When it comes to making changes in a company there is a mentality amongst its employees that goes, ‘better the devil I know than the devil I don’t’. This is the ‘silent’ mantra of many employee when it comes to changes you are trying to make in your company. What changes are you trying to make in you company? Don’t get caught in the trap of ‘little changes, little resistance from employees’.
The need to bring about change is why most new leadership is brought into a company. Even when change is not identified as the primary driver for bringing on a new Leader these leaders almost always put their ‘mark on the organization’ through change. Likewise, if significant change is needed and current leadership remains in place, the Leader will most likely face more difficultly than a new Leader in making changes. Why do most Leaders underperform in their change effort? They think of the employee population as a singular homogenous group (including the senior management team) and the absence of urgency in the change process.
Business literature has multiple lists of what needs to be done when instituting ‘change’ in an organization. Most are good and necessary to follow. From the Leaders need to communicate the ‘new vision’ to monitoring progress the literature covers everything, almost. In my experience in working with Leaders on change there are two important elements that the literature and Leaders always miss that will ultimately lead to less than the desired outcomes.
A new vision for the company is a much-voiced requirement. The need for change requires a ‘New Vision’. Consultants are hired, meetings are held, power point presentations are delivered, ‘new programs’ are started and then after a short period of time just like an old watch spring everything slowly returns to the way it used to be. Why?
Leaders spend significant time developing and communicating the new vision and too little time on communicating the urgency required to institute the changes. The literature tells the need for a ‘compelling vision’ of the future (by default positive) that will motivate people to move towards it. Although you might get some people with a positive only message you won’t get enough. Some are cynical, most know the ‘truth’ as they see it. The one given for them is, ‘Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’. Leaders underestimate how comfortable people can become with the present even when it may be painful and the future bleak. The message needs to include both, why the changes are necessary (positive and negative) and the timeframe that it needs to occur.
The ‘hard side’ of the message, what will happen if we don’t institute the change, can be viewed by some as negative. Doesn’t matter, urgency to make the changes is the paramount driver and consequences of not changing need to be a part of the message. The consequences have to be truthful and personal, in other words what happens at a personal level without the necessary change.
Looking at the employee base as a homogeneous entity is the second big mistake. When working with Leaders on change one of the first things I did was visit employees who were identified as leaders, both informal and formal such as the senior management team members, key managers, employees and even union leaders. Towards the end of the meeting, I always asked the same questions: do you understand the need for change, the vision laid out by the Leader, and the changes required and where is your commitment to that change?
I thought the commitment question was the most important. I found that everyone’s answer to the commitment question fell into one of four categories. The ‘good soldier’ was the individual who stated they were standing by and would follow the orders given. This usually came from members of the senior management team and managers. Second, was a ‘foxhole’ mentality meaning “I’ve survived change before, and I’ll just hunker down in my foxhole and wait it out again.” The third group falls in the category of “I get the vision, change and don’t want anything to do with it, I want out of here.” The last group and the largest are ‘wait and see which way the wind is blowing’. I’ll make it look good but not throw my hat in the ring so to speak. I always thought of them as the Switzerland group, safety through neutrality.
Which group is the most dangerous to a change effort? The ‘good soldier’. These people are usually on the senior management team or managers. Think about it, they are saying: I won’t lead, and I won’t take responsibility for anything. The ‘good soldier’ takes time and energy to identify and the willingness to confront them on their attitude. People that want out, a.k.a. leave, need to be helped along that path. The sooner the better.
Too many Leaders aren’t comfortable in delivering a message about the urgency needed or addressing specific individuals behaviors during the change process. If the Leader is delivering a strong message about the urgency and need for change yet is unwilling to take personal ownership for doing the ‘right’ things, then their expectations for change will not be met.