Bob McGannon

Strong communication isn’t about saying more. It’s about saying the right things, in the right way. In technical organisations, clarity isn’t a soft skill. It’s a multiplier. But even experienced leaders and experts fall into habits that muddy their message, especially under pressure. I see it in presentations, project meetings, 1:1s: - Praise that’s too vague to land - Boundaries that blur - Feedback that confuses more than it helps That’s why I made the list below with 6 communication habits to drop, and what to say instead. ✅ Clear. ✅ Respectful. ✅ Actionable. Because when you speak with clarity and calm, people listen, and follow. 👇Which one do you catch yourself saying? Let’s hear it.

27

6 Comments

💡 Registration Isn’t a Tick-Box NDIS registration isn’t just about getting through an application. It’s about building the kind of organisation you want to be — from day one. 📌 Build strong systems early — it’s far easier than fixing them later 📌 Know your stuff — the Commission wants understanding, not just documents 📌 Equip your team — policies mean nothing if people can’t apply them Registration isn’t the finish line — it’s the starting line. Start with a quality mindset at the heart of everything you do💛 #NDIS #NDISregistration #NDISproviders #quality

20

1 Comment

It’s easy to invest in technical and functional skills. They’re clear, measurable, and aligned to specific outcomes. But national visions aren’t just technical shifts — they’re behavioural ones. They ask leaders to collaborate across silos, act with ownership, and make decisions aligned with longer-term national interests — even under pressure. This isn’t something you can train in a workshop. It’s built through consistent support, structured challenge, and the space to reflect and grow — which is exactly what professional coaching provides. If you want behavioural change that supports national goals, the question isn’t “What skills do we need?” — it’s “What habits, assumptions, and beliefs are shaping how our leaders show up?” Coaching gets to the root of that. And when it does, things move.

20

28 Comments

Brisbane, 2007. My first BPM conference (the best conference bags in history - extra points for anyone who remembers what they were). We were deep in the weeds of petri nets, BPMN (it was just a couple of years old!), and analysing process logs. Back then, *autonomization* would have been considered pure science fiction (although my co-authored paper at BPM 2007 was about process goals - see below for a connection to autonomization). We were too busy perfecting how to map every step of every process. Fast forward to BPM 2025. With Christian Janiesch and Michael Rosemann, we published research that essentially says: "All that careful process modelling? Maybe it's no longer the main game?" Consider Alice and Bob, an example from the paper. They are both planning family vacations. Alice clicks through menus. Select dates. Beach or city? Set budget. When she mentions her kids love history, the system filters for "historical" tags. Bob just talks: "I want a three-week trip that keeps my teenagers engaged with history while giving us all a chance to relax." His system has a conversation. Learns his daughter is studying WWII. Discovers his son gets overwhelmed by crowds. Crafts a personalised itinerary with lesser-known sites in northern France. This is *automation* (Alice) versus *autonomization* (Bob). Automated processes need to know *how*. Autonomized processes need to know *what*: they figure out the how. The control flow (BPM's holy grail) is no longer king. Instead: Goals (yup, that's the link to 2007!). Macro-level resources. Constraints. But we also found that autonomization is not for everyone. Autonomized processes are indeterministic. Less predictable. Harder to explain. And they're not right for every process; the more you need consistency, the less you should autonomize. What we're asking now: Which processes should you autonomize? Which should you never touch? And are you ready for what happens when control flows aren't the holy grail anymore? Push back if you disagree. We wrote the paper to spark a conversation.

50

17 Comments

We cannot build capability through compression. If a training program claims to build capability, it must be accountable for actual growth - not just attendance or completion. That’s why every funded or accredited course should include a Capability Portfolio. A Capability Portfolio isn’t an admin exercise. It’s a record of how learning was applied, reflected on, and sustained over time. Why it matters: * Prevents compression - deep capability can’t be built in a 2-day workshop * Captures authenticity - learners submit real-world evidence * Encourages reflection - learning is incomplete until applied * Aligns accountability - outcomes reflect capability, not completion Example: a 3-day “Leadership & Team Coaching” course could be a 3-month developmental journey: learners apply skills between sessions, gather feedback, and reflect through a Capability Portfolio. Compressed into three days, learners get a certificate - but no one can verify real capability. It becomes a compliance exercise, not a capability journey. Capability isn’t proven by completing a class. It’s proven by demonstrating performance, over time, in context, with evidence. A proper Capability Portfolio collects evidence: ✅ Baseline reflection  (where the learner started) ✅ Learning artifacts (what was gained) ✅ Workplace application (how it was used) ✅ Reflective synthesis (what impact it made) Same content. Different design. One builds attendance. The other builds capability. If we are serious about a truly capable nation, Capability Portfolios must be the standard of proof. Otherwise, we keep producing graduates without growth, training without transformation, and systems without substance.

16

3 Comments

A3’s are awesome - but remember a couple of key things 🔑 The A3 should be a ‘go to’ tool with a specific set of stimulus criteria to trigger a problem solving event. Particularly pertinent in the early days of improvement and implementation we have to ensure that we have a high enough ceiling to solve chronic issues but not bog ourselves down. There are a few layers and approaches when it comes to improvement, but the one constant is the thinking, methodology and practice that underpins it – PDCA. From a longer term, higher level view we will obviously begin to see patterns and trends emerge from the data which will serve to validate the efficacy of the daily metric as well as expose bigger picture and chronic process issues. This is where A3 thinking comes into play and where the tool has emerged as a method to yoke the two fundamental work management processes of Hoshin Kanri and problem solving together. In order to optimise your A3 process much of the success is predicated on the “set up”. One is that the problem or improvement opportunity is defined appropriately and clarified - exactly what problem are we trying to solve or what part of what problem? Two is that the current state is grasped / understood - do we know where the “baseline” or starting point is. How big is the gap or opportunity? How is it more important than other issues we may have? It’s important that we don’t rush our way to “Do” without the due diligence around the initial phases of “Plan” and that we are using the tool to learn collaboratively. A3 should act as a mechanism for shared learning, facilitate diversity of perspectives and provide a coaching tool that enables curiosity and great quality feedback through regular touch points. The elements of the A3 follow each other in a logical sequence and should paint the picture and link of all facets of the problem in a clear, concise way. The practice routine and discipline of following the form through a scientific method over time creates habitual behaviours and an organisational mindset of problem solvers and continual learning. https://lnkd.in/g2EBgC2 paul@dunlopconsultants.com.au #chaostocalm #lean

21

2 Comments

Digital transformation isn’t just about technology. It’s about people, leadership and adaptability. This message was reinforced at the Business Chamber Queensland Digital Future of Work event yesterday. The panel of Prof Michael Rosemann, Fahim Khondaker, Brett Lightfoot and Patrick Twomey, expertly moderated by Heidi Cooper shared their insights and reflected on how digitalisation is reshaping business and the workforce. They reminded us that the pace of change is only going to increase. One strong takeaway was that businesses are not yet behind in adopting AI and there is still time to catch up. The key is to adopt at the right pace for your context, balancing security with innovation, building trust in systems and staying agile enough to seize new opportunities. Heidi also shared the executive summary of the 2025 Digital Future of Work Report, a critical resource that captures the voice of Queensland businesses and provides insights into current challenges and emerging trends. While the ‘tech fog’ identified in 2024 is beginning to lift, it remains persistent, reminder that while businesses are getting better at understanding technological change, there is still work to do. Thank you to BCQ for producing such a valuable report and thank you Australian Retirement Trust for sponsoring the report and an insightful discussion. Disclaimer: This post is human-written, AI-assisted. #FutureOfWork #DigitalTransformation #AI #Innovation #Leadership #Queensland

24

2 Comments

65% of Australians say they’re optimistic about AI... Leaders say they'll replace uncertainty with transparency and opportunity. Excellent. But here’s what keeps getting missed. When people feel threatened, they don’t look for opportunity, they look for safety. And in safety-seeking mode, it��s almost impossible to #innovate or #grow. Because what people resist is not change. It’s loss. 🔸Loss of certainty. 🔸Loss of status. 🔸Loss of competence. 🔸Loss of control. So we can't just sell the upside without naming what’s ending. In the Year of Change, this will be the conversation that determines whether your strategy accelerates or stalls. So, does your change strategy include space for people to process what they're losing? #Leadership #Change #AI #FutureOfWork #HumanCentredLeadership

12

14 Comments