Posted: February 26th, 2023



Change and conflict often go hand-in-hand.  Briefly discuss a difficult change workplace experience and describe the conflict that took place as a part of this change.  

According to the readings, what did you (or a team leader) do right and/or wrong to lead the organization through this change/conflict? 

Applying the readings and especially the podcast, what could have been done to improve the change process? 

What was a key takeaway (or an "aha") from the podcast that you can apply in your life?

ARTWORK Jeff Perrott, Burden of Good, 2014 Oil on linenSPOTLIGHT



Team conflict can add value or destroy it. Good conflict fosters respectful debate and yields

mutually agreed-upon solutions that are often far superior to those first offered. Bad conflict occurs when team members simply can’t get past their differences, killing productivity and stifling innovation.

Ginka Toegel is a professor of organizational behavior and leadership at IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland. Jean-Louis Barsoux is a senior research fellow at IMD.

June 2016 Harvard Business Review 79


Disparate opinions aren’t the root of the problem, however. Most destructive conflict stems from something deeper: a perceived incompatibility in the way various team members operate due to any number of factors, including personality, industry, race, gender, and age. The conventional approach to working through such conflict is to respond to clashes as they arise or wait until there is clear evi- dence of a problem before addressing it. But these approaches routinely fail because they allow frustra- tions to build for too long, making it difficult to reset negative impressions and restore trust.

In our 25 years of researching team dynam- ics, coaching teams in Fortune 500 corporations, and teaching thousands of executives at Duke University, London Business School, and IMD, we’ve found that a proactive approach is much more effective. When you surface differences before a team starts work—even when the group seems homogeneous and harmonious—you can preempt destructive conflict.

We have developed and tested a methodology that focuses on five areas: how people look, act, speak, think, and feel. Team leaders facilitate a se- ries of 20- to 30-minute conversations, encouraging members to express their preferences and expecta- tions in each area, identify the most likely areas of misalignment or friction, and come up with sug- gestions for how those with differing expectations can work together. Through the nonjudgmental exchange of ideas and feedback, teams establish a foundation of trust and understanding and are able to set ground rules for effective collaboration.

Though setting aside time for these conversa- tions up front might seem onerous, we’ve found that it’s a worthwhile investment for any team—new or old, C-suite or frontline—that will be collaborat- ing on significant work for an extended period of time. Leaders need no special training to facilitate

the discussions. Indeed, we’ve found that managers can master these conflict-prevention skills far more easily than those required for conflict resolution.

Five Conversations Because the five conversations we propose go so far beyond typical “getting to know you” chitchat, it’s important to kick them off properly. First, although this may seem obvious, make sure to include ev- eryone on the team and explain why you’re initiat- ing the discussions. You might say something like:

“Working on a team means collaborating with people whose approaches may differ from your own. Let’s explore these differences now, while the pressure is off, so that they don’t catch us by surprise and gen- erate unproductive conflict at an inopportune mo- ment.” Explain that the focus of the discussions will be on the process of work rather than the content.

As the facilitator, make sure that people are com- fortable sharing at their own pace and coach them on how to ask clarifying, nonjudgmental questions of one another. Encourage everyone to begin state- ments with “In my world…” and questions with “In your world…?” This phrasing, borrowed from orga- nizational behavior scholar Edgar Schein, reinforces the idea that underlying sources of differences are irrelevant. What does matter is the attitudes and be- haviors expressed as a result of each person’s cumu- lative personal and professional experience. For ex- ample, the fact that you are assertive may be related to your personality, gender, or culture, but the only thing your colleagues need to know is that you tend to vocalize your opinions in plain terms.

Team members are likely to be hesitant as you be- gin, so ease everyone into the process by volunteer- ing to share first. Once the dialogue gains steam, let others guide (but not dominate) it. Eventually, peo- ple will move from superficial disclosures to deeper discussion. As they listen to the responses of oth- ers and offer their own, they will develop not only a better understanding of their colleagues but also greater self-awareness.

The five topics can be addressed in any order; however, we’ve found the sequence presented here to be the most logical, especially with new teams, because we perceive first how others look and then how they speak and act. Only after observing them for a longer period can we infer how they think or feel. That said, facilitators should not get hung up on the categories, because there is inevitable

We unconsciously respond to cues in how people look, move, and dress. 80  Harvard Business Review June 2016


overlap. Likewise, if participants struggle with the “In my world” language, it can be tweaked.

Let’s now consider the five categories in turn.

LOOK: Spotting the Difference Colleagues routinely make fast judg- ments (especially negative ones) about the character, competence, or status of their peers on the basis of the briefest exposure—what Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal, in re- search conducted at Harvard, called

“thin slices” of behavior. These reac- tions are often triggered by differences in the way people present themselves. We unconsciously respond to cues in how they look, move, and dress, in their tone of voice, and in what they say about themselves.

The goal of this conversation is to help team members reflect on how they intend to come across to others—and how they actually do. A good place to begin is a discussion about the driv- ers of status in team members’ respective “worlds.” For example, some people put a premium on job- related characteristics, such as experience, con- nections, and functional background. For oth- ers, status is linked to demographic cues such as age, gender, nationality, and education. Team members can quickly put colleagues off by empha- sizing the wrong credentials, adopting an unsuit- able persona, or even dressing inappropriately for the culture. One executive from the “buttoned-up” banking sector faced this type of conflict when he joined an advertising group. In a team discus- sion, one of his colleagues told him, “The norm here is business casual. So by wearing a suit and tie

at all times, it’s like you think you’re special, and that creates distance.”

A similar situation arose at a heavy-engineering company when a female designer joined its board. Her colorful clothing and introductory comments, which included two literary references, made her pragmatic peers think she valued style over substance, which set her up to be marginalized.

An example that highlights the value of discuss- ing perceptions up front comes from a global food group, where a leadership-development rotation of promising young executives had been creating re- sentment among older subsidiary executives, most notably in the Australian operation. The local team had developed a dysfunctional “keep your head down” attitude and simply tolerated each ambitious MBA until he or she moved on. But when one incom- ing manager engaged his team in the five conversa- tions at the start of his term, he was able to dispel their negative preconceptions and develop far-more- productive relationships than his predecessors had.

ACT: Misjudging Behavior On diverse teams, clashing behavioral norms are common sources of trouble. Seemingly trivial gestures can have a dis- proportionate impact, aggravating stereo- types, alienating people, and disrupting communication flows.

Physical boundaries are often a prob- lem area. Consider the media firestorm that retired French soccer player Thierry Henry set off when, as a TV pundit re- acting to surprising breaking news, he touched the thigh of his male English col- league. French culture accepts that sort of interaction, but for television studio

Idea in Brief THE PROBLEM Team conflict erupts not because of differences in opinion but because of a perceived incompatibility in the way different team members think and act. When people can’t get past their differences, the resulting clashes kill productivity and stifle innovation.

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW Differences in perspective and experience can generate great value, of course. A new methodology helps leaders guide their teams through five conversations before work starts, to build shared understanding and lay the foundation for effective collaboration.

IN PRACTICE The approach focuses on the process of work rather than the content. Leaders facilitate targeted discussions that explore the varying ways team members look, act, speak, think, and feel, to immunize the team against unproductive conflict when the pressure is on.

QUESTIONS TO ASK “In your world... ...what makes a good first impression? A bad one? ...what do you notice first about others (dress, speech, demeanor)? ...what does that make you think about them (rigid, pushy, lazy)? ...what intangible credentials do you value (education, experience, connections)? do you perceive status differences?”

QUESTIONS TO ASK “In your world... important are punctuality and time limits? ...are there consequences of being late or missing deadlines? ...what is a comfortable physical distance for interacting in the workplace? ...should people volunteer for assignments or wait to be nominated? ...what group behaviors are valued (helping others, not complaining)?”

June 2016 Harvard Business Review 81



shallow self-promotion. Expectations for how much colleagues should help one another, as opposed to contributing individually to the group effort, can also vary widely. For example, a team of soft- ware engineers ran into problems when it became clear that some members were very selective in giving aid to peers, while others did so whenever asked. Those who spent more time helping others understandably began to feel resentful and dis- advantaged, since doing so often interfered with their own work. It’s important to establish team norms around all these behaviors up front to avoid unnecessary antagonism.

SPEAK: Dividing by Language Communication styles have many di- mensions—the words people choose to express themselves, tolerance for candor, humor, pauses and interrup- tions, and so on—and the possibilities for misunderstanding are endless.

Teams made up of people with dif- ferent native languages present signifi- cant challenges in this area. But even when everyone is fluent in a particu- lar language, there may be deep dif- ferences in how individuals express themselves. For example, depending on context, culture, and other fac- tors, “yes” can mean “maybe” or “let’s

try it” or even “no way.” At a European software firm we worked with, two executives were at each other’s throats over what one of them called “bro- ken promises.” Discussion revealed that words one had interpreted as a firm commitment were merely aspirational to his counterpart.

Sometimes even laudable organizational goals can engender troublesome communication dynam- ics: For example, corporations that promote a cul- ture of positivity may end up with employees who are reluctant or afraid to challenge or criticize. As the marketing director of a fast-moving consumer goods firm told us: “You’re not supposed to be negative about people’s ideas. What’s going through the back of your mind is ‘I can’t see this working.’ But what comes out of your mouth is ‘Yeah, that’s great.’”

When teams discuss at the outset how much can- dor is appropriate, they can establish clear guidelines about speaking up or pushing back on others. At

colleagues in the macho world of British football, it was a step too far. Or consider the introverted, high- anxiety executive we worked with whose warm and gregarious peer made him uncomfortable: Their ex- pectations for the proper distance at which to inter- act differed starkly. “I was taking a coffee with him at one of those standing tables,” he remembers. “We literally shuffled round the table as he moved toward me and I tried to reestablish my buffer zone.”

Attitudes about time can stir up conflict, too. People differ widely—even within the same firm or department—with regard to the importance of being punctual and respectful of other people’s schedules. More broadly, the value of keeping projects on pace and hitting milestone deadlines may be paramount to some, whereas others may value flexibility and the ability to nimbly respond as circumstances un- fold. An example comes from a Nordic industrial ma- chinery company that had recurrent tensions in the top team. The non-Nordic executives in the group were deeply frustrated by what they saw as a lack of urgency shown by their Nordic colleagues, and they responded with brusqueness—which, of course, upset their peers. Eventually, the group discussed the situation and set new rules of engagement. But a preemptive conversation would have saved them all a great deal of time and energy.

Differing levels of assertiveness between team members can present problems as well. Male ex- ecutives, for example, or people from individualis- tic corporate and national cultures, often feel quite comfortable volunteering for special assignments or nominating themselves to take on additional respon- sibilities because they consider it a sign of commit- ment, competence, and self-confidence. But others may see those actions as blatant, undignified, and

QUESTIONS TO ASK “In your world... a promise an aspiration or a guarantee? ...which is most important: directness or harmony? ...are irony and sarcasm appreciated? interruptions signal interest or rudeness? ...does silence mean reflection or disengagement? ...should dissenting views be aired in public or discussed off-line? unsolicited feedback welcome?”

Differing attitudes about the importance of deadlines often stir up conflict. 82  Harvard Business Review June 2016


differences, a facilitator used role play to help the two groups better understand each other’s perspective.

FEEL: Charting Emotionals Team members may differ widely in the intensity of their feelings, how they convey passion in a group, and the way they manage their emotions in the face of disagreement or conflict.

Sometimes enthusiasm can over- whelm peers or fuel skepticism. An extroverted CMO at a logistics com- pany we worked with assumed that the more passion she showed for her ideas, the more responsive the group

would be to them. But her “rah-rah” approach was too much for the introverted, pragmatic CEO. She would start picking apart proposals whenever the CMO got excited. At the other extreme, strong nega- tive emotions—especially overt displays of anger— can be upsetting or intimidating.

Negative feelings can be a sensitive issue to broach, so it’s helpful to start by talking about the kind of context team members are used to. From there, the discussion can get more personal. For ex- ample, in one conversation we facilitated at a con- struction company, an executive told his colleagues that “yelling was common” in his previous work- place—but that it was a habit he wanted to correct. He told us that he had made this disclosure to “keep [him]self honest” in pursuit of that goal.

Early discussions should touch on not only the risks of venting but also the danger of bottling things up. The tendency to signal irritation or discontent indirectly—through withdrawal, sarcasm, and pri- vately complaining about one another—can be just as destructive as volatile outbursts and intimidation. It’s important to address the causes of disengage- ment directly, through open inquiry and debate, and come up with ways to disagree productively.

THE BENEFITS of anticipating and heading off conflict before it becomes destructive are immense. We’ve found that they include greater participation, im- proved creativity, and, ultimately, smarter decision making. As one manager put it: “We still disagree, but there’s less bad blood and a genuine sense of valuing each other’s contributions.”

HBR Reprint R1606F

a German investment bank, a top team that had been dominated by several assertive consultants adopted a “four sentence” rule—a cutoff for each person’s contributions in meetings—as a way to encourage taking turns and give more-reserved members a chance to contribute. At Heineken USA, board mem- bers use little toy horses that sit on the conference table to accomplish the same goal: If you’re talking and someone tips one over, you know you’re beating a dead horse and it’s time to move on.

THINK: Occupying Different Mindsets Perhaps the biggest source of conflict on teams stems from the way in which members think about the work they’re doing. Their varied personalities and experiences make them alert to vary- ing signals and cause them to take dif- ferent approaches to problem solving and decision making. This can result in their working at cross-purposes. As one executive with a U.S. apparel com- pany noted: “There is often tension between the ready-fire-aim types on our team and the more analytical colleagues.”

We found this dynamic in a new-product team at a Dutch consumer goods company. Members’ cognitive styles differed greatly, particularly with regard to methodical versus intuitive thinking. Once aware of the problem, the project manager initiated discussions about ways to rotate leadership of the project, matching team needs to mindsets. During the more creative and conceptual phases, the free- thinkers would be in charge, while analytical and detail-oriented members would take over evalua- tion, organization, and implementation activities. All members came to understand the value of the different approaches.

Teams also need to find alignment on tolerance for risk and shifting priorities. A striking example comes from a biotech team made up of scientists and executives. By virtue of their training, the scientists embraced experimentation, accepted failure as part of the discovery process, and valued the continued pursuit of breakthroughs, regardless of time hori- zon or potential for commercial applications. That mindset jarred their MBA-trained peers, who sought predictability in results and preferred to kill projects that failed to meet expectations. To bridge those

QUESTIONS TO ASK “In your world... uncertainty viewed as a threat or an opportunity? ...what’s more important: the big picture or the details? it better to be reliable or flexible? ...what is the attitude toward failure? do people tolerate deviations from the plan?”

QUESTIONS TO ASK “In your world... ...what emotions (positive and negative) are acceptable and unacceptable to display in a business context? do people express anger or enthusiasm? would you react if you were annoyed with a teammate (with silence, body language, humor, through a third party)?”


June 2016 Harvard Business Review 83


Copyright 2016 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your institution's librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations please visit

Home > Articles >

Leading Effectively Articles

> How to Be a Successful Change Leader


How to Be a Successful Change Leader

Great Change Leaders Focus on People & Process Successful change is one of the biggest problems that modern organizations face. In our fast- changing world, the strategic imperative to change is often clear: Without doing things differently, our company is unlikely to succeed, or last.

At its core, change leadership is working together to create a shared understanding of change required

Find a Location Contact Us

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. For more information on how we protect your privacy please see our Privacy policy

to execute the strategy, and how to best make it happen. But change-management research has demonstrated time after time that organizational change initiatives fail more often than they succeed, despite the resources put into creating change management processes.

We know that effective leadership is essential to successful change. But we wanted to understand the differences in change leadership between successful and unsuccessful change efforts. That’s why we recently conducted a study where we asked 275 senior executives to re몭ect on successful and unsuccessful change efforts they’d led.

Our goal was to characterize “change-capable leadership,” de몭ne the key leadership competencies necessary for change, and better understand leadership behaviors that could contribute to change failures.

The executives we surveyed were all participants in our Leadership at the Peak program, which targets executives with more than 15 years of management experience, responsibility for 500 or more people, and decision-making authority as members of top management teams. All of them were seasoned leaders.

Our study revealed 9 critical leadership competencies of successful change efforts and change- capable leaders. The 9 change competencies can be further divided into 3 main categories — what we call “the 3 C’s of change,” leading the process, and leading the people.

The 3 C’s of

Change Leadership

Researchers found that 3 skills provide the necessary connection between the process part of change and the people part of change. These 3 C’s unite effective change leadership:

partners. For more information on how we protect your privacy please see our Privacy policy

✓ Accept CookiesCookie Settings❯

1. Communicate. Unsuccessful leaders tended to focus on the “what” behind the change. Successful leaders communicated the “what” and the “why.” Leaders who explained the purpose of the change and connected it to the organization’s values or explained the bene몭ts created stronger buy-in and urgency for the change.

2. Collaborate. Bringing people together to plan and execute change is critical. Successful leaders worked across boundaries, encouraged employees to break out of their silos, and refused to tolerate unhealthy competition. They also included employees in decision-making early on, strengthening their commitment to change. Unsuccessful change leaders failed to engage employees early and often in the change process.

3. Commit. Successful leaders made sure their own beliefs and behaviors supported change, too. Change is di몭cult, but leaders who negotiated it successfully were resilient and persistent, and willing to step outside their comfort zone. They also devoted more of their own time to the change effort and focused on the big picture. Unsuccessful leaders failed to adapt to challenges, expressed negativity, and were impatient with a lack of results.

Access Our Webinar! Watch our webinar, Leading Through Change, and learn how to become a more change- capable leader, effective in both change management and change leadership.


How to Be an Effective Change

Leader Strategic change doesn’t happen on its own. Effective leaders guide the process from start to 몭nish. Here are the 3 key competencies that are part of leading the process:

Initiate. After understanding the need for change, effective change leaders begin by making the case for the change they seek. This can include evaluating the business context, understanding the purpose of the change, developing a clear vision and desired outcome, and identifying a common goal. Unsuccessful leaders say they didn’t focus on these tasks enough to reach a common understanding of the goal. Learn more about the common challenges faced when organizations are implementing change. Strategize. Successful leaders developed a strategy and a clear action plan, including priorities, timelines, tasks, structures, behaviors, and resources. They identi몭ed what would change, but also what would stay the same. Leaders who weren’t successful said they failed to listen enough to questions and concerns, and failed to de몭ne success from the beginning. Execute. Translating strategy into execution is one of the most important things leaders can do. In our study, successful change leaders focused on getting key people into key positions (or removing them, in some cases). They also broke big projects down into small wins to get early victories and build momentum. And they developed metrics and monitoring systems to measure progress. Unsuccessful change leaders sometimes began micromanaging, got mired in implementation details, and failed to consider the bigger picture.

Remember that, as organizations evolve over time, stability and change must coexist — which is not a problem to solve, but rather a polarity to manage. To help your organization achieve its full potential, acknowledge both poles simultaneously.

When change leaders 몭nd the sweet spot of “both/and,” they can present the change effort in a way that others can embrace.

At CCL, we’re in the business of change. Learn how a customizable Change Leadership program can help your organization ignite transformational and sustainable change.

Leading People Through Change While formal change processes might be well understood, too many leaders neglect the all-important human side of change equation. The most effective change leaders devoted considerable effort to engaging everyone involved in the change and remembered that people need time to adapt to change — no matter how fast-moving the change initiative.

They understand how to combat change fatigue and encourage embracing change. And they exhibit these 3 crucial qualities of leading people:

Support. Successful change projects were characterized by leaders removing barriers to

employee success. These include personal barriers, such as wounded egos and a sense of loss, as well as professional barriers, such as the time and resources necessary to carry out a change plan. Leaders of unsuccessful change focused exclusively on results, so employees didn’t get the support they needed for the change. Sway. In몭uence is about gaining not only compliance, but also the commitment necessary to drive change. It is also about mapping out the critical change agents and de몭ning what “buy-in” looks like from each stakeholder that will lead to a successful outcome. Effective change leaders identi몭ed key stakeholders — including board members, C-suite executives, clients, and others — and communicated their vision of successful change to them. Unsuccessful leaders told us they were more likely to avoid certain stakeholders rather than try to in몭uence them. Learn. Finally, successful change leaders never assumed they had all the answers. They asked lots of questions and gathered formal and informal feedback. The input and feedback allowed them to make continual adjustments during the change. In the case of unsuccessful changes, leaders didn’t ask as many questions or gather accurate information, which left them without the knowledge they needed to make appropriate adjustments along the way.

Build More Effective Change Leaders

Today’s leaders need the ability to address complex challenges and lead through change and disruption in new and innovative ways. Build the skills needed by partnering with us to craft a customized learning journey for your organization using our research-backed topic modules.

Available leadership topics include Communication, Emotional Intelligence & Empathy, In몭uencing Skills,

Leading Through Change & Disruption

, Listening to Understand, Psychological Safety & Trust, and more.


Lastly, leaders should recognize that leading people through complex change is di몭cult, and all changes, even positive ones, come at a cumulative cost. Change can drain employees — and leaders,

changes, even positive ones, come at a cumulative cost. Change can drain employees — and leaders, too.

That’s why successful change leadership also requires resilience. Resilience helps people handle change’s inherent pressure, uncertainty, and setbacks. Leaders need to build their own reserves in support of their mental and physical health, and can guide others to face change in healthy and sustainable ways by learning and sharing practices to strengthen leadership resilience.

Ready to Take the Next Step? Be a change leader by building your team’s collective capacity to drive change forward effectively with our solutions for change leadership.

| What to Explore Next

Leading Through Change

What Senior Executives Told Us About Change-Capable Leadership

| Related Solutions Leading Through Change & Disruption Change Leadership

SUBSCRIBE Subscribe to our eNewsletters to get the latest on cutting-edge, leadership insights & research.


November 24, 2020

Leading Effectively Staff

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) Leading Effectively Staff

This article was written by our Leading Effectively staff, who analyze our decades of pioneering, expert research and experiences in the 몭eld to share content that will help leaders at every level. Subscribe to our emails to get the latest research-based leadership articles and insights sent straight to your inbox.

Related Content

What the Withdrawal of US Forces From Afghanistan Can Teach Us About Leading Change

In a matter of days in August, the Taliban captured most of the country just weeks before the US was set to withdraw its last troops. Today we want to look at leadership’s role in forging a better future. What are the lessons we can take from this situation to be better every day? In this episode, we discuss the importance of establishing commitment in order to create real and sustainable change, along with the importance of allyship to drive progress towards equity for historically marginalized groups, and what leaders today can do to lead with that.



Why Today’s Organizations Need to Embrace Flexibility in the Workplace

In today’s changed world of work, it’s critical for organizations to adopt a 몭exible approach in order to attract and retain top talent, build a healthy and productive work culture, and maintain high levels of employee engagement.


Leading Effectively Articles

Leading Effectively Articles

Why Leadership Trust Is Critical in Times of Change and Disruption

Trust building helps teams step into ambiguity, stay committed to managing the unknown with con몭dence, and embrace change as an opportunity to learn, grow, and do great work together.


Lead With That: What GameStop Can Teach Us About Disruption and Culture Change

In December, GameStop was trading at a little under $13. And at the time of this recording, it is trading at $193. This feels like a lot of disruption. A group of subredditors took on the Wall Street Establishment an disrupted the way Wall Street does business, at least for a bit. It got us thinking about disruption and its role in behavior change. Is this kind of disruption the key to changing the way work is done? From a leadership perspective, is harnessing disruption the missing piece of culture change in the workplace? Let’s talk about the lessons we can learn from the GameStop headlines and lead with that.




Lessons from Senior Leaders: What Leadership Development Means Today

After a year of unparalleled disruption, many senior leaders are thinking differently about the role of leadership and what it means for their organizations going forward. In this webinar, hear how they’re rethinking leadership development in the future.


Lead With That: What Solar Energy Can Teach Us About Mindset and Organizational Change

Solar is o몭cially the cheapest energy in history. According to the International Energy Agency, solar is


Solar is o몭cially the cheapest energy in history. According to the International Energy Agency, solar is 20-50% cheaper than traditional energy sources. As solar becomes a pro몭table way to save our planet, it might seem to be the renewable energy of choice. So why aren’t we making solar the primary source of energy? As you might imagine, the answer to this is complex and simple, but fortunately for us offers some great insights into why change, both at an individual and organizational level, is more di몭cult than you might think. Let’s talk about why, despite its merits, people are resistant to adopting solar energy and lead with that.









About Us


Client Successes

Industry Expertise

Leadership Team


Assessments & 360s

Coaching Services

Custom Solutions

Leadership Tools

Online Training

Programs Subscribe

Webinars & Events

CCL © 2021 / All Rights Reserved

Privacy Policy / Email Preference Center

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price: