When to adopt Persuasion and when Surgery in HR?

When advising leaders about issues relating to conflicts within their teams or resistance to change I am repeatedly confronted with a dilemma: until what point is it appropriate to work through “persuasion” in trying to induce employees into a collaborative mood and, vice versa, when is it appropriate to go for a “surgical” removal of the obstacle. This article may well be a controversial read for someone, but it contains reflections that I am willing to share and get feedback about from colleagues and HR people with experience in the field. I think we humans cannot be sure to have it right every time, and the issue is serious and well worth discussing.

Let’s start from here: I hate to even consider, as a principle, that someone should be sacked from a job. In my view, reflection from the leader’s point of view should always be first a “Have I done everything that I could to engage and motivate my people – this person – to adhere to the change? Have I removed all the obstacles from my people’s path to excellence?” (We’ll see a suggested checklist further on) There are many things that the leadership of an organization can do to bring the best out of people, motivate, engage, unleash their potential to full expression.

In the majority of the cases that I have seen in my decades of experience, first as businessman and executive, then as advisor and trainer, it has doesn’t take long to see which were the mistakes on the leadership’s side in the relationship with their people. I have to say that in some cases the mistakes were so blatant that it was hard not to take the side of the employees altogether and less than politely tell their bosses to get lost. I detest when the amazing potential of human beings is wasted, and it’s true that there’s definitely a lack of worthy leadership in this World!

Once the brutal instinct to rebellion is overcome, though, I have generally seen that when the leaders are smart enough to admit their errors and set out to improve their leadership behavior, their people are quick to respond. Provided the change is steady and consistent with what is announced, people are keen to improve their performance and cooperate with the organization to achieve common goals. Yes: I said “common goals”. Such expression means that the leadership has made clear:

1 Why does the organization exist (i.e. the leadership’s vision, values and purpose)

2 How they plan to do it (i.e. the strategy)

3 What are its tools (i.e. by what products or services and timeline they plan to achieve) and the specific objectives

In such a case, people know what is the meaning of their job and the purpose of their work. This is highly motivational. We must remember that human beings are a social animal species. In our collective unconscious, if I may simplify this so, there is an embedded sense of universal social interaction rules. A sincere and consistent gesture from a leader who truly wants to have his/her people “on board” for a common benefit, brings about a stronger recognition of his/her position. Everybody, then, makes what best he/she can to collaborate to the common effort. If, in addition, the leader puts in place concrete measures to provide his/her people with the means to achieve, such as for instance training, resources and processes, success is most likely to occur.

Alas, this does not always work. Although in the majority of cases it is the leadership not to engage in the change that is needed (see also my previous article on the issue), sometimes it is the employee(s) who is resisting the change in attitude, notwithstanding consistent and commendable efforts by the leadership. Why does this happen? Is there a generalizable cause? Not really: every individual case is different. Nonetheless, I think that we can generally say that such situations are due to a suffering or uneasiness of the person that, most likely, has its root cause outside the workplace. Therefore, although I am strongly in favor of a leadership which is highly responsible for the motivation and engagement of collaborators, I also support the vision that there are limits to responsibility and power over people. Particularly, I believe that one cannot help a person who hasn’t asked for help. While a leader should do the utmost to assist an employee who asks for support during a difficult time or through a change process, on the other hand he/she should know that people have a right to be in command of their life and fend with the hardships of their lives by themselves, as much as they can, or want. Even at the cost of risking their job.

My vision of life is that every experience, for as bad as it can be, is an opportunity to learn and improve one’s consciousness. Therefore, sometimes the most helpful action that we can do for a person who is stuck, is to let him/her face the difficult experience and deal with it so that he/she can find the motivation and strength to react and overcome.

Now: when is it that the Leader can safely say that he/she has done all that he/she could to foster the expected change? Here is a proposed checklist, to be improved with the readers’ contribution:

1. First of all, ask yourself: how excellent is my leadership?

•Have I made clear my vision and objectives?

•Have I checked that they are shared and understood?

•Have I made sure that my objectives and those of my people are aligned?

•Is it clear by the mission and objectives of my Company that working here is meaningful?

•Will my people and all of my stakeholders benefit when I reap my own benefits?

•Is the development and growth of my people a clear priority of mine?

•Do I make my people feel important to me?

•Have I made clear that I am willing to help through difficulties?

•Do I make my people feel safe, under my leadership

2. Second, ask yourself: have I provided my people with all the relevant resources in order to perform the change?

•Clear information about the designed change

•Clear reasons behind the change and objectives that are pursued

•Clarity about what is expected from any team/person throughout the change and as a final outcome

•Training for the necessary skills/abilities/competences

•Investments/resources

•Equipment/Knowledge

•Methods/Processes

•Management accountability

If you have answered positively to the all the above questions, it is reasonable to assume that the resistance to change in your team is not your fault. If the person/team is still not performing and resisting change, there is a further duty that you have: to uphold the values of the company, its strategic needs and the priority of business/operations continuity. Whatever the activity of the organization, if it is a good corporate citizen its survival and effective operations are a benefit for the community of its stakeholders. The leadership of the organization, then, has a responsibility to protect it and do what is needed to ensure that things move on. How to achieve this, when confronted with resistance after all the above moves have been acted? In this case I feel that surgery may be necessary: the resisting subject can be taken out. Is this moral? Yes, I think, if it is done:

1For the sake of the survival of a good corporate citizen,

2In the interest of the galaxy of its stakeholders,

3Without any animosity towards the resistant.

Are there conditions? Yes once again: not only the leader must be sure to have positively checked all the above list, but also to be adamant with the resistant team or team member that he/she will do his/her duty to protect the company and is willing to go for a surgical solution if there is no change. Why do I highlight this step? Because experience tells that sometimes, quite often actually, the fact that change is inevitable awakens a survival instinct in the person who is “stuck in the mud” and brings about a willingness to move forward, along with the change. I have to stress and remind that in my experience resistance to change, once performed the listed actions, occurs only due to private reasons of the resistant, thus making things clear is the ultimate help that the leader can offer. Since I have no doubt that my readers are leaders who want change for the best of their people, I am sure that in due time the former resistant will realize that he/she has no reason to fear the change, see the benefit for all and be motivated to be fully part of the new reality.

If nothing works, the resistant must probably be one of those people who really need to live it hard in order to wake up and realize that they need change something in their life. A leader is not a psychotherapist, and his/her responsibilities towards the individual have to balanced against those of the organization, which, by the way, implies the protection of the lives of many other individuals.

In a “perfect world” where everybody is in good faith, for as much as their understanding of a situation is, I have a feeling that the above reasoning can ensure a fair process for a sincere leader to deal with resistance to change and improvement of performance, bringing about the best possible results with a clean conscience.

In a less perfect world, it is improvement of the perfection of the world that should be addressed.

I want to close this article inviting contributions, feedback and other experiences and opinions. The world of human relations is so vast and full of variables that it needs an endless effort to sort its challenges out.