By Jason Kofman and Leo Rocha
Change is inevitable — but failure doesn’t have to be. Yet too many organizations struggle with change programs because people resist change. This article reveals how to convert staff into effective change agents, driving transformation from within.
Imagine you’re driving in the middle of a high-speed car race. As an experienced driver, you understand the importance of well-planned pit stops—strategic moments to prepare for the challenges ahead. Although it temporarily slows the car down, this pause is essential for refueling, changing tires, and making necessary adjustments. Your team, the pit crew, must work in perfect harmony, communicating effectively and executing their tasks with precision. This brief pause allows the car to perform better and continue the race with renewed energy and efficiency. Similarly, deliberate change management, though it may seem disruptive at first, is crucial for long-term success in any organization where, like a race car, it is speeding along the track of ‘‘business as usual’’. Organizational change requires coordinated effort, clear communication, and a shared vision to ensure that the organization can adapt, improve, and ultimately win the race. However, to do this, senior managers need to take a strategic pause, a pit stop, and deliberately set a plan to make the change a success. In this article, we outline a clear, step-by-step process to effectively implement deliberate change and the management needed to navigate it, enabling organizations of any size to navigate each ‘‘pit-stop’’ with precision and purpose for sustained success.
Background
Many organizations crash their change programs. Studies show that 70% of change initiatives fail to achieve their goals.1 This happens because organizations consist of people, and most people who naturally struggle to adapt to change. Behavioral scientists refer to this tendency as status quo bias — a preference for the familiar over the uncertain. To address this bias, organizations often identify ‘‘change management” as a key component in rolling out new programs, processes, or systems. They aim to manage change by communicating new program benefits in a series of presentations, meetings, and materials. However, these strategies tend to fail in two important ways.
First, they overlook the fact that all changes, even desirable ones, trigger a natural defensive reaction in most people. Second, they focus too heavily on the program’s output — how to use the new system, how the organization will look or operate, and what the new role will be — while neglecting the program’s outcome: why the future state will be better than the current one. In this article, we will discuss how firms can avoid these dual traps as they consider their communication strategy around coming changes.
Organizational change requires coordinated effort, clear communication, and a shared vision to ensure that the organization can adapt, improve, and ultimately win the race.
Change, by definition, creates uncertainty. Increasing uncertainty leads to increased anxiety in many people. While this affects people with varying levels of intensity, our brain’s natural desire for a clear view of the future is clouded by change-driven uncertainty.2 This effect is magnified by the culture of one’s organization. Members of highly ordered and regulated groups tend to prefer stability. Those in more decentralized and informal organizations tend to be more tolerant of change.3 Change-focused leaders need to consider strategies to counteract the traditional resistance to change in light of the change tolerance and market position of their organization.
A firm’s culture influences not only how people behave but also how they think. For example, in a highly-structured firm with a dominant market position, change programs may be met with skepticism. ‘‘Why fix what isn’t broken?’’ staff might ask – especially if the change demands more effort. In contrast, staff at a highly-flexible firm with a similar market position are likely to welcome change, seeing it as an opportunity to gain more competitive advantage. If we turn to a market going through a challenging period, even staff at a dynamic firm may be wary of change, exhibiting classic change aversion found in turbulent times. Finally, staff at a highly-structured firm facing a declining market are likely to exhibit the most aversion to change, even if to the outside observer they appear to need it the most. Appreciating the firm’s change culture will help senior management craft the change management approach appropriately.
There are two key levers to navigate these sharp turns: first, Engage Collective Strength, and second, Lead With the Status Quo.
Lever 1: Engage collective strength
If an organization has been successful and staff are generally satisfied in their roles, it is no surprise that a change program would encounter resistance. But markets are dynamic and successful organizations that do not adapt are at risk of being overtaken. Change is a necessary fact of life and business. As organizations prepare for changes, they would be well-served to engage the organization. This does not suggest a working group of thousands — even if in today’s modern workplace technological advances enable many ways to engage with all levels of the firm. However, it does mean that senior management should proactively communicate their intention to address market-driven strategic shifts or operational inefficiencies and to solicit input from all who are interested.
We noted that uncertainty causes anxiety, which leads to resistance to change. Senior management can reduce uncertainty by increasing transparency. By iInviting staff to engage with the idea of change process creates the environment for them to be active participants instead of passive receivers. to , the process becomes one of working for and with change, instead of being a recipient of change. This strategy requires an organizational commitment to communicating about a coming change program before itthe project advances too far. Simply put, management should communicate broadly and early, instead of narrowly and late. This approach has many benefits: it lifts any veils of secrecy over theover what the project team’s work oing may be working on, it creates transparency between senior management and all levels in the organization regarding how the project goals support organizational strategy, and it creates the opportunity for all staff to contribute their ideas toward reaching the goal. In sum, it promotes buy-in at all levels of the organization. Although this strategy has been promoted by others,4 many organizations do not adopt it, choosing to focus on short-term alignment to a project timeline and accepting the likelihood of longer-term under adoption. It is a classic instance of institutional nearsightedness.
Many organizations attempt to manage change communication by deploying line managers as the messengers. Yet for many managers — who are people too — change itself remains a blind spot. Despite executives’ best intentions, they may underestimate the resistance change can generate in their management team and the deep-rooted biases many have for the familiar. Therefore, particular attention must be given to equipping line managers not only with key messaging but also with the skills and support they need to drive transformation effectively. These skills can range from primers on the psychology of change to training in effective listening. Managers serve as the critical link between senior leaders and frontline employees, and therefore, their role in communicating and implementing change initiatives is essential. When properly supported, managers can champion the process, reinforcing that change is not simply imposed upon employees but is a shared endeavor toward a common goal.
The way firms address communication and feedback gathering needs to fit within the firm’s culture. Google’s TGIF meetings were a prime example of how the company embraced transparency and utilized its open culture to manage organizational changes. These meetings were designed to empower employees by sharing important company information, providing access to upper management, and encouraging open questions. During TGIF sessions, Google’s upper management, including founders and senior executives, would share insights about the company’s progress, learnings from mistakes and technical challenges, and coming organizational changes. The sessions leveraged a culture of staff engagement and transparency. These weekly meetings not only allowed for a direct line of communication between employees and leadership but also built consistency and confidence within the workforce.5
Managers serve as the critical link between senior leaders and frontline employees, and therefore, their role in communicating and implementing change initiatives is essential.
Sometimes, firms need to change the culture while changing the organization. At IBM in the early 1990s, new CEO Lou Gerstner instituted a significant restructuring of the firm. The shift at IBM was cultural as well as organizational. IBM had grown into an overly complex, heavily siloed behemoth where business units hoarded information instead of sharing it across the enterprise. This contributed to IBM’s loss of competitive edge, even though it had market-leading solutions. To drive necessary structural and cultural changes, Gerstner communicated frequently and deeply within the huge IBM organization about the need for change and the steps that staff could take to make it a reality. In addition, Gerstner dedicated significant time to collecting employee feedback, both directly in his famous Bear Hug sessions and by harnessing internal technologies. He was passionate about the need to engage the entire organization in the change process: “It’s about treating people in the organization as deserving to know the facts. You don’t try to give them half the story. You don’t try to hide the story. You treat them as — as true equals, and you communicate and you communicate and communicate.”6
Lever 2: Lead with the status quo
When a project has advanced to the point that it’s ready to roll out, firms should take care to carefully structure the messaging. First, communication should focus on feedback collected from staff. This conveys a sense of trust in the organization that input from everybody was considered in the solution design. This is particularly important in organizations that are predicated against change, as it reinforces the point that change is a process conceived together, and not done to the staff. This also reminds people of the change in strategy required for the organization’s success.
Second, the solution design message should focus first on what is not changing. This may seem antithetical to driving change, but focusing on what is not changing provides unconscious comfort. It reduces the level of uncertainty, thereby increasing the likelihood that people will see a clear view of the future and, in the process, dials down the level of anxiety. This strategy has two components: focusing on core principles and reminding people of the bigger picture.
Howard Schultz, the many-time CEO of Starbucks, led the firm through many periods of change. In 2008 as the firm planned a shift in its strategy, he reminded staff that “We are not in the coffee business serving people, we are in the people business serving coffee,” focusing employees on the firm’s core mission.7 Similarly, Jeff Bezos, the former CEO of Amazon, chalked up the firm’s success to three core principles: “We’ve had three big ideas at Amazon that we’ve stuck with for 18 years, and they’re the reason we’re successful: put the customer first, invent, and be patient.”8 Schultz and Bezos reinforced foundational themes of their companies’ mission to lay the groundwork for change. Relying on core principles provides a sense of the familiar before communicating what will be unfamiliar. More recently, Southwest Airlines exemplified this strategy with its “Southwest. Even Better.” transformation plan, which alludes to building upon its existing greatness. By emphasizing enhancements like new cabins and seating, Southwest reassured employees and customers that its core values—affordable fares, exceptional service, and the “Southwest Spirit”—would remain unchanged. This alignment with the company’s identity makes the changes more easily accepted and enthusiastically embraced.9
Changes typically occur as part of an existing system, be it technology such as the CRM, a key business process such as the compensation program, or the firm’s organizational design. Firms do not usually change the entire system at once. Focusing on the relevance of what will remain unchanged helps to temper the impact of what is changing. Framing the status quo versus the change should be calibrated to the firm’s culture around stability and risk tolerance. Employees at firms comfortable with ambiguity and that are more loosely organized are likely to be less distracted by change but still need to understand the foundational necessity of the status quo. Employees at firms that are more risk-averse and more highly structured are likely to value the status quo, perhaps unconsciously, but need to be reminded of the importance of the change. In both situations, the firm communicates what is changing and what is not, but the nuance is important.
Conclusion
In a long car race, slowing down for a pit stop is key to ultimate success. It’s counter-intuitive but you have to slow down to go faster. In organizations, resistance to change is almost certainly going to happen but that does not necessarily lead to a failed change program. Firms that take the time to understand the psychological impact that change has on many members of the organization can appreciate and manage the impact. Including all members of the organization in the communication of an upcoming change program involves more people as agents rather than as recipients of change. People appreciate being asked to contribute their ideas. And when the coming change is ready, firms can subdue the natural aversion to change by reminding people of what is staying the same.
Winning a long car race requires well-coordinated pit stops along the way. In a firm’s race to lasting success, its pit stops are the strategic pauses to effectively manage change. Only those firms that take time to do this deliberately will win.
Jason Kofman
Leo Rocha
