The Change Management Gap

When I served as a CEO, I learnt that it was possible to move too far, too fast.  I had mistakenly thought until now that my Board were with me every step of the way.  They had bought my ideas for reform of our structures, the new strategies I had suggested, and the new staff I had recruited.

After a year of dramatic and radical change to almost every aspect of our organization, I found it difficult to transition to a somewhat slower pace of change and reform as my ideas began to meet resistance.  It wasn’t the sort of powerful symbolic resistance I’d faced early in my tenure, like the day I was asked to leave a meeting being conducted by the “shadow board”, a subset of board members who had created an illegitimate and unethical parallel structure to bypass my predecessor.  It was now a more insidious, creeping resistance.  It may not have been intentional on the part of those doing the resisting.  Their subsequent behavior, however, in all too easily permitting my resignation so that they could appoint their own “yes man” belies this view. 

Looking back, I think that I felt similar about six months into the job.  At that time, I thought our growth would be limited by several factors.  The first was the capacity of my people.  At that time, most of us were relatively new, completely overloaded and I couldn’t afford to hire any more staff, although new members were soon too join my team.  I was also unsure about the levels of political support.  I felt that our people, including key members of the board were with me, but they were cautious.  I was also challenged by the difficulty of altering the mental models of our stakeholders, as I sought to create the perception that things weren’t as great as they thought they were.  In addition, new strategies cost money – you have to spend it to make it – but you’ve got to find the resources to invest in the strategies first. 

So, it all seemed a lot tougher than the case studies had made me believe.  When I stood in the classroom and suggested that a CEO could simply spin-off a division here and seek a merger there, it appeared blindingly obvious and easily implementable.  It helped, of course, that almost all case studies in strategic management courses are of companies whose fortunes since the case was written are easily tracked.  Students often look back through the lense of subsequent events.  If the company made logical and sensible changes, it was these changes that brought the successes reported in the case study and could be reported as recommendations for action.  If the changes failed, then it was clear all along that failure was inevitable and that no recommendations were available to help make things different.  This is the beauty of the post-hoc rationalisation, the “after the fact” conclusion which ties all the loose ends together, bundles up the package, and mails it to the management gods.

So, in my role I met increasing resistance.  It should, perhaps, have been a hint about how things would turn out.  If I responded to this resistance by not going too far and ensuring that I did not continue to too much too soon, the old guard among the board may have never unveiled their guillotine! 

To the extent that a radically different pace of change represents a different style of management to your own, the growing gap between intentions and outcomes will cause a growing unease.  This discomfort may play itself out via unintended behaviors and actions driven by a restless and frustrated subconscious.  The seeds sown by your success as a change-driven leader may grow to become the high stalks ready to be slashed by your change-averse board members and stakeholders.

Ironically, I first sensed the stronger levels of resistance during my first day back in the office after our best ever event.  We held a fantastically well-attended, marvellously entertaining, gala awards dinner that received nothing but praise.  There were dark shadows growing, however, I had been using my love of writing to compose several press statements that turned out to a mixed bag.  While some garnered national publicity, others caused concern for some of my Board members who thought that the statements may impact negatively on their own businesses.  Since I hated doing work which did not pay dividends, I grew increasingly frustrated. 

I needed to take a few deep breaths and think strategically about the contribution I was making to the organization and may make in the future.  Maybe my role was becoming more symbolic and ceremonial than hands-on.  Maybe I needed to expand the role to account for these changes, looking for new areas in which I could make a difference.

On the other hand, the history of corporate leaders is one of leaders who favour a particular approach, philosophy, or style over others.  Very few are able to shift rapidly between one style and another.  In fact, to move flexibly between styles can, if not performed with excellence, cause others to see you as a chameleon with a wishy-washy approach.

In the end, we will only enjoy our work and make a real difference if we are working to our strengths and in proximity to our personal style.  If the gap between our style and the expectations of our organization becomes too great, it may well be time to move on.  For better or worse, that’s exactly what I did.