Leadership without Arson

One of a leader's key roles is that of fomenting and guiding change in an organization that may be in a rut or otherwise at risk of struggling or even failing. The leader may be someone brought in specifically to shake things up. Or it may be a person simply recognized from within the ranks of the organization that has the skills and capacity to lead change to cope with new opportunities and challenges in a dynamic, competitive landscape.

 In either scenario, there are likely to be widespread elements of resistance to any program pushing for significant change. We all get comfortable with the status quo. Pulling it away can be disorienting, and it's not hard for various stakeholders to imagine various threats lurking in the shadows of the vague and uncertain new order. There may be real pain for some as the change takes hold. Change doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, but it can produce losers as well as winners in the organization.

 Leaders must find ways to push the organization upstream against this current of potential resistance and even entrenchment among people and processes. One way to do it is to focus the organization on what's wrong with the way things are now—to either harness existing negativity or whip up discontent and even anger and fear about the status quo. The theory here is that the organization won't be open to a new solution that may come with some pain, unless everyone is first feeling enough pain about the status quo. This tactic is sometimes called the "burning platform" approach, in that it holds that you have to recognize there is a fire or “set fire” to the platform you're all standing on in order to get people to move to a new one.

 The opposite approach is for a leader to be a calming, placating presence, de-emphasizing - problems, defusing complaints and providing assurances while trying to gently nudge people toward change in as painless a fashion as possible. Here the leader serves as a patient and nurturing shepherd.

 I don't think either leadership approach is quite right for most organizations that are facing a need for pain that may be wrenching in some ways. Yes, the burning platform might be an effective way to create a buy-in for change. But it can also institutionalize discontent and a lack of cohesiveness, and require building an entirely new platform from scratch that fails to leverage existing strengths. The patient shepherd, meanwhile, might avoid that sort of roiling chaos, but at a cost of moving too slowly to face the market's realities. The approach can also lull the organization into an unwillingness and inability to face the often discomforting but unavoidable side effects of effective change, and to cling too strongly to the ineffective existing structure.

 Better to navigate between the two. The trick is to tap into the organizations' concerns and anxieties, and rather than either amplifying them or trying to soothe them away, to channel that edginess in a productive direction. That way the leader can help the organization build on existing strengths while leaving behind existing weaknesses.

 Here are a few of the steps that leaders can take to that end:

 Communicate and Highlight the challenges facing the organization. It's counterproductive to scare everyone, but it isn't helpful to pull punches either. Be honest and open about it.

•  Address concerns about uncertainties and the pain of change. Acknowledge them as valid, while expressing confidence that they can be dealt with successfully.
•  Articulate a clear, inspiring vision for where the organization needs to end up. Assure the organization it's a destination that will leave the organization well-placed for the future.
•  Spell out specific, actionable steps for getting from here to there. That way the journey doesn't sound overwhelming, and everyone can start focusing on a first, clear, achievable step.
•  Provide ongoing support and guidance. Emplace the people, tools and feedback processes people may need to lean on throughout the entire program of change.

 Leaders can't always prevent necessary change from being disruptive and wrenching, at least for some. But they can minimize the pain of change while maximizing the benefits.