Why survive when you can THRIVE? I'll help you take the smart decisions and smash your GOALS | Start today with my three-staged approach to make the change | Follow for daily insight

Change can accelerate growth — or derail it. The difference? How you lead through it.

I help CEOs, founders, and leadership teams navigate change with clarity, confidence, and momentum — turning uncertainty into opportunity.

Whether it’s digital transformation, organisational restructuring, recovery from stalled delivery, or adapting to AI-driven shifts, I bring over 20 years’ experience guiding high-growth SMEs and global brands like JPMorgan and Centrica through high-stakes change.

I work as both a strategic advisor and execution partner — combining big-picture thinking with hands-on delivery to ensure change sticks and results last.

What I do:

- Strategic 1:1 advisory for high-impact decisions & blind spots
- Embedded execution partner to unblock delivery & keep pace
- Practical frameworks for cadence, communication, decision-making & delegation

When to call me:

- Digital transformation & organisational change
- Recovery & restructuring
- Interim leadership & capacity gaps
- Leading teams through AI-driven change
- Turning around failed consultancy efforts

How I lead change:

- Clarify the vision and the case for change
- Work backwards from the outcomes that matter
- Align people so everyone knows what’s changing, why, and their role in it
- Build a delivery rhythm the team can sustain
- Support execution with challenge, clarity, and perspective

Why clients choose me:

I’m a grounded operator with academic depth from Oxford Saïd Business School and a straight-talking, results-focused style. My clients value my ability to cut through complexity, create alignment, and get things moving — without adding more noise.

📩 If you’re leading change and the stakes are high, message me to arrange an intro call.

__
www.stellarcoach.co.uk
email: stuart@stellarcoach.co.uk
Or message me on LinkedIn

Stuart Turner

Here is a number worth sitting with.

For an organisation with $880 million in strategic spend, the estimated annual cost of misalignment and delays is around $260 million. Nearly a third. Lost to friction that nobody budgeted for and nobody is measuring.

I have started calling this the change tax.

It is not one cost. It is five.

The decision lag: weeks lost waiting for calls that should have been made. The translation load: middle-layer capacity consumed by interpreting ambiguous strategy. The re-litigation cycle: decisions reopened because they were never genuinely settled. The priority collision: competing initiatives fighting for the same people with no published order. 

The trust deficit: the long-tail cost of every previous change programme that drifted.

Most organisations track their change investment meticulously. Programme budgets, consultancy fees, technology costs.

None of them track the tax on that investment. The friction that makes every programme slower, more expensive, and less likely to land.

Gartner found that employee willingness to support change has dropped from 74% in 2016 to 38% today. That is not a culture problem. That is a trust account that has been overdrawn for years.

This week's Stellar Edge breaks down the change tax: what it costs, how to calculate yours, and where the biggest reductions sit.

What would change in your organisation if the friction cost was on the same slide as the programme budget?

Create Space to Lead | Deliver Change That Sticks | Hands-On Strategic Advisory for CEOs, Founders & Leadership Teams Navigating High-Stakes Change

Here is a number I want you to sit with. For an organisation with roughly $880 million in strategic spend, the estimated annual cost of misalignment, 

Open article: Every unresolved decision, competing priority, and missing trade-off has a cost. Most organisations have never calculated theirs. by Stuart Turner • 7 min read

Every unresolved decision, competing priority, and missing trade-off has a cost. Most organisations have never calculated theirs.

Most change leadership advice assumes you designed the transformation.

You didn't.

You arrived at your desk and discovered that the organisation had committed to a change you were not consulted on, designed by people who do not fully understand your function, with a timeline that assumes capacity you do not have.

Your job is to make it work.

This is the most common experience of change leadership in organisations today. And nobody writes about it.

Here is what makes inherited change structurally harder than chosen change:
You are asked to lead with conviction you have not earned through understanding. You are asked to sell a vision you received as a briefing document. You are asked to absorb setbacks on behalf of a plan that someone else will be credited for if it succeeds and you will be blamed for if it fails.

That is not a motivation problem. It is a design problem.

DDI found that 71% of leaders report increased stress from their roles. 40% of those are considering leaving. Gallup showed manager engagement dropped to 27% last year.

These are not abstract numbers. These are the people carrying inherited change while the organisation treats them as delivery mechanisms rather than leaders who need to understand what they are delivering and why.

This week's Stellar Edge is for the leader who did not choose this. The five moments nobody prepares you for, why the usual playbook does not apply, and five moves to lead inherited change with integrity.

Link to the article below!

There is a version of change leadership that gets written about constantly. The visionary CEO who sees the future. The transformation architect who de

Open article: Most change leadership advice assumes you designed the transformation. What happens when it lands on your desk and the strategy was never yours? by Stuart Turner • 10 min read

Most change leadership advice assumes you designed the transformation. What happens when it lands on your desk and the strategy was never yours?

The 70% transformation failure rate has barely moved in a decade.

And the pattern is always the same.

Months 1-3: Quick wins. Energy. The board is encouraged. 
Months 4-6: Structural issues surface. Competing priorities collide. 
Months 7-9: Drift. Delivery slows. The narrative shifts to "embedding." 
Months 10-12: Quietly restructured, renamed, or abandoned.

The cause is consistent: the first 90 days were spent proving the programme worked instead of designing it to work.

Quick wins are not inherently wrong. McKinsey's research shows successful transformations deliver 57% of value in the first six months. But that is successful transformations. The ones where the quick wins were connected to a coherent architecture, not just chosen because they were easy to execute and impressive to report.

The trap is when quick wins become the strategy rather than evidence of one.

I have started asking a different question at the end of the first 90 days. Not "what have you delivered?" but "is the organisation's capacity for change increasing or decreasing?"

If the middle layer is more overloaded, if the leadership team is less aligned, if the change tax is higher than it was 90 days ago, then the quick wins were cosmetic. The programme is consuming more capacity than it is creating.

This week's Stellar Edge makes the case for a different first 90 days. Not slower. Sequenced differently. A design sprint, not a delivery sprint.

If you have ever watched a transformation start with energy and end with drift, you know exactly what I am describing.

Dear leader who has just been handed a transformation, I know what you have been told. Move fast. Show momentum. Deliver quick wins. Get runs on the b

Open article: Your transformation timeline is probably built on hope. Here is what the first 90 days should actually be for. by Stuart Turner • 10 min read

Your transformation timeline is probably built on hope. Here is what the first 90 days should actually be for.

To build sustainable business value, you start with the goal, then earn the reputation that makes it possible.

At Reputation Sherpa, we guide CEOs and leadership teams to work backwards from their growth targets to define the reputation they need to achieve them. Then we help make it real.

Clients have attributed nearly half a billion dollars in added business value to this process.
Because when your reputation is clear, every path to growth gets easier:

--> Clients choose you faster
--> Employees stay longer
--> Investors see greater value

Using our CARAT framework (Credibility, Attention, Relatability, Authority, and Trust) we help turn your invisible wins into visible credibility.

Our frameworks are built on more than 15 years of research, psychology, and results across sectors from professional services to tech and infrastructure.

The outcome is a stronger reputation, inside and out, that amplifies your brand, builds stakeholder confidence, and increases the future value of your business.

If you’re ready to start with the goal and build the reputation that gets you there, let’s talk.

For insights on proactive reputation building, or to start a conversation, let's connect.

Jo Kinner

Excellent article, Craig Badings and a must-read for leaders serious about their organisation's reputation. Several points stood out as essential to know yet not well understood. One of them:

"Many boards think they are governing reputation when they are only monitoring sentiment after the fact.

"True reputation intelligence links behavior, culture, incentives and decision-making, not just perception. If reputational data does not change board discussions or influence executive decisions, it is not intelligence, it is hindsight."

Love your work!

Take your business further with a higher reputation | We guide you | Founding Partner at Reputation Sherpa

Partner at SenateSHJ, PRovoke Innovator Asia Pacific 2024. Reputation doesn’t fail in the headlines. It fails in governance. I help leaders measure and fix that.

In this piece in The CEO Magazine, using the findings of SenateSHJ's Future of Reputation 2030 report, I provide insights into how reputation must become a performance system embedded into company's governance, risk and compliance programs.

I highlight why reputation is no longer a soft asset but instead, a cumulative outcome of systems that leaders design every day: how trade-offs are made, how culture is reinforced, how risk is governed and how decisions align – or fail to align – with stated values.

Read the full article online here:

Open article: Why reputation has become a CEO-level performance system by digitalmag.theceomagazine.com

Why reputation has become a CEO-level performance system

taplio

The Battle

Stuart Turner

Jo Kinner

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreStuart Turner's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreJo Kinner's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Stuart Turner

Jo Kinner

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Stuart Turner's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreJo Kinner's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreStuart Turner's LinkedIn Performance