Published March 2019
It’s a situation that unfortunately we all almost certainly encounter at least once over the course of our career. We become convinced that the organization is headed down the wrong track. We no longer support the direction that leadership is prompting us.
Obviously, by its very nature, change involves discomfort. That’s why strong leaders spend so much time communicating when they are leading change. They are clear on what problem(s) they are trying to solve. They try to remove as many of the unknowns associated with the future state as possible. They also define what’s in it for all participants.
Strong leaders cultivate an atmosphere of open, healthy debate. That means they are good listeners, open to questions, concerns, and suggestions regarding the change. Employees fortunate enough to work in such an environment have a responsibility to share their concerns when given the opportunity.
But what about those situations where the person in charge is either unwilling to take input or quickly brushes it aside? When do we put our head down and become the loyal soldier and when do we take a stand?
A key distinction in my mind is whether the point of disagreement is one involving strategy or principle.
Occasionally, truly visionary leaders no doubt cause great consternation with major shifts in direction. That’s to be expected. Think of the hand wringing which must have accompanied ground shaking strategic shifts over the past couple of decades at Apple and IBM, and more recently at Lego. Although ground shaking, those shifts turned out more than okay. Obviously, major strategic pivots can and occasionally do result in epic failures (remember New Coke?).
In situations regarding a strategic change in direction, my experience is that it’s worth giving the change a fighting chance. Given the value of hindsight, I can confidently say that a couple of strategic changes that I initially struggled with were indeed necessary and ultimately resulted in a much better organization.
For example, adapting the strategy of Lean with smaller batch sizes and leaders pushing decisions down as far as possible in the organization was so outside of my sphere of experience, that I initially struggled with it when introduced 30 years ago. Today my consulting business focuses on helping organizations with that same strategy.
Disputes over principle are another matter.
It’s not okay to blindly follow when organizational or personal principles are being challenged. In such cases, it’s best to find a trusted and objective sounding board within the organization to ensure one is reading the situation correctly.
I emphasize “within the organization” because they will have a much better perspective than someone outside that will rely solely on our biased summary of the situation. It’s also important to choose someone from outside of our own echo chamber, someone that perhaps sees the world a bit differently than we do. During the course of my career, a sage mentor fulfilled this role on more than one occasion.
Winston Churchill is reported to have said, “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.” Healthy dialogue and effective conflict resolution almost always lead to a better plan.
On the other hand, a witty but anonymous corollary to Churchill’s quote is, “If two people agree on everything, one of them is not thinking.” That’s a recipe for organizational disaster.
—
Link to Working Great! on Amazon
Back to the Column Archives
Copyright 2019 Brimeyer LLC. All Rights Reserved.