the cost of understanding the model's progress. But you don't need to do heavy presentations; do easy, frequent demos with tools that help: 🔹 GAMS MIRO for interactive apps stakeholders can explore 🔹 Streamlit or Taipy for quick Python dashboards 🔹 Nextmv for comparing runs and sharing scenarios When showing progress becomes easy, you'll do it more often. When you do it more often, trust compounds. 🫵 Your turn: What's the single biggest piece of friction that currently stops you from sharing model progress (work-in-progress, not final results) with your stakeholders more often? (e.g., "It takes too long to clean the output," "We lack visualization tools," "I only share final numbers.")

Remote work challenge: How do you build a connected culture when teams are miles apart? At Bunny Studio we’ve discovered that intentional connection is the foundation of our remote culture. This means consistently reinforcing our values while creating spaces where every team member feels seen and valued. Four initiatives that have transformed our remote culture: 🔸 Weekly Town Halls where teams showcase their impact, creating visibility across departments. 🔸 Digital Recognition through our dedicated Slack “kudos” channel, celebrating wins both big and small. 🔸 Random Coffee Connections via Donut, pairing colleagues for 15-minute conversations that break down silos. 🔸 Strategic Bonding Events that pull us away from routines to build genuine connections. Beyond these programs, we’ve learned two critical lessons: 1. Hiring people who thrive in collaborative environments is non-negotiable. 2. Avoiding rigid specialization prevents isolation and encourages cross-functional thinking. The strongest organizational cultures aren’t imposed from above—they’re co-created by everyone. In a remote environment, this co-creation requires deliberate, consistent effort. 🤝 What’s working in your remote culture? I’d love to hear your strategies.

The lesson I take from so many dispersed teams I’ve worked with over the years is that great collaboration is not about shrinking the distance. It is about deepening the connection. Time zones, language barriers, and cultural nuances make working together across borders uniquely challenging. I see these dynamics regularly: smart, dedicated people who care deeply about their work but struggle to truly see and understand one another. One of the tools I often use in my work with global teams is the Harvard Business School case titled Greg James at Sun Microsystems. It tells the story of a manager leading a 45-person team spread across the U.S., France, India, and the UAE. When a major client system failed, the issue turned out not to be technical but human. Each location saw the problem differently. Misunderstandings built up across time zones. Tensions grew between teams that rarely met in person. What looked like a system failure was really a connection failure. What I find powerful about this story, and what I see mirrored in so many organizations today, is that the path forward is about rethinking how we create connection, trust, and fairness across distance. It is not where many leaders go naturally: new tools or tighter control. Here are three useful practices for dispersed teams to adopt. (1) Create shared context, not just shared goals. Misalignment often comes from not understanding how others work, not what they’re working on. Try brief “work tours,” where teams explain their daily realities and constraints. Context builds empathy, and empathy builds speed. (2) Build trust through reflection, not just reliability. Trust deepens when people feel seen and understood. After cross-site collaborations, ask: “What surprised you about how others see us?” That simple reflection can transform relationships. (3) Design fairness into the system. Uneven meeting times, visibility, or opportunities quickly erode respect. Rotate schedules, celebrate behind-the-scenes work, and make sure recognition travels across time zones. Fairness is a leadership design choice, not a nice-to-have. Distance will always be part of global work, but disconnection doesn’t have to be. When leaders intentionally design for shared understanding, reflected trust, and structural fairness, I've found, distributed teams flourish. #collaboration #global #learning #leadership #connection Case here: https://lnkd.in/eZfhxnGW

I’ve onboarded remote hires across time zones, continents, and cultures. And here’s what I’ve learned: Remote onboarding doesn’t ⭐fail⭐ because of location. It fails because of assumptions. Assuming someone will “just speak up.” Assuming they’ll know what success looks like. Assuming they feel like they belong. Without hallway chats or shadowing, remote employees miss all the informal context that makes onboarding feel human—not just functional. Here’s how I’ve made it work: 💬 Over-communicate expectations and priorities 🎥 Use video, even for 15-minute check-ins 📅 Create a rhythm of connection—1:1s, team intros, buddy syncs ☕ Encourage informal conversations (yes, even virtual coffee chats) Remote doesn’t have to mean disconnected. In fact, with the right systems, it can feel even more inclusive. It took me many years of learning the hard way to build this out. And I’d like to share it with you, no strings attached. (see link in comments) That’s why I built these practices right in our Manager Onboarding Kit—to help leaders support their teams with intention, no matter where they are.

This article in MIT Sloan Management Review on hybrid work by Nick Bloom, Prithwiraj Choudhury, and Brian Elliott confirms what we've been documenting for years: This isn't a location problem. It's a leadership capability gap. While too many executives still debate office attendance, their more forward-thinking, innovative competitors build the leadership AND operational capabilities that a high-performance flexible work model--not just "hybrid"--requires. The research and case studies that the article cites get critical points right: ✅ "To date, no peer-reviewed research shows a benefit to a rigid five-day office model." ✅ Synchrony's CEO focusing on measurable results over presence. ✅ Atlassian's teams creating working agreements. ✅ The reality that only 25% of managers of distributed teams get leadership training (and we wonder why they are reporting historically low levels of engagement and burnout!) But this alone doesn't close the capability gap. What I'm seeing in our work with organizations: 👉 Teams need more than permission to create norms. They need facilitation frameworks for making planning and coordination decisions within the context of broader organizational parameters that all levels of leadership have aligned behind. 👉 Managers need consistent protocols, tools and training to guide the conversations about how, when, and where their specific work gets done—not just implement generic policies. This includes defining: → How does work get prioritized and coordinated for your business? → When do teams need to be together in person, and not in person, to achieve specific outcomes? → In what spaces and places (in person and virtual) does different work happen most effectively given your constraints? The article does mention the importance of space redesign and technology but a high-performance flexible work model integrates technology capabilities, and workspace design into the defined parameters as one coordinated way of operating across places, spaces and time. This requires moving: ✅ From debating location to starting with the work and defining how, when and where that work happens best, and ✅ From treating flexibility as policy compliance to building it as strategic capability. The evidence is clear. The business case is proven. Organizations that build these operational and leadership capabilities have a competitive advantage and will outperform those still debating badge swipes. What's the biggest capability gap you're addressing to help your organization achieve high levels of sustainable performance working flexibly? #FutureOfWork #FlexibleWork #RTO #HybridWork #Leadership #WorkplaceStrategy #HighPerformanceFlexibility #ReimagineWork

Struggling with stakeholder buy-in? I have a template that can help. The Power-Interest matrix maps key stakeholders into 4 personas: 🔴 The ARCHITECTS (high power, high interest) These are people with a lot of power who are very involved in research (e.g., product managers, design leaders) 🟢 The OBSERVERS (high power, low interest) Someone with a lot of power, but an arms-length distance from your work (e.g., Head of Product., C-suite) 🟡 The EXPLORERS (low power, high interest) They’re super interested in your work, but don’t have a lot of influence in the org (fellow UXRs, designers) 🔵 The CASUAL OBSERVERS (low power, low interest) Someone without a lot of influence or interest in research (think other team members like sales, marketing) To make getting buy-in easier, you need to understand each stakeholder persona, and talk to them accordingly. ARCHITECTS need most attention. They need close management with regular updates + involvement. OBSERVERS only care about business outcomes. They prefer concise reports & summaries that are action-oriented, without jargon. For CASUAL OBSERVERS, you can loop them in on big breakthroughs + findings that matter to their work. EXPLORERS are fans of research. Keep them informed through shared repositories & weekly syncs. For a detailed analysis of each stakeholder and how to engage with them better, go here: https://bit.ly/4b0wGSC If you want to skip the reading, just use my FREE Stakeholder Persona Mapping Figjam template: https://bit.ly/4b4JN5A Which type of stakeholders have you struggled with the most? Please share wisdom in the comments! 👇 #uxresearch #stakeholdermanagement

Are you in advocacy or influence and still using static spreadsheets as a stakeholder map? If so, you need to change course. Now. Why? Because your spreadsheet won’t properly navigate the SMH that is 2025: • Medicaid cuts in the “Big, Beautiful Bill” • AI disrupting everything • Budget deficits and stock market volatility • Wars in the Middle East, Ukraine, elsewhere • Trade wars, tariff escalations, job cuts. • Free speech fights, antisemitism, and extremism • Inflation, immigration crackdowns, data security concerns These aren’t normal times folks. And your advocacy strategy can’t be either. A real stakeholder map in 2025 should work like a live operating system: updating constantly, filtering by issue, engagement level, and digital footprint. You must constantly watering the proverbial 🌼 🌹 🌺 to win. Here’s what that looks like: Stakeholder Type: Media, Hill staff, trade orgs, agency heads, donors, advocacy groups, coalitions. The usual suspects. Still essential, but just one part of the bigger picture. By Issue: Map your landscape around what actually matters now. Different issues = different allies. Period. If you’re not tracking stakeholders across industry specific flashpoints like AI, Medicaid, trade, immigration, or DEI, you’re flying blind. By Position: Ally, neutral, detractor; on this issue, at this moment. Nobody is “always with you” anymore unless they’re on payroll. And even then. Get real about this. By Influence + Interest: High influence, low interest? Your job is to make them care. Low influence, high interest? They can still amplify or derail you. By Engagement Level: 1 = Active 2 = Warm 3 = Cold but still meaningful. Track across both allies and critics. Where’s your team spending time and why? By Relationship Owner: Who owns the relationship? What’s the origin? What’s your backup plan if they ghost? Redundancy matters more than ever. By Digital Footprint: Your map should surface stakeholders with domain authority in policy, media, and increasingly, AI platforms. If the names on your list aren’t being cited, surfaced, or scraped into training data, you’re not influencing the future conversation in the way that people search and advocate. Static stakeholder lists are a liability. They don’t flex. They don’t prioritize. They definitely don’t win. Build something smarter today, because you’re either at the table or you’re on the menu. 💪 📰 ❤️ 🏛️