Court Controversy, Remove a Barrier to Change

There seems to be a deep human preference to avoid controversy wherever possible, and in many situations that is probably a good thing. But when it comes to business decision-making, a tendency to go along to get along represents a huge barrier to be overcome. It not only prevents great ideas for change from being implemented, but also sometimes causes a company to do downright dumb things. At the very least, it causes confusion and inefficiency.

The best managers find creative, diplomatic ways to make contentious decisions without engendering resentment. Take, for example, the chief executive of a Midwest industrial company I worked with. His organization had been struggling for four years with an initiative to expand into a middle market, where the customer base was attractive but much smaller than the company's traditional one. This strategic move had been approved when the economy was growing quickly and it was hard for industrial companies to keep up with demand. Projections back then showed that after two years of solid investment, the venture would generate healthy profits in the third year. But economic conditions had subsequently changed, and in its fourth year, it was still far from profitable. The CEO was convinced he should pull the plug. It wouldn't be long before the board and shareholders would be asking why he didn't, and who could blame them?

The problem was that it was the pet project of his chief operating officer, and everyone knew it. It had been launched with much fanfare, and updates on its progress were featured prominently on the company's intranet. People were aware that a lot of effort and money had been invested in it. The COO's argument, year after unprofitable year, was "Oh, give us another twelve months and we'll be in the black." You might wonder why the CEO didn't just shut down this business. It's important to note that managers, and even CEOs, are not all-powerful in such matters. True, they have the authority to do something, but they don't always have the political capital—or the willingness to spend it on imposing a particular decision. In this company, the COO had been there much longer than the CEO. In fact, many people had thought the COO deserved the top job and were disappointed when an outsider was brought in. The CEO knew that embarrassing the COO would do serious damage to a relationship that was important to him.

If you're a senior manager, this probably resonates at least somewhat with your own experience. Every experienced manager has learned that he or she must choose which battles to fight and which to ignore. The best managers have a knack for getting those choices right. Even when a decision seems perfectly logical, they see the broader consequences it would have, and can recognize when it is easier and even wiser in the short run to leave things the way they are. And they know when the time is ripe for that decision to be made.

So what did this CEO do about the COO's pet project? He found a way to put the question of whether to proceed with it back on the table without turning it into a showdown. Suspecting there were many ways that the resources could be better invested, he announced a company-wide change initiative. Ideas for how to improve profitability were solicited from the entire company—top down, bottom up—with the promise that every serious suggestion would be considered. Under this "cover," the idea of exiting the middle market was suggested. With the spotlight on what was best for the business, no one was able to offer a strong defense for doing otherwise.

Not only did the process not humiliate the COO, he came out of it looking noble. He was seen as leading by example, since so many others in the organization knew it must be a huge sacrifice for him. That served the company well, since others were then slightly less determined to dig in their heels against decisions they saw as threats.

The point here is that leadership is both about making tough decisions and about keeping good people on board, making their best efforts. In the interests of ensuring the latter, too many managers neglect the former. Avoiding controversy for understandable reasons, they create a barrier to positive change.

And avoiding controversy isn't the only such barrier. Having spent over 20 years working with leaders to help their companies succeed, my sense is that every sizeable organization is sitting on a goldmine—in the ingenuity of its own people—but has to overcome a variety of barriers of its own creation to prosper from it. (In my book I explore the eight barriers that are most common to companies, regardless of their size, industry, quality of management, or stature in their industries.)

The best way to begin breaking down barriers in general might be to acknowledge that there are reasons they exist. Leaders avoid controversy with all good intentions, and it would be wrong for them to swing 180 degrees, becoming confrontational and divisive. But neither should their attempt to avoid hard feelings keep them from making hard decisions. Companies succeed best when tough calls are made with certainty—and with subtlety.