Are you ready for inner battle between “Let’s do this” and “Why bother”?
For many leaders who lead substantial change, the journey can be very taxing. While many obstacles along such tumultuous journeys can discourage even the most tenacious leaders, the most formidable challenges to leading change frequently begin within.
Leading great transformational change takes a strong voice, clearly articulated ideas, and fervent passion. It requires translating discontent with the status quo and conviction that things can and should be better. Many great leaders possess these “raw materials” in spades; yet time and again, great change efforts end in disaster.
So what is it that derails promising endeavors even when their leaders have all the right components to make them work? It’s often the case of too much, or too little, of one or more of five ingredients. And it happens because of the inner battle that almost takes place between a leader’s agency and ambivalence. To be truly ready to take on change, a leader has to find a way to balance agency—their belief that they have the ability, and even the duty, to effect change and make something better—and their potential for ambivalence—or uncertainty about sustaining commitment to making a difference in the face of daunting change. By better understanding how these two forces can impact and alter each of the necessary raw materials for change, leaders can keep the balance from tipping too far in either direction. Here’s a closer look at the five ingredients required to lead change:
1.) Striking the right voice.
Revolutionary leaders need a compelling voice that allows others to envision the future. When they speak with that voice, people listen. And when the vision is alluring enough, people join their cause.
However, when that voice becomes too peppered with agency, it can turn strident. Anger edges in, causing the leader to paint the picture too grimly and sometimes distort the message with embellishment. When this happens, the voice becomes less inspirational and more caustic, causing people to tune out.
On the other side of equation, a leader’s voice can become muted or silenced, either by their own fatigue or by strong opposition that drowns out their call to a different future. When a leader’s voice falls victim to too much ambivalence, it’s no longer loud or powerful enough to be heard above the noise, or to compel change.
2.) Ideas: Shaping thinking.
A revolutionary leader has the ability to connect unconventional dots, see unmet or unexpressed needs, and bring ideas to life in a way that changes organizations. But, too much of a good thing can be harmful. Leaders who consistently generate more ideas than can ever be acted upon risk pushing people’s tolerance for change. Eventually people become exhausted trying to figure out which “idea du jour” the leader is actually serious about. Especially when ideas are particularly controversial, a leader’s over enthusiasm can become polarizing, causing people to turn against, rather than rally around, them.
Sadly, sometimes it is the leader themselves whose fear of – or boredom with – their ideas becomes the diluting factor. In many cases, good ideas have an incubation period that can surpass a leader’s patience or courage. Ambivalence may tempt the leader to make the idea safer or pull the trigger prematurely. As a result, the idea can fizzle out before it ever has the chance to ignite.
3.) Passion: Motivating a movement.
Passion fuels the revolutionary and their community. Throw in a bit too much agency, though, and passion can quickly turn to zealotry. When a leader uses passion to shame or manipulatively convert others, they may build a temporary army of support. But those converts will likely defect at the first sign of trouble.
The antithesis of zealotry is a change agents’ worst enemy: apathy. It can result when fatigue and ambivalence build up from endlessly pushing against the grain. And when a leader’s passion dies, so to, does their cause. To protect passion and safeguard against apathy, it’s critical to have community fully onboard to lend support when the going gets tough.
4.) Discontent: Bucking the status quo.
Revolutionaries naturally yearn for something greater than they have. Discontent with the current situation can quickly turn into contempt, however. And when it does, it can contaminate a cause. When a leader leads from the stance of being against something that exists, rather than being for something new, they will have a much harder time rallying the troops.
On the flip side, discontent can become indifference, especially if a leader believes they stand alone. When ambivalence takes root, the leader loses their desire for something more, and they stop looking for a way forward.
5.) Conviction: Believing in the cause.
Conviction that things can and should change is what fuels discontent to join passion and ideas to create a picture of something new, something more. But when convictions turn into dogma, uncompromising rigidity can put people off. It goes much better for the leader who permits others to translate their standards into their own way of participating.
Leaders must be careful, though, not to allow too much dilution of the original conviction. Otherwise, the point is lost, giving way to futility and a sense of hopelessness that any real or meaningful change will ever occur.
As a leader hoping to transform your organization in some way, remember to check in with your own voice, ideas, passion, discontent, and conviction from time to time. When you do, and when you make the effort to keep these raw materials of change in check, you can hopefully avoid the pitfalls of becoming either too extreme or too watered down. And you’ll be much better prepared to see your change through successfully.