Organizations love the idea of transformation. We put it in strategic plans. Boards say they want bold leaders who will challenge the status quo and move the organization forward. Then the new leader starts changing things. That’s often where enthusiasm for transformation gets tested.
A few recent leadership departures in our community got me thinking about this. I don’t know the circumstances behind those decisions, and this isn’t about any particular leader or organization. But I’ve watched this dynamic play out many times over my career – and I’ve experienced it myself.
Earlier in my career, I was brought into an economic development organization with a mandate to transform it for a changing economy. I believed it needed a much greater focus on the innovation economy and where future growth was coming from. The need for change was real, but I made mistakes in how I led it.
I moved too quickly and didn’t do enough to bring the broader community along. More importantly, the organization’s primary shareholder ultimately wasn’t prepared to stand behind the degree of change required. It taught me that being right about the need for change is not enough. The conditions for change must exist.
Boards and shareholders need to be honest about that too. Organizations pursue new leadership because something needs to change. Results have stalled. A business model needs to evolve. Culture needs attention. The environment has shifted.
However, real transformation affects people, budgets, programs and long-standing relationships.
This can be particularly difficult in government-funded and non-profit organizations, where there are multiple stakeholders, layers of accountability and often little tolerance for disruption. Volunteer boards add another complexity. Directors bring enormous value, but they may not always have the same proximity to the realities driving the need for change.
Sometimes organizations discover they didn’t really want transformation. They wanted better results without too much disruption. Those are not the same thing.
That doesn’t mean every change leader is right. Leaders have a responsibility to listen, build trust and bring people with them. Pace and relationships matter. Transformation also requires candid conversations about performance, behaviour and what the organization needs next.
A board that hires a leader to drive change has to govern through the discomfort that follows. It must distinguish between legitimate warning signs and the predictable resistance that comes when familiar things begin to move. Most importantly, it must stay aligned on the mandate when decisions get hard.
Strong organizations honour what has been built without allowing history to dictate the future. They understand that discomfort is not always evidence something is going wrong. Sometimes it is evidence that something is finally changing.
There is also a cost when organizations hire leaders to transform and then retreat when transformation gets hard. Good leaders notice. So do future candidates.
Before recruiting the next transformational CEO or executive director, boards should ask a harder question than “What kind of leader do we want?”
They should ask: What are we truly prepared to change – and will we still support it when it gets uncomfortable?
Identifying the need for change is easy. Supporting it when it becomes real is where leadership begins.