Change Requires Buy-in

I remember purchasing my first smart phone.  After poking around to understand more about it, I decided to move ahead with the smart phone.  However, I had reservations.  How much time was it going to take to learn how to use the phone?  Was the return going to be worth the time invested?  

Evaluating a business opportunity could follow a similar path - defining what you want to achieve, determining how much time it is going to take and evaluating the commitment needed to get it done.  Exploring an opportunity is more difficult when doing something new involves others. 

When this occurs, more homework is required before deciding to pursue the new opportunity.  This involves asking employees what they think about the change. Why, because you’re asking employees to strap on a new requirement and they are the ones who are going to make it happen. If people don’t have a chance to ‘weigh-in’ most likely they won’t ‘buy-in’ for what the boss wants to accomplish. 

But what the boss decides, others have to go along with, right?  Yes, bosses make decisions but employees can help the change go smoothly or become tied up with other competing priorities or worse yet, resist the change.

Isn’t a boss’s authority undermined by asking people for their input?  No, to the contrary, the role of boss is strengthened.  When employees are asked what they think, they feel respected.  They feel they matter and that goes a long way towards helping the change succeed. 

Doesn’t the boss open themselves for negative comments about the change?  Absolutely, but it is better to get those comments on the table and deal with them rather than let them undercut the initiative once after the project is under way. 

What happens if the boss doesn’t follow their recommendations?  The boss is still better off as long they follow up with those who provided the input by presenting their reasoning for the decision and showing that they valued employee contributions. 

This process of asking employees what they think sounds like a lot of work.  True, more time will be spent up front in order to achieve buy-in.  On the flip side the change will achieve a better result sooner by yielding a good return on the time spent initially to get the project rolling.  

Change is never easy but including others up front helps accomplish the objective by fostering more cooperation.

Learning how to use the smart phone had its bumps along the way but did prove to be a good return for my time.  I’ve dropped it a couple of times so it isn’t pretty anymore.  I receive offers to upgrade my phone with more features and faster connectivity.  I don’t think the trade-off for upgrading is there yet so I’ll just keeping using the one I have.

Trust Required to Avoid Doing Something Stupid       

One of the common worries for leaders can be doing something stupid.  Taking a course of action that squanders resources or doesn’t accomplish its intended purpose can mean a loss of face and potentially credibility for the leader.  To help avoid this pitfall someone in the company needs to come forward and point out to the leader that something won’t work.  One such person who helped me avoid doing something stupid was Terry Lynch.

Terry was the Warehouse Coordinator for Missoula County Public Schools.  His responsibilities included orchestrating the daily delivery requirements for 20+ locations.  This service was the ‘life line’ to the schools for all supplies, payroll, distribution, printing, equipment and furniture.  He worked with the drivers and they did a superb job of keeping the schools supplied. 

In 2001, the school district needed to reduce expenses so the idea was put on the table to eliminate one of the two delivery driver positions.  This required a drastic change in service and placed the onus of all deliveries on one driver.  We came up with a delivery schedule that would allow one driver to service all the locations.

Before making the final decision to eliminate the delivery vehicle driver position, we conducted a trial run of the new schedule and planned on running it for five days.  At the end of the second day Terry came to see me.  He explained that the loading dock was being maxed out as items stockpiled waiting for delivery.  As a result, each time the driver came to take a load it required a lot of heavy lifting.  The consistent heavy lifting requirements were taking a toll on the driver as he had little time to physically recover between each delivery.  

Terry expressed concern that while the driver would continue to try to make this new schedule work, eventually the physical requirement would catch up with him and he would have an accident.   

Terry was right.  I should’ve anticipated this problem and if the change had gone into effect we would have had an accident.  Terry helped avoid doing something stupid.  Shortly thereafter, the remainder of the trial was cancelled and the elimination of a delivery driver position was removed from the budget discussions.

For this type of feedback to come forward several conditions have to be in place.  Mutual trust has to be present, otherwise the feedback won’t come and skepticism about the feedback can creep in.  The leader has to be willing to listen to the comments and be prepared to act on them even though the comments sting.  There must be a common expectation that when the situation calls for feedback, the person is going to come forward and the leader is going to receive the comments gracefully and with appreciation.

This is easier said than done.  It takes commitment and openness to develop trust. The leader must be genuinely receptive to negative feedback.   By taking these actions, the leader can get help to avoid doing something stupid.

I worked with Terry an additional nine years and deeply appreciated the feedback he provided and the trust he placed in me.