In Part 1 of this two-part series, we looked at three common pitfalls leaders face when leading their organizations through change – minimizing the why behind change, not communicating well, and handling the change as a big reveal.

In Part 2, we’ll tackle the remaining three common pitfalls – mishandling apparent resistance, failing to plan for how to sustain change, and minimizing the interests of stakeholders who will be affected by change.

4.  Mishandling apparent resistance. 

Push-back to change happens frequently.  Just as often, it is assumed to be rooted in ill-will and unfounded loyalty to the status quo.  While this can be true, it’s quite possible that resistance is grounded in legitimate concern for the organization and how it will be affected by the change.  Because those with dissenting opinions may not always express their concerns artfully or constructively, they can be dismissed and labeled as agitators.  Nevertheless, they may have useful counterpoints worthy of consideration.

     Mitigating actions:

• Be curious. Be willing to hear the concerns of those who appear to be resistant before assuming their motives are ill-intended
• Peel away the style of the “resistance” and focus on its substance. Are there legitimate concerns that should be addressed?
• If the resistance is found to be truly disruptive and unproductive, deal with it appropriately and quickly. Distinguish between legitimate concern and personal grievance and make it clear that the initiative will not be derailed by the latter

5.  No plan to sustain. 

Creating dedicated project teams tasked with operationalizing complex transformations is a common approach for achieving change relatively quickly and reliably.  Many organizations have formed highly capable project or transformation management offices (PMOs/TMOs) for this reason.  Unfortunately, this model sometimes drops the ball post-implementation because there is no plan for how to sustain the change once it’s activated.  Work processes revert to their pre-implementation status, “shadow” work-arounds emerge, and change doesn’t stick.

    Mitigating actions:

• Determine which leaders, teams, and individuals will assume new or revised job responsibilities from the project team
• Ensure that appropriate knowledge transfer occurs
• Realign performance metrics and accountability models as needed
• When possible, make it impossible or difficult for the old ways of working to re-emerge

6.  Not understanding stakeholders’ true interests. 

We all have personal motivations that drive our behavior and choices.  These interests can be highly apparent, discovered with reasonable effort, or completely out-of-sight to others or even to us.  Regardless of their transparency, when those interests are at odds with the objectives of a new initiative, we can experience conflict.  This conflict can surface in unproductive ways.

    Mitigating actions:

• Assess the interests, needs, and requirements of key stakeholders. When appropriate, this can include direct conversations or working sessions to encourage transparency and open dialog
• Understand how those interests will be affected by the initiative
• If a key stakeholder says they’re onboard and seems to mean it but their actions indicate otherwise, have a frank conversation to validate what their interests may be

Falling into these pitfalls can happen to any leader whose plates are full and time is short.  You may have experienced them yourself.  You’ve likely seen some of these pitfalls in your own change leadership journeys.  At Shepherd Consulting, we serve as a key partner to leaders, watch out for these challenges before they happen and helping the leader to avoid them.   If you think we can help you, too, please reach out.  We’d be happy to support you.

Always learning,
Dr. Melanie