How to avoid 4 mindsets that hurt your organization

Filed under: Contributed Column,Print | Tags:,

Even as the global recession gradually recedes, our volatile economy makes change unavoidable for all of us. Whether it’s lingering high unemployment, rollercoaster financial markets or political turmoil, the landscape for leaders keeps shifting — and most of us are quite uncomfortable in it.

That’s understandable. Change, after all, entails risk and conflict. It brings the fear and stress of leaving behind the old routine and venturing into the unknown. For leaders, whose decisions in this climate have tremendous implications for colleagues, clients and their own careers, the pressure is even greater.

And that makes change leadership the vital — and often missing — link for grappling successfully with uncertainty. For individuals, change is challenging enough. It pushes us to learn, think and act in new ways. For organizations, change demands that same response from entire groups of people, whether they are corporate divisions or military units or sports teams.

Large-scale, effective change happens only when an organization’s culture is transformed, and that work calls for sophisticated leadership skills. It also requires patience and preparation, because individuals and organizations typically do everything they can to resist change.

When change leadership succeeds, however, exciting changes in the culture follow. Those organizational dynamics that senior executives dream about, from agility and speed to execution and teamwork, manifest themselves. I’ve seen it happen with clients, and these positive changes are exciting to behold. Employee morale rises. Innovation increases. Bottom-line performance improves.

That happens when leaders focus more on leading change than merely managing it. Indeed, knowing the difference between management and leadership in your day-to-day work is more important now than ever. First, though, a word about change management: it’s not easy, and its value shouldn’t be underestimated. It focuses on external systems and processes with the goal of streamlining operations and creating new markets. It takes mental toughness, foresight and strong analytical skills.

But it can take an organization only so far. Change management, in the end, is always about technical efforts designed to minimize uncertainty and risk. It aims to create a predictable world. But the world, as we’ve been reminded over the past two years of economic strife, is not predictable. It is highly uncertain, and that’s where change leadership matters. Change leadership recognizes that human systems and organizational cultures cannot be guided by business strategy alone. Business strategies need to be paired with leadership strategies. When they aren’t, companies find again and again that their people have not developed the leadership skills actually needed to enact a well-designed strategy.

At the Center for Creative Leadership, we’ve identified four mindsets that cause people to retreat from leading change and to resort to the old, comfortable task of simply managing operations. Recognizing and reversing these mindsets builds the groundwork for real and lasting culture change:

“Someone else will do that.” Markets are shrinking. The product development pipeline is dry. Yet everyone is content to pass the buck as everybody waits for an innovative, brilliant leader to arrive and save the day. Vice presidents defer to senior vice presidents who defer to C-level executives, all of whom defer to the CEO, who rarely has a magical solution either.

“Yes, but …” Another familiar refrain: “Yes, I will stand up and lead change, but I need total control over how it turns out.” In their push for happy outcomes, leaders often do not want to give colleagues time and space to innovate or find new ways of responding to change in the business climate and broader world. By sacrificing a thorough process, they get the same old results.

“Either-or.” With their intense, change-management focus on numbers and operations, leaders give the people side of their organizations short shrift. There’s not enough time to deal with sticky culture issues, they say. Ultimately, though, culture eats strategy for lunch, and it will consume their operations, too.

“Check if off the list.” Leaders with a results-oriented, analytical mindset want to check “culture change” off their list as fast as possible. But it doesn’t work that way. Lasting organizational change can take months, if not years. Impatience will sink it in a hurry.

John McGuire is a senior faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership’s Colorado Springs campus and co-author of “Transforming Your Leadership Culture.”

One Response to How to avoid 4 mindsets that hurt your organization

  1. This sounds like a distillation of all the drivel that most people who write books and act like experts have been putting out for the past 30 years. It’s tired, old, incomplete, and worse yet, it’s ineffective. See the irony in this?

    The one area where the author was correct was in comparing people to organizations, and saying that the process an organization must undergo to successfully change is similar to that of an individual, albeit more lengthy and complicated.

    “For individuals, change is challenging enough. It pushes us to learn, think and act in new ways.” says John McGuire. Eventually, yes. But getting a person (or collection of persons) to learn, think, and act in a new way means leaving the old way behind in order to make room for the new way. How is that accomplished?

    Well, first, you absolutely MUST identify the old mindset – the ‘old’ way of doing things must be elicited, documented, assessed, and concluded (collectively, by everyone) to have outlived its usefulness. Skip this, and skip your opportunity for change to be successful. The ‘old way’ and ‘old ideas’ must be purged, or you will simply be putting candy sprinkles on a turd.

    None of the four ‘mindsets’ set forth by the author address this issue. This is the most difficult task – and the most important – and it’s not even alluded to. A very poor article.

    George
    February 21, 2011 at 12:35 pm