The philosopher Heraclitus once wrote, “The only constant in life is change.”
From a business standpoint, change may seem stressful, hard, and uncomfortable, but all of these things ultimately lead to growth.
As business owners, leaders, and executives, the question we have to ask ourselves is “How can we drive change in a way that reduces the most damage done from a team performance and outcome perspective?” Similar to an F1 racing car trying to minimize drag when making turns or speeding down a long stretch, as executives, we must mitigate residual issues from our team when implementing a change, because change is constant.
Our business model might have been crushing it for the past 5 years. Well, with new regulations, a new competitor, dwindling supply/demand, a workforce that is demanding higher salaries, or any other factor, change will eventually occur.
If our goal is to maximize team capacity, help the team feel stability, and innovate, how we handle change can mean the difference between continuing our growth or grinding our progress to a halt.
Driving effective change starts with transparency. Non-transparent change is similar to a horror movie. Transparent change is similar to a drama. If change is inevitable, our goal is to be in a drama, not a horror film. The reason non-transparent change is similar to a horror movie is because of the element of the unknown. The unknown drives suspense, anxiety, and insecurity - great for a horror film, horrible for a work environment. Transparent change is like a drama because although there was discomfort and hard decisions were made, and difficult times had to be gone through, there is at least clarity as to what the resolution is and where the next steps of the business/story are going.
Examples of poor transparency when implementing change and asking the team to innovate:
- Implementing a reduction in force (RIF) and then asking the remaining team to try to use AI to drive efficiencies without explaining why the original RIF happened in the first place
- Rolling out a new software tool that makes certain roles in the organization obsolete and not explaining to those people why they either need to adopt the new software or lose their jobs
- Taking a department and rolling it up to a new department head, and asking this team to create cross-team synergies to better work together, without explaining why the reorganization happened in the first place, and not giving the department head enough time and grace to fully integrate all of the teams
The goal of all of these changes is well-intentioned, and the need for innovation seems clear…if you know all of the facts. But if the team isn’t aware of all of the details that went into the change and why they are being made, the team will likely be very slow to adopt the new change and behave out of fear, not out of growth.
People don’t fear change nearly as much as they fear uncertainty.
When a change initiative leaves the team with the feeling that their role isn’t safe, they will quickly become disengaged and not nearly as productive as they could be. They will ask themselves questions like:
- “Does the CEO know that I worked my tail off to accomplish this project?”
- “When my boss gave me kudos about a project my team and I worked on, should I correct her and let her know it was a team effort or let her think it was all me?”
- “Should I share the idea a team member gave me as my own and pass it along to my skip-level boss?”
- “Should I blame colleagues and direct reports for mistakes my team made?”
When these insecure behaviors begin to emerge, that is a clear sign that the team is not feeling stable. As the CEO, we might think, “Who cares whose idea it is? Let’s just go with the best idea!” But for those who fear that their jobs are at risk and their families’ livelihoods are at risk, they will do whatever they can to ensure that they aren’t on the chopping block.
This then naturally progresses to team capacity. As executives, our goal is to maximize our team’s capacity without overdoing it. In a perfectly transparent work environment, this shouldn’t be an issue. When an employee thinks they can elevate to a new level, they will let their boss know, and vice versa. When they are overloaded, they will also let their boss know.
Unfortunately, in a lot of work environments, this is not the way work operates. In many companies, employees are measured based on performance, hitting benchmarks and quotas, and their subsequent compensation is tied to that. In these work environments, employees are directly incentivized to set lower goals because hitting a lower goal likely results in a greater bonus and a firmer standing in the company, while not hitting a higher goal likely doesn’t result in a greater bonus and puts scrutiny on that person’s performance.
On the other hand, objectivity diminishes as one ascends in any organizational hierarchy. With most people’s desire to be a team player, they will likely not push back when their boss adds another task to their plate when they are already drowning. Eventually, a ball will drop.
To solve these challenges when implementing change, transparency paired with vulnerability is critical.
- People need to know why a change was implemented and what direction the company is going towards, so everyone can align on the problem to be solved
- People need to know that a new direction change is an experiment that very well may fail, but that continuing in the current direction is going to lead to obsolescence
- People need to know why people, who perceptively were doing a good job, were laid off - and this may include sharing salary details (e.g. if a colleague of mine seems to be getting 20% more done than me and they get laid off, what I may not realize is that their salary is double mine and although they are more productive than me, they aren’t as profitable as me because I am not getting paid as much)
- If the team is asked to experiment with AI, the company needs to share with those people why experimentation is so important and what it means for their jobs if they are successful
- If rolling out a new software saves the company $600,000 per year, that should be shared with the team, and what this newfound profitability can potentially allow the team to do
- If a department is now rolling up to a new department head, the company should be clear about why the previous department head failed and why this new department head they believe will be successful
To drive change without burnout, transparency paired with vulnerability is critical to minimizing drag in the change process.