When it comes to leading enterprise transformation, everyone knows that the odds of failure are high – most research studies cite 70-80% of them fail. Of all the countless forces that torpedo transformative endeavors, none is more unfortinate than those leaders inflict on themselves. We continue our series on the habitual rationalizations that grab hold of leaders and undermine their efforts. The rationalization we are covering this week is: Excessive Tolerance – Allowing declared change to be optional without consequence.
Rationalization: I’m sure they’ll get on board eventually. We have to give them time. It’s natural to struggle like this.
Reality: They have no intention of getting on board and are just biding their time until their belief that “this too shall pass” is confirmed.
Imagine Martin Luther King, Jr. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in front of hundreds of thousands of people describing his imagined future.
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
You can hear the crowd shouting in agreement. The August heat intensifies their passion. They believe that this change can be made. This dream can be realized.
Then he finishes the speech by saying, “but only if you want to.”
Of all the great change leaders, presidents, coaches, and CEOs we have ever studied or worked with, no one has ever explained their vision of the future and concluded with, “but only if you want to.” Leaders know that change is not an option and cannot be approached by the organization as a voluntary act of convenience and ease.
For a leader of change, the first speech, strategy deck presented, or executive meeting is filled with promises of change. For most, the message of change is (while less stigmatized and culturally pervasive) much like Martin Luther King Jr.’s. King’s message was timely and urgent. Eleven times in his speech he uses the word “today” and also coins the poetic phrase, “the fierce urgency of Now.” Like King, many leaders see that if change does not occur now, the business will hemorrhage employees and intellectual and financial capital, and likely forfeit its future.
Declaring change is an urgent matter because once public, the ramifications of not following through with it can be perilous to your personal credibility, the faith of the organization to believe in its future, and the strength of your influence. There are many challenges that are common for organizations today. If you don’t adapt to the abundance of data available, you will lose business to those who know how to capitalize on it. If your strategy is not nimble in times of economic difficulty, you will likely falter. If you continue to lose talented folks to your competitors, you will have no one to lead your organization in the future. The time is now for the difficult work of organizational transformation. In the face of difficulty, leaders can become overly tolerant, and those who are following them hear that change is possible, “but only if you want to.” The consequences of not changing, both natural and structured, are not communicated, and the difficult work of change feels optional to your team.
Consider another environment – when a mother and father send their daughter out to her first high school dance. They likely want some information about the agenda for the evening. Gathering details about where they are going to dinner and what time the dance ends are essential, but the most crucial question is, “what time will you be home this evening?” The pimply, young man, swimming in his rented tuxedo, mutters, “I was thinking 11 PM.” If you are like most mothers and fathers, you will likely accept this early arrival and remind them that they should not be a minute later, and if they are late there will be repercussions.
You have agreed on a plan, and the parties involved are committed to the plan. Imagine then that the daughter gets home at 1:30 AM. She slowly opens the front door, drops her purse, and starts to sneak upstairs when finally the father flips on the lights and says, “My! You sure are home late!”
“Sorry dad, the dance got started late and then there was traffic and…”
“Oh, no worries, honey. 11 PM was just an idea. You only had to be home then if you wanted to. Have a good night!”
We find that as leading change gets difficult and exhaustion grows from having the same conversation multiple times, managing expectations of all the stakeholders, and trying to maintain your own work/life balance, it is easier to become overly tolerant than it is to uphold the consequences of failing to comply and commit to agreed upon standards, deadlines, and results.
We have found that the reasons for the rise of excessive tolerance are different for each leader. Causes we have seen are:
- The general need to be loved and respected: All of us have a need to belong, to be a part of a community, and to be “one of the guys or gals.” This need is highlighted when leading anything, but especially change. As periods of transition arrive, those around you will be rattled with anxiety, impatience, and sadness. The tendency of most leaders is to respond to the emotions of their constituents with empathy. They say, “don’t worry, things will get easier” and “I am sorry you missed the deadline, don’t worry about it.” While empathy is a laudable trait, it can also be a disguise for a leader’s own anxiety. It can be a tactic to avoid upholding consequences and undermine the necessary urgency. Additionally, Overfield and Kaiser offer that in the last 20 years “managers became obsessed with managing their popularity” and that “controversy and conflict about what needs to get done and how to do it was replaced with the ambiguity of politeness, political correctness, and efforts to not offend.” Leading change means that you may be the popular hero, but you are also the villain as what was once in place is ending. If it sounds lonely, it is. Those who cannot endure lengthy and profound periods of loneliness will not last long.
- Exhaustion: The life of an executive-level leader is exhausting. Recent studies1 show that the average executive works 55 hours a week. That may even seem low to you! Those hours are relationally, emotionally, and mentally taxing. With so much of themselves given to the work, burnout is a real possibility. Burnt-out leaders begin to feel disillusioned, helpless, and especially avoidant. Upholding the consequences of failing to change is difficult if you are avoiding those who need to be confronted. So what then? Author Parker Palmer says that burnout is not simply exhaustion; it is the giving of something that you never had. When leading change, it is imperative that there is time for self-care, hobbies, and family. Without some kind of rest and play, the exhaustion will set in and your urgency undermined. In the same study, Peter Drucker says that “nothing distinguishes great executive leaders more than the tender care of their time.” How can you avoid exhaustion by making more time for what energizes you?
- Over-reliance on rewards: When a strategy changes, goals are redefined, and the scorecard is altered, it is likely that incentive structures change with it. Bonuses, pay structures, and company contests are typical tactics for those looking to implement change. If you recall, our behavior is shaped by what is rewarded. In his most recent work, Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman describes a study in which incentives – financial or otherwise – framed as both “losses” and “gains” increase productivity for both individuals and teams. However, teams’ performances improved more quickly when “bonuses” were posed as losses (if your team does not perform well, you will lose vacation days) than as bonuses framed as gains (if your team performs well, you will get additional vacation days). He summarizes by saying that “those who stand to lose will fight harder than those who stand to gain.” Psychologists have come to call this idea “loss aversion”. Consider again the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late… If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time.” Differently than in the “I Have a Dream” speech, King communicates the urgency with reward and consequence. An overreliance on rewards ensures that people’s behavior may temporarily change, but it does not guarantee that they will deeply understand the urgency of the change at hand. That requires accountability. A study from the London School of Economics2 shows that groups in which free-riders are held accountable for their inaction outperform groups in which there is no accountability. So, while it may not be fun to play sheriff, every town and organization needs a good one to succeed.
Hanging above the door of one of our client’s boardroom is a quote from Ekhart Tolle. It reads, “Evolve or die.” Death – that is quite the consequence! But it may be the aphorism for organizations as the world remains connected, data is made faster than we can organize it, and hiring talent is a global bidding war. That sign is a reminder that tolerance undermines change and that communicating and demonstrating consequences, both natural and created, shape culture.
Creating consistent consequences is not only imperative to the transformation initiative, but it is imperative for your integrity as a leader. As a new leader or a veteran one, everyone is looking for consistencies in your words and your actions. One quick way to undermine trust, and any momentum that you have created, is to make change optional and give people a reason to believe that you are tolerant of the past you hope to move beyond. Naming and maintaining consequences communicates that change is not an option, that your team will be held accountable, and that your organization’s life depends on it. Believe that when you do so, your team will take personal responsibility to rise above their individual obstacles and circumstances to achieve the envisioned results.
1http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6665.html
2http://www2.uni-erfurt.de/milkrooekonomie/downloads/G%FCrerk_Irlenbusch_Rockenbach_Science2006_SOM.pdf