Worst Practices
I have recently been involved with an enterprise that has somehow managed to embrace just about the worst transformation practices possible. It all started with the vocabulary the leaders chose to employ. They managed to paint a transformation picture that they apparently had no intention of pursuing. While they portrayed fundamental change, their actions totally represented those of stewards of the status quo.
They did not “walk the talk” in several ways. While cutting production staff and freezing salaries, they relentlessly increased the size and payroll of the management staff. This included changing elements of the leadership team without communicating to those reporting to these leaders. New bosses just showed up and took over. It did not seem to matter to the senior leadership that the subordinates involved were totally confused.
They also rolled out policy changes that fundamentally affected people without informing them. For example, they moved accounts and responsibilities without announcing the policy changes, leaving managers unable to find accounts and manage them. The resulting confusion among program managers was apparently of no concern to senior leadership. It did not matter that financial management was now impossible — the issue was power and control, not performance.
It would seem that only the most wooden-headed leadership would expect that these practices could succeed. Middle management has had endless debates over whether senior leaders are inept or simply do not care. No one seems to know what the leaders have been thinking. However, most employees feel that the leadership was simply assuming that employees are lucky to be employed and should put up with anything. The stewards of the status quo could not imagine that people would do anything other than what they were supposed to do, even when what they supposed to do was never communicated.
I asked several senior mid-level executives how they felt about events of the past year or two. One of them put it best, “It is like being pecked to death by ducks.” All sorts of irritating little changes happen, things that might have been acceptable if communicated and discussed. However, these changes – most small but some big – were simply implemented without explanation. With supervisors unable to explain the source or intent of these changes, staff morale is steadily slipping..
So, what happens next? Does this organization spiral to oblivion? The problem is that such incompetency can be embraced for an amazingly long time. Bloated work processes that provide little value can be sustained and expanded with little scrutiny. Investments can be made in competencies that are no longer needed, or were never needed. The realization of irrelevance comes much too late. The leadership is completely at odds with the future, which they consciously ignore seeing. The message, strategy, and plan are totally at odds with reality. The severance packages may be much too generous, but the sooner such leaders are gone, the sooner the wonders of creative destruction can commence.
