We Not Me cover art

We Not Me

We Not Me

Written by: Dan Hammond & Pia Lee
Listen for free

Exploring how humans connect and get stuff done together, with Dan Hammond and Pia Lee from Squadify. We need groups of humans to help navigate the world of opportunities and challenges, but we don't always work together effectively. This podcast tackles questions such as "What makes a rockstar team?" "How can we work from anywhere?" "What part does connection play in today's world?" You'll also hear the thoughts and views of those who are running and leading teams across the world.© Squadify Economics Management Management & Leadership
Episodes
  • Why change fails and what leaders can do to get a different result - with Michael Lopez
    Oct 1 2026
    Episode SummaryMost transformation programmes are built around the hardware of an organisation: the systems, the ERP rollout, the AI licences switched on and handed out. Michael J. López, consultant, author of CHANGE, and the person behind a new national workforce study of 1,000 workers, has spent two decades delivering that traditional playbook, and the last five trying to change it. His starting point is simple: when his team asked employees for the top five things they get from their company during change and the top five things they actually need, the two lists had nothing in common. What people get is the stuff done to them. What they need is the stuff done by them.The conversation with Dan and Pia moves from diagnosis to what leaders can actually do differently. Michael names the "failure minimisation cycle," where everyone downplays how hard change will be to get budgets approved, which leaves people under-resourced and more cynical each time. His alternative is to treat change as a capability rather than a project: stress-tolerant cultures, executive teams that genuinely lead together, goals people feel they've contributed to, and progress measured through behavioural inputs and stories as well as hard outputs. It's an honest episode about why change takes 18–24 months, and why pretending otherwise costs more.Key Themes & TakeawaysIn Michael's study, the top five things employees receive during change (emails, communications, training) had zero overlap with the top five they need (experimentation, room for productive mistakes, coaching, leaders going first, the right environment).The "failure minimisation cycle" is well-intentioned but corrosive: underselling complexity to win approval leaves people under-resourced, so change feels harder than promised and trust drops with every programme.Treat change as an organisational capability, a muscle built over time, rather than a project with an end date, because the next change is always coming.65% of employees in the study felt their company's change plan asked them to move faster than was realistic; the systems can be installed quickly, but people need more time.The "what's in it for me" document rarely moves anyone; people commit to goals they feel they've contributed ideas and effort to, not goals handed down with a reward attached.The CEO's job includes preparing the executive team to lead change together; a committee without a committed champion is where programmes stall.Measure progress through "hard input signals" (new leadership and team behaviours) and "soft signals" (stories and cultural shifts), not only red-amber-green dashboards of outputs.Three Reasons to ListenListen if you've watched a transformation programme get approved on a promise everyone privately knew was too optimistic, and then watched people pay the price for it.Listen if your AI rollout amounted to "here are the licences, go and innovate" and you're wondering why so little has changed.Listen if you've ever been expected to show certainty in a planning meeting when the honest answer was "we'll learn as we go."Notable Quotes"What we tend to get from change is all the stuff that's done to people. And what employees really said is we need all the stuff that's done by people." — Michael J. López"I believe that change is about accuracy more than about precision." — Michael J. López"It does take boldness in a world where people mistake confidence for competence." — Dan HammondResources from MichaelWebsite: michaeljlopez.coachRethinking Change Management (the 2026 workforce study): Free Executive Summary · Full studyBook, CHANGE: Six Science-Backed Strategies to Transform Your Brain, Body, and Behavior: Amazon · Audiobook on Apple BooksTop Voice Podcast (live every Tuesday): YouTube · Apple Podcasts · SpotifyFollow Michael: LinkedIn · Instagram
    Show More Show Less
    37 mins
  • 88% of change fails. How to be in the 12%, Part 1
    Sep 10 2026

    We Not Me turns 150 episodes old this month, and Dan Hammond and Pia Lee are using the milestone to talk about something every leader running a transformation is quietly grappling with: why 88% of organisational transformations fail — up from 70% not long ago. Prompted by a Forbes article on the subject, they dig into why "transformation" so often becomes corporate shorthand for restructuring, downsizing, or otherwise firing people, and why that confusion poisons trust before the real work even starts.

    The conversation centres on Charles Handy's sigmoid curve — the idea that any curve of growth eventually turns downward, and that a new curve must be started while the old one is still rising, not after it's collapsed. Dan and Pia unpack why this is so hard in practice: leaders can see the need for change most clearly, but their teams are always a few steps behind on the emotional journey. Drawing on Elisabeth Kübler-Ross's stages of grief and William Bridges' distinction between change and transition, they argue that transformation isn't a communications exercise — it's an individual, leader-led process of helping people let go of identity, status, and habit before they can move toward something new.

    Key Themes & Takeaways

    • Transformation failure rates have climbed from 70% to 88% — and much of that is definitional: restructuring, downsizing, and "realignment" get dressed up as transformation, which employees correctly read as "you're fired," not "you're transformed."
    • Charles Handy's sigmoid curve shows that a new curve must start before the current one peaks — but because performance looks fine on the way up, leaders struggle to convince anyone that change is urgent until it's too late.
    • The transition zone between two curves is genuinely painful: old and new parts of the business end up competing for resources and legitimacy, with the "old" side feeling like the unwanted stepchild funding a new venture that isn't yet profitable.
    • People don't just resist change intellectually — they move through denial, anger, and bargaining before reaching acceptance, and no two people move through that cycle at the same speed.
    • Defining the new curve requires clarity on three things: what you're aiming for (clarity), the climate/culture needed to get there, and the competence — skills and behaviours — the organisation doesn't yet have.
    • Leaders often assume the organisation will change while they personally stay the same — a fallacy that, left unchecked, is itself a predictor of ending up in the 88%.
    • "Change fatigue" is real, especially when sigmoid curves land too close together — teams that haven't finished processing one change get hit with the next before they've found solid ground.

    Three Reasons to Listen

    • Listen if you've ever announced a change, moved on, and wondered months later why nothing actually shifted — this episode explains why communication isn't leadership.
    • Listen if you're leading a transformation and privately think you'll be able to stay the same while everyone around you changes — Dan and Pia explain why that's a fallacy that quietly sinks change efforts.
    • Listen if your team seems to be dragging its feet on a change you think is obviously right — the sigmoid curve explains why leaders are always further along the emotional curve than their teams, and what to do about the gap.

    Notable Quotes

    "It is the line of all things human — of our own lives, of organizations and businesses, of governments, empires and alliances, of democracy itself." — Dan Hammond, quoting Charles Handy

    "Organizations change and people transition." — Pia Lee, citing William Bridges

    "If you're leading change and you haven't changed, well, you're probably going to fit into the 88% (who will fail)." — Pia Lee

    Show More Show Less
    24 mins
  • Leading a team to create a community
    Aug 13 2026

    Max Crane runs La Stazione, the café in the Yorkshire Moors he bought last year from the mentor who gave him his start as a teenager. On the surface this is a conversation about coffee and community, but the real subject is what happens when a leader refuses to over-engineer culture: Max builds an entire team ethos around twenty-second interactions, hiring for character over CV, and treating mistakes as inevitable rather than dangerous.

    The shift in the conversation comes when Max admits he can't fully explain why it works — and argues that's the point. The more deliberately you try to manufacture a "vibe" or codify values into a framework, the more it curdles. His approach — pick people for who they are, let them show up as themselves, debrief calmly after the shift rather than in the heat of the moment — offers senior leaders a useful provocation: sometimes the most replicable thing about a strong culture is refusing to over-systematise it.


    2. Key Themes & Takeaways

    • Max hires for character, not experience — a candidate with no CV who makes eye contact and laughs at a bad joke beats a "maestro" barista with eight years' service.
    • His onboarding line to every new hire is "I hired you for you" — staff are told to be themselves with customers, not perform a script.
    • Short interactions compound: Max argues you can meaningfully shift someone's whole day in the twenty to thirty seconds it takes to serve them.
    • Mistakes are treated as low-stakes by design — errors are handled with a shrug and any real feedback is saved for after the shift, never in the moment, to avoid emotional fallout.
    • Max is explicit that over-analysing or over-engineering culture kills it — the more you try to force positivity or codify it into values statements, the less genuine it becomes.
    • He's candid about his own burnout risk as an owner-operator, and about learning that "being there" and "being present" are different things — an unavailable, exhausted leader can't actually support a team.
    • The team functions as informal welfare infrastructure: Max describes staff quietly checking in on customers' wellbeing, and for some regulars — especially elderly customers — his team may be the only human interaction in their day.

    3. Three Reasons to Listen

    • Listen if you've ever tried to codify "culture" into a values deck and suspected it made things worse, not better.
    • Listen if you're hiring and secretly know the strongest candidate on paper isn't always the strongest person for the room.
    • Listen if you're a leader who's proud of how much you work — Max's honesty about burnout and "being there vs. being present" is a useful gut-check.

    4. Notable Quotes

    "If you try to force someone to have a good time, they're not going to have a good time." — Max Crane


    "Just because you're there doesn't mean you're there." — Max Crane


    "It's fine for things to go wrong. It's quite natural for things to go wrong. It doesn't matter." — Max Crane
    Show More Show Less
    32 mins
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet