“I told them that we are transitioning to this new process. Why are they still using the old process?”

As a facilitator of executive mastermind groups, I hear these things ALL THE TIME.

It is easy to just fire people and write them off as a lost cause and hope the next person will fare better. But the reality of the situation is that if the next person is better, it isn’t because of the leader’s ability to develop that employee, but because of what that person brought to the table that their predecessor didn’t. 

A leader can look at the hiring and firing of individuals as criteria for future hires - e.g., if my hires with 10+ years of experience in this field consistently perform better than those who have less experience, then I will just hire only experienced people. The issue with this is that:

If we are frustrated with our people for not performing the way we want them to or or for making requests we believe are unreasonable, the only people we can blame are ourselves.

This article will cover 3 crucial tips for ensuring our teams actually hear, digest, and respond to the information we share with them. 

The first step to ensuring that our teams actually hear, digest, and respond to the information we share with them is aligning on the problem to be solved.

There is a major gap between the way the CEO/Owner views a change initiative compared to the way a non-owner executive views a change initiative. A CEO/Owner feels far less pressure from a failed change initiative compared to a non-owner executive. Why? Because if they own the business, they eat the cost of the mistake. It stings, but it doesn’t come with the perceived scrutiny of a non-owner failing to successfully lead a change initiative. 

When a non-owner executive gets the opportunity to drive a change initiative, it is a special opportunity. To quote Eminem, “Are you going to capture it or let it slip?”

This perceived scrutiny can lead to doubling down on failed change initiatives, creating strain on the rest of the organization, and turning a minor mistake and turning it into a catastrophe. 

These executives often feel a deep sense of ownership over the change initiative - and oftentimes it was their idea! If it fails, will they get another chance to lead another change initiative? This is the question running through their minds.

As the CEO/Owner, we must align on the problem to be solved and make it the company’s mission to solve this problem. For example, if the problem is that we need a better way to track customers and past prospects, a potential solution could be to implement Salesforce. If the Salesforce integration fails, does that mean the company doesn’t need a better way to track customers and past prospects? No! The problem is still there and it requires a pivot to a new solution to solve the problem.

This helps reduce the pressure non-owner executives face when rolling out a solution. It gives them the comfort of knowing that everyone is aligned around solving the problem and that the proposed solution is simply our first attempt at addressing it.

If Salesforce isn't working, that doesn't mean we gaslight people who are struggling with the implementation by telling them that things will eventually get better. Instead, it means we start asking questions. Why isn't it working? What alternative solutions exist? Would those alternatives face the same challenges?

If we determine that every alternative would create similar issues, but solving the problem outweighs the pain of implementation, then we stay the course. However, if the pain outweighs the benefit, or if another option exists that would avoid these issues, then we pivot.

The point is that, as CEO/Owner, we must create a culture where the organization aligns around the problem to be solved rather than becoming overly attached to a specific solution.

The second step to ensuring that our teams actually hear, digest, and respond to the information we share with them is making it clear how the ramifications of failure impact everyone at the company, not just individuals.

When consequences are individualized, it creates a lack of empathy across the organization. 

“If we don’t get this project across the line in time, it will create a major loss for our department’s Profit & Loss statement and significantly impact our team!”

“That sucks…for you. But our team isn’t measured based on your Profit & Loss statement and we are working really hard on projects for other departments.”

If we are rolling out a change initiative across the company, the consequences of failure need to be real, authentic, vulnerable, and relevant to EVERYONE IN THE ORGANIZATION. 

Bad example, “We are rolling out a new ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system to help us manage our inventory and make us even better than we were.” Motivation for implementation = low. Why? There is no clear driving force for why the company needs to change and no clear consequences if change isn’t followed.

Good example, “We are rolling out a new ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system. We are currently less profitable than our competitors and because their ERP systems allow them to be more efficient, they can charge clients lower prices while still maintaining profit margins. As a business, at this rate with our current system, we fear we will not be able to compete with our competitors and if we aren’t able to compete with our competitors, we may not be able to exist as a business moving forward. I am not sure that this new ERP system will solve all of our efficiency problems, but we have to give it a try because failure to become more efficient means failure of the business. I am leaning on everyone in the company to help endorse and embrace this change so that we can more effectively compete and continue to do what we are doing with our business.” Motivation for implementation = high. Why? There is a very clear driving force for why everyone should buy into the new ERP system. If we don’t, it isn’t just 1 or 2 people potentially losing their jobs…we all lose our jobs because the business ceases to exist.

The third step to ensuring that our teams actually hear, digest, and respond to the information we share with them is making the rewards of following the change individualized.

When rewards are grouped, it creates a lack of incentive to work hard because if we hit a group metric, we all get rewarded. 

Individual rewards ensure that those who are working their tail off to implement a change and drive the business forward get rewarded for their efforts, and those who aren’t all in on the change aren’t. 

No action is still an action. When an organization has a poor performer and does nothing about it, it quietly tells everyone at the company that poor performance is tolerated. When individuals get rewarded for strong performance and buy into new change at a higher rate than those who don’t buy in, it sends a positive message that strong performance will be rewarded.

In essence, if we are to close the gap between what leaders say and what employees hear, we must align on the problem to be solved, make the consequences of failure group-based, and reward top performers and early adopters individually.