Freedom, Inc_ - Brian M. Carney [119]
This paradox, it turns out, is at the heart of why so few leaders attempt—much less succeed—to set their people free. There are many executives out there who have an inkling that they are not getting everything they could or ought to get out of the people in their charge. But they are stymied as to how to begin, or else they charge forward with guns blazing—only to go down in a hail of bullets, leaving the old guard and their old ways firmly entrenched. It turns out that it takes the willingness to embrace a paradox—in this case, that of the nonviolent revolutionary—and the ability to always keep the big picture in view to eventually find the freedom solution.
“PLAN-ORGANIZE-EXECUTE” IS NO WAY
TO RUN A REVOLUTION
Thousands of business seminars are conducted all over the world every year on the topic, “How to Be an Effective Change Agent,” or some variation on that theme. They preach mantras such as “Plan-Organize-Execute.” They teach managers how to lay out the steps, establish deadlines, and envision all the risks and how to handle them. This may be a great way to implement a new accounting or procurement system. But even here, the exercise in envisioning what could go wrong can easily fail to anticipate the biggest dangers. Some department will, unbeknownst to our change agent, feel it has been adversely affected by the change or was not appropriately consulted. When this happens, the resulting rift—or worse, the quiet insurgency—that results can drag on at the company for years. Even in relatively minor matters, it is impossible to prove logically to people that the leader’s solution was right and that theirs was wrong. As everyone who has tried it knows, attempting to do so will only entrench people even deeper in their positions. These sorts of battles can last decades.
The stakes are much higher when it comes to transforming the way a whole company is managed, and the potential resistance is that much greater. Among the managers, of course, there may be some who won’t resist at all, such as the minority at FAVI. Even in unionized, “how” companies such a minority often exists, as Adam Easter, billet yard and finishing manager at Chaparral Steel, observed: “I had over twenty years of steel experience [before] I came to Virginia in 2000, … both union and nonunion. I worked at one of the oldest plants in America and to the newest plant in America … and I never really had a problem managing in the union environment either because it boils down to the respect that you pay your people. Because if you show that you’re concerned about their safety [and] their well-being, [if you stimulate] the mental portion of their lives to give that enrichment, [and they are doing] jobs where they can make a difference, you don’t really typically have problems.”14
This minority makes a great ally in the liberation campaign. But then there is the other group. Confrontation is ill-advised, and acquiescing to them will doom your hopes of liberating your company, as they will cling to their dual standards and their territorial claims and will make a mockery of attempts to reform management practices.
So a wise leader looks at the problem of intransigent managers holistically and moves dialectically to deal with it. To start, he will accept that these managers have legitimate historical reasons to resist the liberation—they have needs, too. Their position and status are threatened and their futures are made uncertain by the liberation campaign. Seen in that light, resistance is not only natural, it’s rational. As Zobrist observed, FAVI seemed to be reasonably well run when he was named CEO. It was profitable and its practices were in sync with the times. As in most companies,