Contact
Conner Academy
4060 Peachtree Road
Suite 523
Atlanta, Ga 30319
Sample ATA Topics
Click + to open topic
HITA Sovereignty
Holding Your Ground When Leaders Push Back
The ATA curriculum takes on the full range of challenges practitioners face when advising senior leaders, including some that most professional development programs never address. This is a brief look at one of those topics: sovereignty, the capacity to hold your professional ground even under pressure from leaders with authority over your career.
Every experienced change practitioner knows what it’s like to watch senior leaders override a core recommendation and say nothing. The moment passes, the work continues, and something important gets lost, not just in the initiative but in the relationship.
That’s what sovereignty is about. It’s not defiance or stubbornness. It’s the self-determination to stand behind what you know works, even when someone with authority over your career is telling you to let it go.
Skill without sovereignty collapses under pressure.
Sovereignty without skill has nothing to stand on.
HITAs carry two foundational assets: the methodology they’re capable of utilizing and the sovereignty they bring to applying it. Most practitioners have the first. Far fewer have developed the second. The ATA program makes the case that of the two, sovereignty is the harder one to build.
Why It’s Not Simply a Confidence Problem
Practitioners who struggle to hold their professional ground are often told they need more confidence or a clearer sense of their own value. That advice isn’t wrong, but it misses something more fundamental.
Human beings are conditioned from childhood to receive guidance from authority figures and adjust accordingly. That wiring doesn’t change. The practitioner who once bent to a teacher’s or coach’s correction now bends to an executive’s preference, and the internal emotional experience is nearly identical. It’s the same trigger (authority) eliciting the same response (compliance).
Understanding that such reflexive deference is the driving force behind unproductive capitulation is the first step toward dismantling it.
Where Practitioners Actually Draw the Line
Every methodology has certain components that are essential for reaching intended outcomes and others that can be applied based on preference. Sovereignty is all about where practitioners draw that line between what’s negotiable and what isn’t and whether they’re willing to have the explicit conversation with leaders when that line gets crossed.
Defending your professional line doesn’t mean refusing to cross it. It means making sure the leader fully understands what’s at stake before they decide to move forward. The decision belongs to the leader; the obligation to surface the implications belongs to the practitioner.
The ATA program addresses what it actually takes to claim and sustain sovereignty, why it’s so difficult even for seasoned practitioners, and what it means to invoke it when powerful leaders push hard on something you know matters. If you’ve ever backed down when you shouldn’t have, this topic will show you why and what to do differently.
This description is drawn from a more extensive white paper that delves into the topic in greater depth.
The Provocateur
Saying What’s Needed When Others Won’t
The ATA curriculum addresses a wide range of demanding, often uncomfortable topics and issues that define HITA-level work. This piece offers a brief look at one of those topics: the role of the provocateur, the practitioner who surfaces what others won’t.
In virtually every significant change effort, there are issues negatively affecting progress that everybody senses and nobody wants to call out: political landmines, leadership blind spots, or interpersonal dynamics that are strangling an initiative. These are sticky issues that won’t resolve themselves. Someone has to surface them, or the intended outcomes will be at risk.
That “someone” is the provocateur. Not to be confused with an agitator or a contrarian, this practitioner exhibits the courage and discipline to help leaders face what they’d rather avoid. The value isn’t in the discomfort that surfaces, it’s in what becomes possible once the unspeakable thing is finally on the table.
Any practitioner can respond to the question; far fewer can make the answer count.
Why Most Practitioners Can’t Go There
When practitioners fail to step into the provocateur role, it usually comes down to one of two reasons: They see the issue and flinch, or they don’t see it at all. While both produce the same outcome, they’re very different problems.
Practitioners who don’t register that there is a problem are essentially asleep. Their challenge is to wake up to what’s happening. On the other hand, practitioners who see the problem and choose comfort over candor have a decision to make.
What’s Actually at Stake
When practitioners avoid the provocateur role, unacknowledged risk accumulates, dysfunction gets normalized, and accountability erodes. The initiative may or may not fail dramatically, but it always delivers less than it should.
HITAs’ responsibility is not to protect leaders from discomfort. In fact, sometimes HITAs must contribute to that discomfort. But then their obligation is to partner with the executive to work through that discomfort, toward a solution that furthers the initiative the leader is pursuing. That distinction defines the difference between a practitioner who creates true value and one who plays it safe by staying quiet.
The ATA program goes deep into what it takes to develop and sustain the provocateur capacity, what makes it so hard for most practitioners to take on this role, and what it looks like when it’s fully embodied. If you’ve ever sat in a meeting knowing something needed to be said and yet stayed silent, you already understand why this topic matters.
This description is drawn from a more extensive white paper that delves into the topic in greater depth.
Cutting to the Chase
Telling Senior Leaders What They Need to Hear
The ATA curriculum spans a wide range of issues that shape what it means to operate as a HITA. This piece offers a brief look at one of those topics: the discipline of telling senior leaders what they need to know, not just what they want to hear.
A senior executive closes her office door and says, “I don’t need a full analysis. What I do need is your experience-based read on what we’re about to launch. Tell me straight: What should I expect going into this huge change, and how should I lead it to ensure success?”
That’s the kind of question that cuts right to what HITA-level advisory work is all about. Practitioners who can answer it well know two things: what leaders need to hear going into a major change, and how to deliver it in a way that actually sticks.
There’s a significant difference between merely responding to leaders’ questions and truly informing them with your answers. This topic is about that difference.
What Leaders Should Expect
Most change efforts run into serious trouble not only because of poor execution but also because of what leaders haven’t been prepared to face. They expect the journey to be faster, cleaner, and more rational than it ever turns out to be. They assume a compelling case will produce willing followers; an absence of visible resistance means things are going well, and that people who get on board first will be the strongest advocates. None of these assumptions are likely to survive intact.
And a practitioner operating at the HITA level knows how to surface these mistaken beliefs in a way that equips and fortifies the executive for the challenges that lie ahead.
What Leaders Need to Do (and Stop Doing)
After “what to expect,” the second thing leaders want to know is more personal: how to lead others well through sustained turbulence. They’re not interested in theory. They want specific behaviors to start, strengthen, stop, or reduce. They want practical guidance drawn from the patterns of those who successfully navigated change at scale and those who didn’t.
This kind of direction is pragmatic and concrete; it doesn’t hedge. But delivering it well requires more than knowing the content. It requires building the kind of relationship with a leader where the truth is valued, even when it’s hard to hear.
Have you ever had a leader ask for your honest view on how a complex endeavor was going to unfold and found yourself unprepared or pulling punches? If so, this part of ATA will be extremely helpful. It addresses what it takes to earn advisory access and to use it wisely; what makes experience-based counsel land with senior leaders (rather than fall flat or backfire); and how to develop the judgment to know what to say, how much to say, and when the moment is right to say it.
This description is drawn from a more extensive white paper that delves into the topic in greater depth.
Vendor or Partner
Two Ways Leaders Relate to an Advisor and Why the Difference Is So Important
The ATA curriculum examines the dynamics that determine whether practitioners reach their full potential advising senior leaders or whether they fall short. This is a brief look at one of those topics: the vendor-partner distinction, and why the way a leader perceives you and the way you view yourself shape nearly everything about what’s possible in the relationship.
There’s a question worth exploring as you embark on any meaningful advisory engagement or when examining why you have not generated the value you expected: Does the leader you’re working with see you as a vendor or a partner? This is one of the most consequential distinctions addressed in the ATA program, because the answer shapes nearly everything about the working relationship between leader and HITA.
How you’re perceived doesn’t just affect how you’re treated.
It determines what’s actually possible.
In a vendor relationship, the practitioner is seen as useful for a defined, usually tactical task and is considered replaceable if things get uncomfortable. Leaders expect fast results, stay generally disengaged, and push back on anything that seems complex or costly. Access to the leader is limited, and candor isn’t usually welcomed. Without realizing it, practitioners viewed this way typically start self-editing to match those expectations.
In a partner relationship, the dynamic is fundamentally different. Leaders see the practitioner as a rare resource to be assigned to the most important endeavors. As a result, the practitioner is protected from misuse or being underutilized. The leader stays involved, draws on the advisor’s judgment, and accepts that the path to full realization will likely entail risk and significant investment. Candid perspectives are welcomed, even uncomfortable ones, because both parties are genuinely committed to the same realization outcome.
The Part Most Practitioners Miss
The vendor-partner distinction isn’t just about how leaders behave. It’s equally about how practitioners see themselves. Practitioners operating with a vendor mindset limit their feedback to what leaders want to hear, keep a positive spin on progress even in the face of significant problems, and treat installation as the finish line. Advisors operating as partners deliver what leaders need to hear, surface risks early, and stay focused on full realization rather than just the appearance of it.
These aren’t just different interaction styles. They produce fundamentally different outcomes. Leaders treat practitioners the way practitioners carry themselves.
The ATA program examines how these relationships form, what it actually takes to establish and sustain a partner dynamic with senior leaders, and why so many practitioners unknowingly settle for less. If you’ve ever sensed that a leader wasn’t fully invested in the work or that your real value wasn’t being fully leveraged, this topic will change how you think about every engagement going forward.
This description is drawn from a more extensive white paper that delves into the topic in greater depth.
Reflections on Character and Presence
Two Elements Most Practitioners Never Examine
The ATA curriculum is built on the conviction that who you are as a practitioner matters at least as much as what you know. This piece offers a brief look at the role of Character and Presence in HITA-level advisory work. It’s one example of the kinds of issues the program takes seriously that most practitioner development programs don’t touch.
Most change practitioners have a clear sense of what they know and what they do. Far fewer have seriously examined the third element that separates the most influential advisors from everyone else: who they are.
HITAs don’t just apply methodology well. They bring something to their work that’s much harder to develop. Advisors with strong skills but unexplored Character and compromised Presence will consistently underdeliver on the promise of those skills. Often without knowing why, leaders working with such advisors don’t fully trust the guidance they receive. This inevitably affects the relationship—and the work.
Those who operate at the highest levels of influence understand that their methodology is only as powerful as the person delivering it. That’s why they treat who they are as something that requires as much ongoing refinement as what they know.
All practitioners feel some need to further expand their capabilities.
The exceptional ones also develop themselves.
What Gets Buried Over Time
Every practitioner starts with a core. Call it instinct, predisposition, purpose.
It’s the part of you that reads a room by paying attention to more than the words being spoken, that knows when a leader is mimicking confidence rather than owning it, that senses what’s really at stake before anyone openly acknowledges it.
In time, that core gets buried. Every time you smooth something over rather than say what needs to be said, you add a layer. Every time you avoid discomfort at the expense of offering truthful feedback, you add a layer. Every time you yield to pressure to pretend change is easier and less complicated than it is, you add a layer.
The layers are not inherently a problem. In fact, they perform an important function: They let you endure difficult exchanges without burning down the relationship. They protect your credibility during politically charged moments. They enable you to stay in challenging relationships long enough to actually move things forward. But when enough layers accumulate, they can stop protecting your core and start suffocating it. What leaders then encounter isn’t your essence, the source of your most important contributions. They find themselves interacting with a well-practiced facade.
Leaders who genuinely want to succeed feel the difference even when they can’t identify it. What starts as vague uncertainty about your perspective gradually becomes something more corrosive: a sense that you’re telling them what they want to hear. Once that notion takes hold, the foundation of the HITA advisory relationship is compromised.
Falling Asleep and Waking Up
Falling asleep professionally means losing awareness of when you’re letting accommodation blur your judgment. Over-accommodating becomes so routine that you stop noticing when you’re doing it, and eventually the mask becomes indistinguishable from the face.
It’s important to note that all HITAs fall asleep. The important part is how quickly they wake themselves up. And waking up doesn’t mean refusing to operate pragmatically; it means knowing exactly what you’re trading off when you do, and making intentional decisions rather than letting your core disappear beneath unconscious habit.
The ATA program takes this territory seriously because most practitioner development programs don’t touch it. Skills can be taught. Methodology can be transferred. Character can only be uncovered, and that excavation is a different kind of work entirely. If you’ve ever delivered competent work and sensed that something important wasn’t making it through, this topic is aimed directly at that gap.
This description is drawn from a more extensive white paper that delves into the topic in greater depth.