How to lead organisational change in times of crisis

Whether planned or unexpected, change presents leaders with their toughest sustained challenges – regardless of the leader’s seniority or the organisation’s size. For many leaders, change brings drama – and the replaying of familiar stories.

In his latest book, A Question of Leadership, author Keith Leslie provides a wide range of illustrative case studies derived from both research and his first-hand experience in the public and private sectors as a former partner at both Deloitte and McKinsey. Each chapter first provides an engaging narrative that presents a relatable leadership dilemma, before an analysis of what works and when (often reaching seemingly counterintuitive solutions), followed by a selection of research that supports this thesis and, finally, actionable advice for leaders who find themselves in comparable circumstances (or may do so in the future).

Here is an exclusive excerpt from the chapter titled Change Just Changed.

CHANGE USED TO BE MORE CONTAINED AND MANAGEABLE

For decades we have been told that 'change is the only constant’, that we live in times of turbulence, that more change has happened in recent years than in previous decades …or centuries …or since the Renaissance. The advent of globalization, the widespread enactment of liberal economic and social policies, and the rise of the Internet and instant communication have clearly transformed our societies and our lives as individuals and families. Commentators and advisers, especially in the business world, advocated many tools and approaches for coping and planning for change. Even in the field of pandemic planning, governments invested in preparedness and plans, while advisers like myself led ‘ wargames ’for civil servants and business people on both long-term health crises such as obesity and short-term health crises such as new diseases –all as part of leadership development in businesses and in public services.

Despite this cataract of constant change, there was a key constraint in our experience that made change manageable for us –both in leadership of change and organizations ’or families ’ experience of change. The constraint was that, for most of us, change used to come in only two flavours:

Up close and personal – but episodic and isolated

Our organizations –business, public service, charity, church or social group –embark on a new direction, self-selected by the leader or compelled by the market.

• If you are inside the organization, the impact is often direct and significant, demanding a response. For some there is an upside and opportunities to advance, for others there are losses – financial, reputational and emotional.
• Although some cycles of change repeat, most are programmed with a defined scope and duration. And – crucially – unless you are inside the organization, you are merely a bystander. Even within the organization, some people would feel impervious or indifferent to change – they had seen it all before and would see off this latest change attempt.

Incremental and impersonal – but continuous and relentless

Our society is continually changing with the constant impact of political, economic, health, social, religious, technological developments and trends. We all live in a world that is increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (or VUCA, if we adopt the ugly acronym of many commentators) – but we adapt over time.

• For most of us, shifts in government policy or the growth of the Internet or the decline of traditional manufacturing or new health challenges are all issues that emerge slowly with incremental impact on our lives. We recognize the impact after repeated media discussions and accommodate it in our choices as we change jobs, relocate or take family decisions. Yes, some may be reluctant choices, but we have time to choose our response and manage our reactions. Broader social or economic change could be treated by most people as an abstract, distant topic –especially if they are protected by established property or pension or employment rights.
• For a few of us, society-wide trends and events will have an immediate and often negative impact. In economics, the decline of manufacturing is devastating if a community relies on a mine or a factory and it closes suddenly. Deaths from new diseases are not so distant if it is your community that is struck by Ebola or HIV first – and before treatments become effective. But – crucially – unless you are unlucky enough to be singularly vulnerable, you have time and resources to manage your reactions.

This demarcated, limited experience of change enabled leaders within organizations to cope with change. The remorseless grinding of technological and economic change could be translated by leaders into manageable chunks for their populations or organizations to absorb. Where carefully scoped and phased, it could be led and managed and did not affect everyone at the same time and for an indefinite period.

Even so, setting out to change an organization was always the toughest sustained challenge for leaders:

• Tough for the senior leader at the top of the organization trying to guide the change.
• Tough for the front-line leaders trying to keep the show on the road.
• Tough for the management teams allocating scarce resources and time to new pressing priorities.

WE ARE ALL LEARNING TO FACE NEW CHALLENGES OF UNCONTAINED CHANGE

Take off these limits –as the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have done –and change is no longer contained and manageable. We all face three challenges that in combination can overwhelm leaders:

1). We are experiencing change that is simultaneously up close and personal – and also continuous and relentless. The economic, social and health consequences of the pandemic are still working through our organizations, societies and families, creating new issues for leaders of change. It is no longer good enough to deliver change in an organization and simply accept ‘ collateral damage ’ in the form of discarded people, broken commitments, social discord, inequalities and mental distress. During the peak of the 2020 crisis, taxpayers supported business and the economy as they had also done during the 2008 financial crisis. In addition in 2020, the health of the population relied on the effectiveness and, in many cases, the sacrifices of a largely low-wage workforce. However, in the absence of explicit action to close the gap, the ‘ haves ’ will emerge from the aftermath of the pandemic even further ahead of the ‘ have-nots ’ . Organizations need to act to ensure people thrive with change, not merely survive – which means change that builds positive organizational purpose and develops mentally healthy workplaces.

2). There are no bystanders – instead we have many more leaders of change in more diverse organizations.

At one level ‘ we are all in this together ’ because we share a universal experience of change, new to populations that have not experienced war or epidemic or famine. People have been called upon to exercise leadership of change in their organizations on a much bigger scale than before the pandemic – in their families and schools, new workplaces, neighbourhood and community organizations, charities, faith groups, small businesses, people across public services and in commercial organizations working in new ways.

You can see from this that I apply a broad definition of ‘leadership of an organization’ to mean ‘working with and influencing toward a common goal a group of people who are carrying out repeating activities that others rely upon'.

Many more people bringing different experiences of change before, during and after the pandemic want to know what it takes to lead change in their organization successfully. This is no longer the preserve of project managers and management consultants.

3). Learning from effective leadership of change is vital – traditional leadership models have already failed.

Even in the old context of contained change, traditional styles of leadership regularly failed across all organizations – commercial, government, health, local authority, charity, religious and start-up. During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, we all observed careless, rushed statements and initiatives by governments and businesses that assumed ‘ business as usual ’ and relied on their leaders ’ past experience even where it was rapidly overtaken in the new situation. The pandemic and its aftermath called for leaders who could be open about the gaps in their plans, who could engage and learn from the front line and guide a population-wide change. Instead, we had a plethora of plans that were discarded after weeks, denial and suppression of the voices of the front line, and failure to exploit a community willingness to volunteer and help out. Our universal experience of change across all organizations during and after the pandemic has made the challenges of leading change more transparent. Leaders should feel pressure to be more effective in leading change and learn from successes and failures that are visible to a much wider audience and to participants who are more engaged. We can see the failures of leadership that focuses on the individual leader at the top, in contrast to the vitality of ‘ positive deviants ’ in the form of front-line care workers and community organizers who worked out how to meet local needs despite the emergency and the absence of support.

Perhaps we should be motivated to learn how to address these challenges and how to be successful leaders of change because, quite simply, our society depends upon it. I think such abstract motivations belong to academics, advisers and authors. Wanting to learn about leading change is personal and compelling when:

1). You have been plunged into leading change during and following the pandemic.

You might have thought that leadership was something the person at the top did while you got on with the real work – or that leadership requires buzzwords like vision and charisma. Then you discovered that you had to exercise leadership in your organizations – at work, at home (and work), in your family. Normal roles and boundaries dissolved: Who leads when working at home or home-schooling? Who leads remote worship? Who leads when the elderly in isolation were also the key volunteers in your charity? The list is endless.

2). You were already engaged in organizational change in your workplace.

You probably already suspected that traditional formulaic models of leadership and change were unhelpful in your task and now, like the rest of the population, you know that formulae failed during the pandemic. Now you have shared and observed universal experience of change and its consequences and choices by leaders – and you are asking what is different and what to learn to be more effective as a leader of change, a consultant or a project manager in your organization.

FOUR FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF LEADERSHIP

Successful leadership of change is not about taking lots of decisions; in fact jumping to issuing instructions will often be a mistake. It is about asking questions. Understanding is the first step towards finding actions that lead to successful change, including making mistakes, learning from others, adjusting direction and building belonging within the organization. Asking –and answering –four fundamental questions will equip you for the successful leadership of change:

• Why don’t organizations always behave rationally? Explores the fundamental concepts of change in complex organizations and why rationally planned interventions produce unexpected results.
• What do I need to do – and what should I expect others to do? Walks through the roles and interactions of senior leaders, front-line leaders and management teams in delivering successful change in organizations.
• What do I do when we meet bumps in the road? Because there will inevitably be mistakes and switches of direction, we need to learn together and develop a common language of change.
• How do I build purpose, belonging and mental health? Successful change is not just about strategy and financial returns, it is about purpose, belonging and mental health in the organization.

Also read: What happens when our leaders fail us