Change Whisperer – Gail Severini, Symphini Change Management Inc.


New copyright license on Change Whisperer
January 10, 2013, 2:01 pm
Filed under: - About Us | Tags: ,

After considering all issues in the “Stolen: Change Management. Reward Offered” series, I have decided to very clear about the licensing of content here on Change Whisperer. I am implementing a Creative Commons license [1] for this website and all of the content I have produced here to-date and going forward. Here it is:

Creative Commons License
Change Whisperer by www.gailseverini.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.

continue reading here



The REWARD. Stolen: Change Management. Reward offered. Post 4

“Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn’t blow in the wind or change with the weather. It is your inner image of yourself, and if you look in there and see a man who won’t cheat, then you know he never will. Integrity is not a search for the rewards of integrity. Maybe all you ever get for it is the largest kick in the ass the world can provide. It is not supposed to be a productive asset.” ― John D. MacDonald, The Turquoise Lament

Zen skyscrapperChange Management is a still-young profession struggling to establish legitimacy in the arena of the wild web. The preceding three posts in this series looked at the problems of plagiarism and intellectual property (IP) theft in change management. This post looks at the incentives of operating with integrity and of requiring others to do likewise.                    

Professional Integrity

What I love about the MacDonald quote above is its raw honesty. There is no guarantee that integrity provides any advantage whatsoever. In fact, it might be a disadvantage. continue reading here



Fair game and foul play. Stolen: Change Management. Reward offered. Post 3

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” —George Orwell

Fair playThere are well-established boundaries for the creation and use of intellectual property. In the age of re-mix it is important to be very clear on them. One way is by citing resources properly and identifying plagiarism (post 1). Another way  is by understanding the current explosion of re-mix (post 2).

In this post, we’ll look at the conditions for producing and using thought leadership appropriately. We’ll begin by looking at what’s legitimate and what’s not. continue reading here



Stolen: Change Management. Reward offered. Why is this happening? Whose job is it? Post 2

“In great matters men show themselves as they wish to be seen; in small matters, as they are.” Gamaliel Bradford

How many incidents of plagiarism do you think you have seen since reading the first post in this series? Think you have seen some key language or original ideas misrepresented as the author’s, in blog posts or even methodologies? In the first post of this series we looked at why this is dangerous for our profession.

Why is this happening now?

The internet has become the town square. It is now the first and sometimes only place we go for information. The control, and to some extent, the quality of publishing has been exploded. High standards of journalism (such as citations and fact checking) exist only at the highest end of the spectrum.
continue reading here



Stolen: Change Management. Reward offered. So What? Post 1

“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with the important matters.” — Albert Einstein

How often have you seen “3 phases,” “5 steps,” “8 guidelines,” or a “curve” where no source material is referenced? How is it possible that blog posts, articles, and methodologies that describe and prescribe change management offer no citations?

The transitions that human beings make through change―both as individuals and in groups―are complex. This has been studied by psychologists for decades. Over the years, extensive research has been conducted and there is science behind the principles that have emerged and been distilled.

Is it conceivable that any author (outside of a handful or so of luminaries) could possibly have the first-hand research and practical experience to produce legitimate, original work—solo?  “Oh,” you say, “I often see Kurt Lewin, Dr. Kübler-Ross, and maybe even Edgar Schein referenced.”  And?  Right, not many others―particularly not when it comes to methodology.

Confounding. Impossible. Rubbish.
continue reading here