Change and the Status Quo

Change management is about persuading people to break with the status quo. When an organization has "non-negotiable's" that involve transition and change, this message must come from the leadership and be supported on all fronts.  All too often, those "leaders" really don't have the ability to communicate the message clearly and hope the necessary change will come from organic modifications. Group think is often apparent in these types of organizations.

If you are unsure what I am talking about, Mark Murphy used this example of choice A or choice B in an article in 2014. You’ve got to motivate your middle managers to support a new, and necessary, change initiative. You call a meeting and have 2 options:

Choice A: Stay away from anything that might scare these managers and instead focus only on the positive aspects. Otherwise you run the risk of terrifying them and chasing away the best ones. This could trigger a negativity virus that spreads to the front-line employees causing a stampede. Not only will that kill off any change efforts, it could destroy your career. Besides, if your pitch is good enough, you won’t have to worry whether people view this change effort as necessary; they’ll have already bought in.

Choice B: You’ve got to explain the risks of doing nothing and how this change effort is as critical to everyone’s continued existence as is breathing. These managers need to understand that if they don’t change; not changing could jeopardize the organization’s survival. You believe strongly that they have all the talent and skills to meet these challenges, and you will certainly communicate that message, but there can be no confusion about the seriousness of the challenge. Your fear isn’t that you’ll be seen as too negative, it’s that complacency will destroy the change.

While some will make arguments for taking Choice A, in general, the correct answer is B. Why? At its root, change management is about persuading people to break with the status quo. 

If an organization and its leadership is serious about making changes, they must not be complacent in the delivery of the message or the follow-up. Leaders will still need to explain “where” the change will take us and “how” we’re going to get there. But neither the “where” nor the “how” will be effective if the leader hasn’t first explained “why” the change is necessary. Without clarity and action, employees take all of the directives with a grain of salt. Hallway talk is about believing in change when it happens because there is always a lot of talk, but nothing ever happens.

Recently I saw this to the extreme. Leadership wanted changes to be made that would unify the company and create a transparent culture where everyone belonged. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and delivering the message to the employees, outlining the "where" and "how", they relied on the activity of one or two people to get the ball rolling. Ego and pride are real barriers that must get set aside.

When resistance formed, as to be expected, rather than challenge the defenders of the status quo and kindly give them the options to change or go, they resorted back to the collective group think model. They even went so far as to push out the change initiatives to the mid-level managers that prefer the status quo.

Why would anyone expect changes to be made organically? With a workforce of tenured employees, if they could make the changes, they'd have already done so. It is okay to be uncomfortable; it is not okay to make excuses. Change is a necessary component to growth. Onward and upward or your light will burn out!

I will see you in the arena carrying the torch of change!