Change May Be Inevitable, But It Should Not Be Intentional
In 2020, I began writing Following the Leader, a book based on 25 years of research and experiences working with organizations on the development of leaders. One part of the book discusses a leadership practice that, in many organizations, is as surprising as it is successful: NOT making changes can produce great results.
We often believe growth and improvement come from identifying and implementing new ideas, but that’s not always the case. Innovation is a disruptive and painful process — one that I love, but one I have seen drive both good and poor outcomes. My good friend Jake Breeden wrote the insightful book, Tipping Sacred Cows, about “dangerous behaviors that masquerade as virtues at work,” behaviors such as passion, collaboration, and fairness. And I began to see change as another one of these dangerous behaviors, and how great leaders worked hard to learn when and what not to change.
Here’s an early personal experience that may help frame this better. In 2003, I was facilitating a corporate leader program and working with a small team learning about managing change (along with team decision-making!) in a simulation. I was only 34 then and new to the academic organization, the client, and the simulation — but I wasn’t going to let any of that stop me from engaging with the team. (You probably see where this is going…) The team was exhibiting many poor team practices: a single, senior leader was pushing many of the decisions; two of the four members were not contributing to any of the discussions; team members’ frustration and anger were not being vocalized. Despite many poor behaviors, however, the team’s performance in the simulation was outstanding. The team was close to a successful simulation end when I unknowingly raised a simple-but-fateful question: “Have you tried to XXX yet?” My question disrupted the team dynamic, and two members who were quietly pushing for that simulation decision felt empowered (by my question) to push the leader. Turns out the move was a major error in the eyes of the simulation designers, resulting in collapse of the team’s efforts.
The team claimed its failure was my fault, and you might agree. But curiously, even though three of the four team members felt ignored, disregarded, and incredibly frustrated for 95% of the simulation experience, all of their angst was forgotten in the face of a potentially positive outcome that I had… prevented. Certainly, their feelings could be explained by the competitiveness of the moment and the performance-driven metrics of the simulation; however, during the next eight years of working with this organization, I learned those poor team practices were rampant throughout the entire company. Many units were led by a dominant leader and the entire organization was guided by managers who adhered to decades-old practices that many other organizations perceived as outdated and flawed. BUT… certain aspects of these factors were actually contributing — substantially — to this company’s being one of the few to consistently (for decades) make the Fortune 50 list.
So…how could poor team behaviors be contributing to massively successful results?!
Reflecting later, after years of work with this organization, I began to see many positive aspects in the team dynamic, disguised behind generally poor communication and poor team practices. These positive aspects included relying on experienced leaders in a high-risk environment; allowing technical expertise and well-established processes to guide decisions in uncertain situations; and adhering to a hierarchal decision structure under time pressure. In short, many sound organizational practices, given the nature of the industry and business model, were contributing to the team’s success despite the presence of a number of poor behaviors.
As a new leader stepping into a position that may have successfully been held by a predecessor, we have the propensity (a) to seek out ideas for innovation and improvement; (b) to look for ways to “fix” team practices; and (c) to try to put our own stamp on the team. Now, in no way do I condone enabling poor team dynamics or bad interpersonal behavior. But before seeking to drive change, leaders must understand the systemic model that has been responsible for creating the team’s past success and must avoid making changes that will unnecessarily disrupt its future achievement.
