Paid to think. Novel concept.
That’s what I was always told my job, consulting, IS all about. Yet, experience after experience proved otherwise.
I’m not talking about clients who choose to go a different direct than I may advise. Heck, that’s their right. I’m talking about when working within organizations, even as a leader, how much what we all have to offer and how it is shut down and out.
Recently, I finished a two-year internal assignment in a consulting firm. My job was to open up the potential from the inside out -- its processes, technology and people -- and better align the firm to external opportunities.
Mind you, I know change very well. I know it is resisted -- sometimes at all costs. But I have to say I was slightly stumped at one thing:
It was a company full of doers versus thinkers.
Not good! That meant there was so much potential that laid dormant.
I was passionate about unlocking all the potential staring with people, in addition to setting up systems and incentives that supported them.
However, in no time I got to see just how embedded behaviors were that hurt the business’ profitability potential.
Most notably I observed the daily grind (performance/busyness) didn’t match output nor people’s potential.
As I dug deeper I observed some people would grab assignments, do the parts they wanted on their own schedule, and complain about how busy they were (as in don’t dare give me more work) -- a norm that hinders growth and innovation.
(Why do more when you can make what you’re doing look hard enough... and get promoted for it? For others, why do more when the wrong behaviors are being supported even if as a result of doing nothing about them?)
I spent much of my time opening up access to information, giving permission and paving the way to push decision-making power down and throughout the company. Of course, changing the incentives was also a priority to recognize those stepping up.
I also spent as much time as it took exampling what I meant.
In this HBR piece, Let Your Workers Rebel, Francesca Gino sheds some light on what I was living day in and out:
“...organizations consciously or unconsciously urge employees to check a good chunk of their real selves at the door. Workers and their organizations both pay a price: decreased engagement, productivity, and innovation.”
I was trying to change several decades worth of behaviors. As a result, I wasn’t surprised there was resistance to change.
What surprised me is the resistance to change that benefitted and created opportunity for everyone.
I would have expected staff members to run screaming down the halls that freedom was upon them to experiment with creativity, think out of the box, explore what was happening in the industry, network, and generally try new things... and get rewarded for it.
Actually, most had a wait and see stance. I got that but I didn’t understand fleeing from it. And, those who resisted the most (albeit silently and passively_ were some of the organization’s most long-standing employees or favorites.
Such shifts -- even ones to empower individuality as suggested in HBR -- while appreciated in concept, can actually:
Expose vulnerabilities -- as in I should probably know how to do this task, but don’t and am too afraid to ask for help or learn even though that new behavior is now being encouraged and rewarded.
Threaten goals and dreams -- if I think I’m in line for a promotion and deserve one and you then change the rules then you are making it harder for me and I’ll elect the old way of operating.
Make big egos grow even bigger -- changing dynamics is threatening to people who are in charge of a lot or have social equity due to longevity on the job. If that is threatened in any way or a perceived loss of authority and power trouble is amiss.
Can transform self confidence into self-righteousness destruction -- even though the mid-level staff didn’t have experience they needed to make certain decisions about proposals, budgets or how best to manage an account, they did so as a power grab to show they were important, able and next up for a promotion. This was prevalent while the new norms were being rolled out, as were classic cases of getting even when corrected down the line.
Of course, not all was bad in my assignment. Much good was produced and many individuals (and definitely the new hires) did lean in, if not blossomed as professionals.
One senior person shared with me they learned more in 18 months from our work together compared to their previous boss of 9 years. Flattering to no doubt, but what is more important in this feedback is that this person woke up, was learning on the job, passionate and re-engaged.
But don’t take the compliment as proof. This person never was challenged or supported around new business and ended up bringing in almost $1M in new business.
How many of us can say we are given that much latitude to succeed/fail?
How many of us are pushed to think differently and try something new?
How many companies are really unlocking that type of potential?
The suggestions behind the HBR are not as easy to implement as they are to read, but they are important despite the resistance that can occur.
Make sure your senior-most leader is on board 110% even steps out of the way if they are too embedded; moreover, is strong in terms of Emotional Intelligence, and savvy when it comes to Social Intelligence (in this case manipulation).
The top dog should also have the ability to hold and manage against conflicting goals -- caring for people and doing what is right for the business (which, if you think about it, is also good for people long-term).
Have a frank conversation with top leadership and managers to make sure they even want to co-lead and reinforce this charge. Give them an out (of the company) and if they elect to stay give specific expectations of behavior or consequences if not followed. People work according to how they are rewarded or punished. Both are important, as is consistency in managing.
Set up discernment systems for the leader and her/his managers to weed through the resistance that will come from those least expected (aka highest performers). Your highest performers may have the most to lose and is what makes change work all the more challenging to see through. Even when you do all you can to reassure them and carve out the future, some people get really stuck when change occurs. All sort of vulnerabilities take their grip so objectivity is important. Also, figure out what you want employees to work out amongst themselves versus managers solving. It’s best for peers to work out their differences and how the new norms play out (within certain guidelines, of course). But what those guidelines are and when something should be escalated needs to be defined, not assumed. Consistency and empowering managers adequately is key.
Let go of anyone not on board ...as seen through their actions. Bad apples do spoil the bunch, and while people may agree to the change, watch how they act, what they focus on (vs. not), and their performance. If full of excuses all the time, let them go. If all talk and not following through, let them go. Keeping them reduces trust between co-workers and teaches others the behavior of lying and self-promotion without producing is accepted.
Last but not least, define your corporate values with specific behaviors you want to see, not just words -- the way you define impact, for example, vs. how I might define it is where the problems begin. Words of value (e.g., truthful, trustworthy, innovative, even customer service) are all up for interpretation. Defining specific behaviors that reinforce your desired working environment and business is essential. Look at Netflix or Zappos.com for examples.
stormborns
prguitarman
titsay
origamiaround
izzy806