Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
There seems to be one constant in business: Change is inevitable.
Whether we are implementing something new with AI, restructuring processes, pursuing a new direction or any combination of things that would necessitate change, one thing is certain: No industry is safe, and most organizations will need to make changes to keep up or risk being left behind.
The question I am pondering: “How can people be at the center of this change?”
No matter what promises you made to our board, how rosy a picture could look if you just made this one change or how dire your situation is, if the people being asked to implement the change are not on board with the change, it is never going to happen.
Does this mean that we should only change if our people approve of the change? Not necessarily. But it does mean that if we are going to make a change, our people must know what is in it for them. And the result must be substantially better than what they currently have.
The purpose of change is typically for one of two reasons:
◗ If we don’t make this change, something really bad will happen to everyone at the company (e.g. potential of going out of business); or
◗ If we make this change now, it has the potential of improving the business and benefitting everyone involved in the business substantially.
It is typically easier to create a compelling case with the first reason: If we don’t make this change, we all could be out of a job. If we like our lifestyle and the lives our jobs currently afford us, then we should all buy in to make this change. This requires a level of vulnerability from the executive team, but it’s typically pretty compelling.
For the latter (making a change that has the potential to improve the business substantially), most organizations struggle to create a clear and compelling WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) for everyone. Let’s say a CEO says that making this change will increase EBITDA, which will help position the company for an exit. If the employees of this company don’t have equity, they don’t care about achieving an exit, because there is no upside for them.
To align purpose when implementing change, everyone must be accounted for with a WIIFM to get the buy-in necessary for the change to be successfully implemented. The WIIFM should be catered to people on a person-by-person basis and not a departmental one, because what motivates one person could be different from another person, even if they are in the exact same role.
One final note on purpose, especially if it is for a brighter future instead of avoiding business failure: Even if an organization successfully implements a change one time, they need to be mindful of stacking changes. Every change creates a cracking of trust that needs time to repair. The more frequent changes you ask of your people, the less receptive they will be to subsequent changes.
When it comes to aligning leadership during change, it is critical that everyone is on the same page. One of the most common hurdles companies need to overcome is misalignment of organizational goals and priorities.
The goal: The CEO sets a direction, and everyone follows suit.
The reality: The CEO sets a direction, 25% of the team immediately follows suit, 50% of the team follows the old direction because the new direction wasn’t effectively communicated to them, and 25% are still following the previous direction for various other reasons.
To align leadership during change, there must be a mechanism for holding people accountable and helping the executive team quickly and effectively understand when there might be a misalignment of priorities.
For example, if the CEO, with the guidance of her board and executive team, decides that the company is going to change the way they operate and transition to a new system that should be more efficient, cheaper, and minimize mistakes, there must be a way for her to know that the rest of the organization is picking up the change. The VP of operations could say he understands and is on board—and he could set goals in alignment with the new change. But if his team is setting goals not in alignment with the VP of operations, the team will be working really hard and making very little progress. In this scenario, the VP of operations thought he did a good job communicating the need for change to his team, but obviously he didn’t do that good of a job or else their goals would be in alignment with this new direction.
Six to 12 months later, some major balls drop. People quit or get fired. The VP is blaming his people, saying they are incompetent and that he needs his CEO’s support to increase headcount for his team. The CEO is left wondering, “Where did I go wrong?”
Ultimately, profit comes when the purpose of change is clear and every person in the organization understands WIIFM.•
__________
Mintz is founder of Ambition in Motion, a firm that helps companies increase employee engagement and collaboration by implementing corporate mentor programs.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.