Making changes in your team

This week’s post is a delicate subject.  I don’t intend to cover how to make changes because every situation is different and local labor law and company policies vary considerably.  What I want to cover is a little bit of the why it can be necessary or even positive to make changes and then to add in some thoughts and information that I have collected over the years that may make it easier.

I want to start in a different place and the idea of loyalty to a company.  When I started work there was a pervasive culture of being loyal to your employer.  The idea of interviewing for external (and sometime internal) roles that offered opportunities to develop and grow could be frowned upon and seen as a personal insult by the line manager.  It took one redundancy program by my first employer to shatter the illusion of loyalty for everyone who worked there.  As many more companies restructured due to the challenges of the digital age, the idea of blind loyalty disappeared for the majority of the workforce.  The old idea of a job-for-life and job security had disappeared a decade or so before.  The collective realization that loyalty was a one-way agreement that was only binding on the employee adjusted the relationship between employer and employee.  This was a positive development and allowed frank and open discussions between managers and direct reports regarding their career aspirations.  If the job doesn’t fit our aspirations or a better opportunity comes up somewhere else, even if it is risky, then we as employees should be free to explore those opportunities.  The only limitation is if an employer has gone out of their way, with your consent, to build a job around your talents and ambitions.  In this scenario, you should be upfront and transparent about your levels of commitment to ensure that neither side feels duped.

I started the blog talking about loyalty no longer being a binding force, because companies do and will continue to restructure to meet their needs and the needs of their shareholders.  This is a fact of life, and I wanted to show the symmetry that both the employer and the employee will need to adjust from time to time to reach their targets.   The effect of these adjustments is not symmetrical because the impact of losing a job is usually greater on the individual than the act of changing jobs is on an organization.  But the flexibility that exists for companies in many jurisdictions to reorganize themselves is a necessary response to market conditions, to continue to deliver shareholder value and to ensure the organization’s longevity.

Frequently managers find themselves leading a team that requires recalibration to deliver results and to get people, systems and processes working together effectively.  My preference is always to work with existing teams and to establish a level of performance that can get as close to best-in-class as possible.  Sometimes this isn’t an option, and more significant changes are required.  I think most people, who are in this position, would argue that this is their least favorite part of management.  With experience I have found a method that works for me.  What follows is a list of thoughts about making changes.

Often when you notice a team is failing or stalling you will find a team leader who is unable to align their own passions and interests with their current position.  This may be due to a skillset deficit, it may be frustration with the company, a desire to try something else or a loss of confidence in their own abilities.  Very often none of these thoughts are expressed directly.  Instead, what they tend to communicate is their dissatisfaction with other teams, the systems and other factors that may be impacting them that are out of their control.  The point I am making is that to get to the root source of an issue and begin to address it usually involves an extended period of observation of what is happening to get all the facts rather than taking what people say on trust.  It’s not that people are lying, its that their proximity to the problem and their own biases can prevent them from seeing the wider picture.

Putting aside dismissal for gross misconduct, there are many reasons why it might be necessary for someone to leave the team, and some of those reasons might be related to their performance.  This can generate some difficult feelings and emotions from everyone involved.  At the point that the change is confirmed, your relationship with the individual changes.  Any performance concerns you had can now filed away and the focus of your attention is to help the individual leave the business in the best mindset possible and causing the least amount of disruption for the wider team.  In most cases a swift exit will be the best for everyone.  In some cases, a longer exit under agreed parameters can help the individual leave on their preferred terms.  I think companies should be generous in their exit packages as it reflects well on them, signals to remaining staff that the company treats all staff with respect, and it usually delegitimizes any egregious demands.

One of the core groups of people that get forgotten in times of change are the staff that remain.  Ensuring that the changes are supported by clear messaging is essential.  If any member of the team can legitimately say “I have no idea why they did that”, then the messaging hasn’t worked.  Staff may not like the changes or even agree with them, but they should understand them.  When changes happen, often new opportunities arise.  If the company is restructuring to stave off insolvency, then there isn’t much you can do with remaining staff to convince them to stay and that their efforts will be rewarded.  At this point a company is relying on goodwill and professionalism to get them through the tight spot.  If the company is restructuring for growth, restructuring can provide significant new opportunities.  Again, I would encourage companies to be generous.  If appropriate, use the space and savings to promote or give pay-rises to those picking up significant additional work.  I like to use restructures to reward junior members of staff that have been waiting for an opportunity to develop and grow.  On the flipside, if you don’t do this, junior staff may feel their opportunities for advancement have passed and you risk losing valuable staff to competitors.

When you restructure and increase someone’s role with a well-earned promotion, don’t be surprised if you don’t get the reaction you were expecting.  You hope for excitement, but sometimes people are more cautious and worried about their ability to deliver.  These are all reasonable responses.  If you are promoting staff, it’s important to provide them with a reasonable set of expectations and the necessary support to enable them to deliver against those expectations.  What is reasonable and necessary will vary from individual to individual.  Unless the company is in financial difficulties, the primary driver for the restructure and resulting promotion should not be cost-cutting.  If you can truthfully say it is about the reprioritization of objectives, improved processes and recognizing talent, then your trust, belief and support should be sufficient to enable them to make the promotion a success.  If you promoted someone solely to cut costs you are entirely reliant upon the drive and self-confidence of the individual to make the changes a success.

One final comment is on communications.  It is not enough for people to hear what you want them to hear, to move people to action you need to focus on how you want them to feel.  The three step planning tool you can use ahead of conversations with staff who you want to play a bigger role is to plan how you want them to feel, and therefore what you want them to think and what you would like them to do.  The following is an example from some old notes.  The member of staff was a highly respected specialist and a perfectionist.   I wanted them to feel the seniority of their new role and with it the permission to set broad objectives for the team and to not be across the detail of everything.  My hope was that these feelings would translate into thoughts and then actions that would enable the individual to see the transformation in themselves.

This is a tricky subject to write about and although there is more I could say and many more examples I could give, I would prefer not to use them here.  The ambition is always to treat staff fairly whilst acting in the best interests of the company.  I was nearly made redundant early in my career and later in my career I restructured a line of business that included removing my own role.  Restructures are usually successful when you act dispassionately in the interests of the company and with kindness to those impacted.

Next week’s blog is on establishing yourself in the workplace.  What do you do on your first day in the job and how to establish credibility.