A change effort is doomed to fail, when the key leaders of the change are arguing from a fixed position of what the 'future state' will look like.
They’ve already decided what the organisation "will be", and now the "change management" is simply getting everyone else on board. In essence, they are trying to win an argument.
Do you like arguing with your boss? Even the most 'self-assured' of us, tense up a little at the thought of directly challenging our superiors...so at best, any efforts to convince those key leaders otherwise, becomes stressful and distracting. At worst...it becomes "career limiting".
And when leaders are focused on winning arguments, they’re not focused on solving the real problems that change management is meant to address. So ironically, both the change engagement and the change outcomes can come unstuck.
The Pitfall of "Destination Change" (Aka: a position of the Future State)
Seeing change as a race to a destination, assumes there’s a singular “correct” solution—a rational and predictable state of being, that everyone should be working toward.
When senior leaders fixate on a specific vision of the future, they often overlook the complexities of the current state. They’re eager to move quickly, driven by the belief that the faster they can get to the end goal, the better. But in their rush, they miss out on the crucial step of understanding what’s truly happening in the organisation right now.
And 'The Now', is often more multi-faceted than just the one change being proposed. The Now is what people know and often what they are holding on to...which is a problem, if you are asking them to 'let go'.
Racing to Destination Change runs at odds with loss aversion, a well-documented psychological phenomenon where people fear losing what they have...more than they value gaining something new.
Why Understanding the Current State Matters
Effective change management starts with understanding what you’re asking people to let go of. You might recognise this thinking as 'Stage 1' of William Bridges Transition Model.
This is where some leaders stumble, failing to recognise the emotional and psychological investments that people have in the current state aka: not changing.
Where many leaders fall short in leading change, is more nuanced: they intuitively know what people are "holding on to"...but there's no change strategy for how to help people to let go.
At a technical level, this is where a high calibre change manager will surface what people are holding onto, in the format of documented 'change impacts'. Here, the art of change management begins, because most of people can list obvious changes like 'removal of a business tool' or 'change in a physical location'. But effective change management considers broader yet intrinsic impacts to key stakeholders such as a (perceived) loss of 'status', the disruption of a teams routines, or subtle cultural shifts that may cause people to "hold tighter" to the current state.
At an investment level, this does mean more time and energy (read: money) into engaging with people and creating support systems to help them with the change. It could be simple L+D prompts (e.g.: a 3 page 'how to' guide) through to wide-spanning, multi-hierarchical "change champion" networks...but it will definitely be about creating open dialogue and tailoring the change plans aka: the opposite of arguing from a fixed position.
But what if you "don't have time" to create dialogue around change? It’s like trying to tear down a house while people are still living in it. The result? Pushback, disengagement, apathy and ultimately, failure.
Sure, I accept some projects are more straight-forward than others and all change efforts need to be appropriately sized. But just as 'a map is not the terrain', a change vision or plan is not the change experience! It takes real time engagement and adjustment at minimum, experimentation and balanced success measures at best.
Approaching change as an argument to win — by convincing everyone that your vision and plan of the change is the right one — is dividing the organisation into winners and losers. The argumentative leaders are the winners because they get to impose their vision, while everyone else becomes the loser, forced to adapt to a change they may not fully understand or support.
Great Leaders Don't Take Charge...They Create Care And Accountability
One of the most dangerous pitfalls in any change effort is when accountability becomes diluted. When leaders argue from a fixed position, insisting on a predetermined future state, they inadvertently create an environment where no one feels truly responsible for the success or failure of the change. The burden of making the change work is often pushed down the line, leaving middle managers and frontline employees to carry out a vision they had little say in shaping.
In such environments, the focus shifts from achieving meaningful change to avoiding blame, by "proving" that you, a humble middle-manager are enacting on the vision...as instructed, boss!
Too bad that vision isn't resonating. And even though from that middle management layer, you can see the change related gripes from all angles and have ideas to smooth the change over...you can't win this argument, so you follow instructions provided and hope for the best. After all...you can't really be blamed if this doesn't work...it wasn't your idea, but theirs!
*waves hands frantically towards senior management*
To break free from this lack of accountability trap, leaders must move away from the mindset of dictating the change destination and instead engage in the change reality. This means actively participating in genuine dialogue about the change, enacting on sensible feedback, and ensuring that responsibility for the change is (willingly) shared across the organisation.
Whether Good or Bad...Change is Co-Created, Always!
Effective leaders approach change as a collaborative process. They recognise that there are multiple paths to success and that the best outcomes often come from combining different perspectives and ideas.
This starts with a deep understanding of the current state. Leaders need to invest the time and effort to understand what’s really going on in the organisation—what people are holding onto, what they’re afraid of losing, and what they’re hoping to gain. Starting a change plan by articulating how you will help people let go of 'today', is the foundation of a pragmatic change strategy.
Pro tip: build in upfront, additional "budget" (either through resources, materials or project duration) for adjusting change plans based on feedback. This doesn’t mean abandoning the change vision, but it does mean being flexible and responsive to the needs and concerns of the people who will be affected by the change.
Maybe some benefits happen faster at bit more cost, maybe some legacy things get a longer 'grace period', maybe one team gets more visibility than others...the tactics will vary, but it should feel like a well-intentioned negotiation, not an argument.
Finally, leaders need to create an environment where people are empowered appropriately. I've written previously on this topic, the headline being: think of yourself as the conductor; you can't play all the instruments of change...but you wield the greatest power in getting them harmonious.
I suggest you give that article a read...but I won't argue with you if you don't.