{"id":656,"date":"2011-01-27T05:02:57","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T05:02:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com"},"modified":"2016-06-08T22:15:42","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T22:15:42","slug":"how-command-and-control-as-a-change-leadership-style-causes-transformational-change-efforts-to-fail","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/free-resources\/how-command-and-control-as-a-change-leadership-style-causes-transformational-change-efforts-to-fail","title":{"rendered":"How Command and Control as a Change Leadership Style Causes Transformational Change Efforts to Fail"},"content":{"rendered":"

Back to all Free Resources<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 View PDF Version<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Dean Anderson
\nLinda Ackerman Anderson<\/h3>\n

Introduction<\/h4>\n

Command and control is by far the most common change leadership style. Most of today\u2019s leaders were mentored themselves by command and control managers, and the culture of most organizations is still based on command and control norms. It is hard to escape this leadership style\u2019s historic influence and dominance. But as a change leader, you must. Here\u2019s why.<\/p>\n

Command and control as a change leadership style destroys virtually any chance of success in nine out of ten transformational change efforts. For starters, command and control:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Limits the engagement and commitment you must develop in your employees, and often actually promotes resistance<\/li>\n
  • Lessens your chances of creating a change process that will lead to success<\/li>\n
  • Keeps you from being able to make the real-time course corrections during implementation that are necessary for optimal results<\/li>\n
  • Minimizes attention to necessary people issues like consistent communications and emotional reactions to change<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    In this article, we will explore the limitations of command and control as a change leadership style, and introduce \u201cco-creating\u201d as an alternate way of leading transformation that delivers higher quality change results AND simultaneously establishes a foundation for a high performing culture.<\/p>\n

    As you read, recall the unique features of transformational change:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • The process of transformation usually begins long before a clear future state can be identified<\/li>\n
    • The sheer magnitude of transformational change demands a major shift in the leaders\u2019 and employees\u2019 mindsets and behavior and the organization\u2019s culture<\/li>\n
    • The ultimate success of the transformational change process depends on how well the change leaders make real-time adjustments to their outcomes and process as new circumstances occur<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      We will delve into each of these key features shortly. But first, let\u2019s explore what drives the command and control style.<\/p>\n

      Command and Control Is Based on a Number of Erroneous Assumptions<\/h4>\n

      Command and control is based on establishing and maintaining power over, and control of, people and organizational processes. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea: you certainly don\u2019t want people\u2019s behavior or steps in your change process to be \u201cout of control.\u201d However, this notion of being able to command and control people and processes only goes so far.<\/p>\n

      A number of usually unspoken assumptions drive the use of command and control. As you read them, imagine the behavior of change leaders you know who believe in these assumptions:<\/p>\n

        \n
          \n
        • Leaders know best<\/li>\n
        • Leaders should know where they are going (goals, outcomes) and must predetermine the plan for how to get there (process)<\/li>\n
        • Controlling human behavior and action during implementation\u2014so there is minimal variance from the predetermined plan\u2014is a requirement of success<\/li>\n
        • The environment\/marketplace won\u2019t change enough to be a factor during implementation, and if it does, leaders can and must control its influence<\/li>\n
        • If leaders encounter unplanned variables, they must quickly control the negative impacts on the change effort through problem solving and then return to the implementation of their current plan<\/li>\n
        • Employees won\u2019t naturally contribute positively to the change effort, so leaders must \u201chelp\u201d them by commanding and controlling their behavior and involvement. Leaders must force people\u2019s cooperation.<\/li>\n
        • Needing to alter change plans connotes leadership failure and means that the change leaders did not plan thoroughly enough<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n

          You can argue that these assumptions are somewhat applicable for two types of organizational change\u2014developmental and transitional change. However, they are completely false and inappropriate for transformational changes. (See\u00a0Beyond Change Management: How to Achieve Breakthrough Results through Conscious Change Leadership<\/em>,\u00a0Dean Anderson and Linda Ackerman Anderson, pages 51\u201379, for a complete discussion of the different types of change.)<\/p>\n

          In projects that can be isolated from their environment (e.g., protected from outside influences) and for changes that do not require people to change beyond learning new technical or operational skills, command and control can work. In these cases, a predetermined outcome and project plan can be established and executed through a relatively stable set of circumstances. Employees won\u2019t have to change much and won\u2019t need to be fully committed to the effort to enable success. Keep in mind, however, that making command and control work in such developmental or transitional change projects is a far cry from making the projects extremely successful. Command and control seldom leads to optimal results in any type of change.<\/p>\n

          The above assumptions are erroneous regarding transformational changes for a number of reasons. First, transformation is usually catalyzed by major changes occurring in the environment\/marketplace. These changes are not isolated events, but in this day and age, continuous. Consequently, change leaders can never be sure of their destination when they begin their change efforts. More often than not, circumstances are likely to arise that demand a change in direction. Since change leaders cannot protect their change efforts from the significant influences of the environment, they cannot create a plan and expect to control all of the dynamics that may impact its execution. They will need to continuously alter or course correct both their plan and their destination throughout the change.<\/p>\n

          Consequently, to have any level of success, change leaders need many eyes and ears tuned to the change effort, marketplace, and customer dynamics, as well as internal organizational forces. Whose eyes and ears do they need? Employees!<\/p>\n

          Employees frequently receive critical data for course correction long before leaders because employees are closer to the action. They are key to the early warning system for needed adjustments to both the goals of the transformation and the plans for getting there. Therefore, employees need to participate as full players, not coerced victims. They must emotionally \u201cown\u201d the change and understand its intent as much as the leaders do so they can contribute to moving it forward in a positive direction.<\/p>\n

          Furthermore, in transformation, the nature of the change is so profound that the organization\u2019s culture and employees\u2019 mindsets and behavior must change to succeed. Both leaders and employees must evolve their mindsets about how work gets done, their role in the work, and the way the organization functions. For instance, they might need to embrace new business models, develop partnership relationships with previously adversarial departments, design radically new work processes, take on more responsibility, etc. Leaders can command and control employees to learn new technical skills, but they cannot coerce this level of personal change. That can only be accomplished by willing participants\u2014 willing because they see the value and necessity for both themselves and the organization. Therefore, a change leader\u2019s mindset, style, and behavior, and the change process they design as a result of their orientation, must catalyze employees to want to participate, to choose to contribute, rather than force them to do so.<\/p>\n

          The Key Is to Co-Create with Employees and Circumstances, Not Exercise Power or Control Over Them<\/h4>\n

          Co-creating implies working\u00a0with. It means operating as a team, aligned across hierarchical and functional boundaries in pursuit of what is best for the\u00a0overall organization. A change leader operating in a co-creative style views employees as strategic partners in the change, not just \u201ctargets\u201d of it. Pragmatically, this means:<\/p>\n

            \n
              \n
                \n
                  \n
                • Providing employees all the marketplace information about why the change is necessary (the case for change)<\/li>\n
                • Asking for and using employee input about the vision or direction of the change (its intended outcomes)<\/li>\n
                • Involving employees in the design of what needs to change (the content of the change)<\/li>\n
                • Putting employees on teams critical to making the change happen, such as the communication team, the design team, even the change leadership team itself<\/li>\n
                • Giving employees decision authority about the change as it pertains to their \u201clocal\u201d environment<\/li>\n
                • Providing employees with a clear structure and process for reporting information and issues pertinent to the success of the change, including potential course corrections to it<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n

                  Regarding the actual change process, working with (co-creating) means not trying to stamp out problems\u2014those \u201cnegative\u201d outside influences that were not planned for, but instead, letting those forces influence your plan and direction. Where a command and control leader will try to eradicate problems so his or her rigid plan can continue, a co-creative leader will \u201clisten to the messages\u201d embedded in problems to discover if course corrections are necessary. A co-creative leader assumes variance will occur and perceives problems as \u201cgifts\u201d revealing needed course correction so they can achieve the best result. Where change leaders operating in a command and control orientation often miss wake-up calls for alteration and march down paths doomed for failure, co-creative change leaders hear these wake-up calls and engage with employees to figure out how to handle them successfully (i.e., they co-create solutions.)<\/p>\n

                  Transformational Change Success Requires Change Leaders to Transform Themselves to Embrace and Model a Co-Creative Style<\/h4>\n

                  In the late 1980\u2019s and early 90\u2019s, Being First, Inc. found out the hard way that an organization that attempts to design and implement transformation without addressing personal transformation in its leaders is doomed for failure. Back then, we accepted, albeit reluctantly, clients who wanted our cutting-edge change methodology (see\u00a0The Change Leader\u2019s Roadmap: How to Navigate Your Organization\u2019s Transformation,\u00a0Linda Ackerman Anderson and Dean Anderson) but were unwilling to engage in the critical personal transformation work of the leaders. These clients loved The Change Leader\u2019s Roadmap, but would consistently run into predictable problems we could help them see, but not overcome. The reason, ALWAYS, was a lack of insight caused by the blinders of their command and control orientation. From their worldview, these leaders could not see simple solutions to their people and process implementation problems, and would not accept our input about critical change strategies; they just did not think what we offered was necessary or valid. We learned then that the key to successful transformation was evolving leaders\u2019 mindsets about change. Over time, we decided as a firm to no longer engage in long-term consulting relationships unless the client, after some initial change education, agreed that co-creating was critical to their success, and that they would provide\u00a0The Breakthrough to Change Leadership\u00a0program to their leaders (CEO included). This program is our method for experientially introducing leaders to cocreating and demonstrating the profound benefits and tangible change results this orientation can deliver to their bottom line.<\/p>\n

                  Case In Point<\/h4>\n

                  One of our early client \u201cpioneers\u201d in this regard was Daryl Sabin, the Vice President of Manufacturing for a large food company in San Francisco, California. Daryl knew that implementing change was critical to his organization\u2019s success, but rather than ask us to simply teach our change methodology and tools to his change leaders, he instead insisted that we support their \u201cbreakthrough\u201d to new ways of thinking and behaving. We devised a strategy for Daryl that included training, coaching, and numerous follow-up sessions doing real-time change strategy development with him and his team.<\/p>\n

                  The net result was a substantial increase in performance and change leadership effectiveness for his team and organization. The leaders increased the pace and quality of their decision-making and collaboration, and were able to positively engage their employees in the needed changes in their organization as never before.<\/p>\n

                  Since this time, we have experienced many client interventions where breakthroughs in change leadership style have catalyzed significant increases in change results, even without the use of The Change Leader\u2019s Roadmap and its resources. Our consistent findings over the past twenty years suggest:<\/p>\n

                  1. The greatest determinant of a change initiative\u2019s success is the mindset and style of the change leaders.
                  \n2. Using a comprehensive change process methodology in a command and control way limits the benefits the methodology would otherwise produce.
                  \n3. If you have to choose, put mindset and style first, methodology and tools second.
                  \n4. The best formula for success is combining the two; include the personal transformation and change leadership breakthrough work as an early part of the overall change plan.<\/p>\n

                  Summary<\/h4>\n

                  Every day there are more decent change tools available on the market. Using these tools can be extremely helpful and can increase the chances of your organization implementing its change efforts successfully. However, no change tool or methodology, Being First\u2019s included, is an adequate substitute for change leaders and consultants evolving their mindsets and style to embrace the required co-creative approach. However, today\u2019s changes are just too complicated and dynamic to put the burden solely on leaders to succeed. The only way we know to maximize the results you get from transformation is an entire enterprise of awake and responsible people working together, across boundaries, in pursuit of what is best for the overall organization.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                  Back to all Free Resources \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 View PDF Version Dean Anderson Linda Ackerman Anderson Introduction Command and control is by far the most common change leadership style. Most of today\u2019s leaders were mentored themselves by command and control managers, and the culture of most organizations is still based on command and control norms. It is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"parent":13,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/656"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=656"}],"version-history":[{"count":30,"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/656\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1491,"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/656\/revisions\/1491"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/changeleadersnetwork.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}