Leadership

The conversation connected leadership development with the organisation’s ability to carry out technological and organisational change. Terje Melheim stressed that the business should retain ownership of the change even when external capacity is used, while Ida Langdalen Kristiansen described the role of communication and involvement.

What this means for the organisation

For management, the episode raises a practical question: Do the people changing their work understand the responsibility, goal and reason? Moelven’s experience points to close follow-up over time rather than a single course or a top-down decision.

The Moelven example emphasises leaders being present throughout the change. Ownership means the organisation itself follows up direction, communication and involvement even when external advisers add capacity or expertise. This is a more precise account of leadership than treating change as a bounded technology project.

Kotter’s analysis of change highlights a guiding coalition, clear direction, broad communication and long-term anchoring. It provides an independent framework for reading the Moelven conversation: individual initiatives have limited value unless leadership keeps the direction visible and embeds the change in organisational practice.

In practice, leaders should follow both understanding and behaviour: who can explain why the change is happening, which managers remove obstacles, and where resistance or silence appears. These observations can be tied to technology milestones, making follow-up concrete without reducing leadership development to one satisfaction measure.

Sources

Primary source: ProsessPilotene, “Aktivt lederskap: Moelvens suksessoppskrift på medarbeiderutvikling,” 14 October 2024 (Norwegian).

John P. Kotter, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” Harvard Business Review, 1995.

Source recording: ProsessPilotene

Join the discussion

How do you make sure the next colleague has the information they need? Share a routine that works well.