A Quick Recipe for Lasting Change

Why Change Initiatives Fail the People Who Have to Implement Them

Most change initiatives don't fail because the plan was wrong. They fail because the plan was designed by the wrong people. Not wrong in terms of competence. Wrong in terms of position. The planners didn’t include the ‘Right People’…

They forgot and important fact of life: The people who design and approve changes are almost never the people who have to live with it. And that gap — between the people who drew the map and the people walking the terrain — is where most well-intentioned initiatives quietly collapse.

We've watched this happen enough times to recognize the pattern before it becomes a crisis. It usually looks like this: leadership identifies a problem, assembles a team, builds a plan, and rolls it out. The plan is logical. The objectives are clear. The timeline is reasonable. And then something strange happens — the people it was designed for start working around it instead of through it. Workarounds multiply. Momentum stalls. Six months later, everyone agrees the initiative didn't take, and the post-mortem blames culture, or resistance to change, or the wrong hire.

It was none of those things. It was architecture.

The Plan Worked for the People Who Designed It

Here's what actually happened: the plan was optimized for the outcome, not for the humans in the middle.

When you design a change initiative from the top down, you're solving for the end state. You know what success looks like, you build a path to get there, and you hand it to the people responsible for execution. What you don't always account for is what that path actually requires of the people walking it — the cognitive load, the workflow disruption, the moments where the new process conflicts with the old one in ways that weren't visible from the design room.

The people implementing the change aren't obstacles. They're load-bearing parts of the architecture. When the design doesn't account for them, the structure fails — not because they pushed back, but because the weight was distributed wrong from the start.

This is the same principle that breaks technical programs, product launches, and organizational restructures. It's not a change management problem. It's a requirements problem. You built something without fully understanding what it needed to do for the people using it.

What It Looks Like When It's Fixed

The difference between change that sticks and change that doesn't is usually visible before rollout — if you know where to look.

Teams that get this right do one thing differently: they treat the people implementing the change as primary sources of requirements, not secondary stakeholders to communicate with. Before the plan is finalized, they're asking the people closest to the work: where will this break? What are we not seeing? What does this require of you that we haven't accounted for?

Those conversations are uncomfortable. They surface problems before the plan is locked, which means rework before launch rather than failure after it. Most organizations avoid that discomfort and pay for it later — in stalled rollouts, in workarounds that become permanent, in the slow erosion of trust that happens when people feel like change is something that happens to them rather than with them.

The goal isn't a perfect plan. The goal is a plan that works for the people who have to execute it. Those are different things, and confusing them is where most initiatives go wrong.

The Practical Version

Before you finalize any change initiative, run it through three questions with the people who will actually have to implement it (not the people who designed it):

• Where does this break for you? Not hypothetically. Specifically. What part of your actual day does this collide with in a way we haven't accounted for?

• What does this assume about how you work that isn't true? Every plan has embedded assumptions. Most of them are invisible until someone who lives the work points them out.

• What would make this easier to execute without changing the outcome? This is the question that produces the most useful design changes — because the people closest to the work almost always know a better path that the designers missed.

These aren't feel-good questions. They're load-bearing requirements. The answers change the architecture before it fails in the field — which is the only time it's cheap to change it.

Most change initiatives aren't killed by resistance. They're killed by designs that never accounted for the people they depended on. That's not a people problem. It's a process problem. And process problems have solutions — if you're willing to find them before you need them.

At Leitwolf, we help organizations build the right structure before problems compound — or diagnose what went wrong after they already have. If your initiative is stalling or you want to make sure it doesn't, we offer a free 30-minute assessment.

You Get What You Incentivize (For Better or Worse)

In the complex landscape of business today, it is widely acknowledged that goals/incentives play a pivotal role in driving behavior and achieving desired outcomes. Organizational leaders and managers are constantly seeking ways to align the interests of their employees with organizational goals, hoping to create a motivated workforce that consistently delivers exceptional results. However, to truly understand how 'we get what we incentivize' requires us to develop an awareness of the intricacies at play, as well as common pitfalls to avoid. In this post, we will explore the relationship between goals/incentives and larger organizational behavior while discussing some key pitfalls to keep in mind.

There is Power in Setting Goals/Providing Incentives

Goals and Incentives, in their various forms, have the ability to shape behavior at both the individual and collective higher levels within an organization. By setting expectations of how we want our employees to act and providing rewards, our organization can foster a culture of motivation, productivity, and achievement. We (as leaders) develop goals that align with the organization's objectives, communicate them to our employees, along with some form of positive reinforcement. Whether it's financial bonuses, recognition, career advancements, or other tangible benefits, these incentives should inspire employees to go the extra mile and consistently exceed expectations. (At least in theory…)

Align Employee Goals with Organizational Objectives

To build on what we just said, effective and efficient incentive programs are designed with a clear understanding of the organization's strategic objectives. The strategic objectives are flowed out and used to form the basis of goals down at the manager/employee level. We (as managers/leaders) are responsible for connecting the organizational objectives with our team members’ goals. When incentives are aligned with/tied to these goals, employees are much more likely to direct their efforts towards the areas that drive success for that team. For example, a sales team might be incentivized based on revenue generation, while a customer service team could be rewarded for customer satisfaction metrics. By aligning incentives with specific and measurable performance indicators, organizations can channel their employees' efforts towards desired outcomes. (That’s how it should work, anyways…)

Beware the Unintended Consequences

While goals/incentives are a powerful tool, they can (and often are, sadly) misused. By not anchoring individual goals to specific and measurable metrics, we risk evaluating employees against moving goalposts or subjective feelings. The net effect is demoralizing our employees and destroying their trust/faith in us and the organization. Even when not deliberately misused, poorly thought-out goals/incentives can produce unintended consequences that we must be aware of and guard against. One such unintended pitfall would be the potential for incentivizing short-term gains at the expense of long-term sustainability. For instance, if sales representatives are solely rewarded based on the number of deals closed, they may prioritize closing deals quickly rather than focusing on building lasting customer relationships. Another potential pitfall we need to be on the lookout for is "gaming" of goals/incentives. Even when goals/incentives are tied to specific metrics, people may find ways to manipulate the system to achieve the desired outcomes without genuinely contributing to the organization's overall success. This can lead to unethical behavior or actions that undermine the organization's values and long-term growth. (There are a lot more, unfortunately!)

The Importance of Measurement and Evaluation

To ensure that we are driving the right behaviors with goals/incentives, we must establish robust measurement and evaluation mechanisms within our organization. Regularly assessing the impact of incentives helps identify any unintended consequences and allows for course correction if needed. By gathering feedback from employees and closely monitoring the outcomes of incentivized behavior, organizations can make informed decisions and fine-tune their incentive programs to achieve optimal results. To put it plainly, we need to look at the results and compare them to what we thought we were incentivizing to see if they match. If they do not, we need to adjust the goals/incentives we are using.

How We Create a Balanced Goal/Incentive System

Designing an effective goal/incentive system requires striking a delicate balance. It involves careful consideration of various factors such as organizational values, employee engagement, fairness, and sustainability. An inclusive approach that involves input from employees at different levels can help ensure that the goal/incentive system is perceived as equitable and motivational by our teams. Additionally, it is important to regularly review and update incentive programs to adapt to evolving organizational needs and external market conditions. This flexibility enables organizations to stay agile and responsive, ensuring that incentives continue to align with strategic objectives.

Wrapping It Up

We get what we incentivize! Our organizations can be helped or hurt by how good of a job we (as leaders) do, because goals/incentives shape employee behavior and drive outcomes. However, we must be cognizant of the potential pitfalls that come along with setting goals/incentives. Balancing short-term gains with long-term sustainability, mitigating unintended consequences, and establishing effective measurement and evaluation processes are essential for creating a successful system. By navigating these challenges and building goals/incentives that align with our organizational goals while fostering employee motivation and engagement, we can set our organizations up for sustainable growth and success in today's challenging and evolving landscape.

Make Your #1 Goal to Create a Balanced Goal/Incentive System! Good Luck!

Firefighters are Great... (Just Not at the Office!)

What are We Talking About?

In a professional/technical setting, 'Firefighting' is the term used to describe the constant process of reacting to urgent problems as they arise, rather than taking a proactive approach to problem-solving. It is why some people (and organizations) are constantly dealing with urgent or unexpected problems as they pop up, rather than working out ways to prevent those problems from occurring in the first place. This mode of operation is characterized by a constant state of crisis management, with employees feeling like they are constantly putting out fires. In this mode, employees are typically focused on fixing problems as quickly as possible, rather than taking the time to address the root cause of the issue. It leads to a cycle of repeated problems, unintended consequences, and a lack of progress in addressing the underlying issues causing the crises.

Pitfalls of Chronic Reactive Thinking

While firefighting can sometimes be necessary in a professional setting, falling into a constant firefighting mode is loaded with pitfalls. Prolonged periods of working in this mode are stressful and exhausting for employees, as they are always reacting to urgent issues instead of being able to plan and execute their work in a more structured and intentional manner. Constantly dealing with urgent problems can lead to burnout (read this as: retention issues) and an overall lack of motivation, which can impact productivity and job satisfaction. Additionally, firefighting drives the lack of progress on larger, more strategic projects, since employees are focused on fixing urgent problems rather than pursuing long-term goals.

Another pitfall of firefighting is the expense of living in a reactive state. Constantly reacting to urgent problems requires significantly more resources than strategically planning and executing a solution. The costs (which include time, money, and staff) seriously affect an organization's bottom line and the quality of products/services delivered to the customer. Additionally, prolonged firefighting leads to a loss of reputation or credibility. Problems are never addressed effectively, which in turn leads to rushed and piece-meal solutions being pushed out before they are fully ready. Expensive, bug-ridden products or mediocre, poorly executed services have a huge impact on an organization's ability to attract and retain customers, partners, and employees.

The Best Way to Break the Cycle? Avoid it to Begin With!

To avoid long-term firefighting at work, it is important to prioritize proactive problem-solving and risk management. This involves identifying potential problems before they arise, developing long-term strategies & contingency plans, and allocating resources to address issues before they become urgent crises. Stuff happens in every business; unforeseeable events, unpredictable shifts, and even bad luck occur every day. Firefighting is okay in those situations. But it shouldn't become the way daily business is handled. By taking a more proactive approach to problem-solving, organizations can reduce stress and create a more stable and productive work environment. 

So, what can organizations do to avoid falling into a constant firefighting mode? Here are five potential strategies:

1. Proactive Problem-Solving: Rather than waiting for problems to arise, organizations can take a proactive approach to problem-solving. This can involve identifying potential problems ahead of time and developing plans to address them, as well as investing in risk management and contingency planning.

2. Prioritize Strategic Projects: To avoid getting sidetracked by urgent problems, organizations can prioritize strategic projects and allocate resources accordingly. This can help ensure that long-term goals and objectives are not overlooked in the face of short-term crises.

3. Invest in Training and Development: To help employees effectively address problems as they arise, organizations can invest in training and development. This can include providing employees with the skills and tools they need to address problems effectively, as well as promoting a culture of continuous improvement and learning.

4. Review and Reflect: Organizations can review their processes and reflect on their performance to identify areas for improvement. By analyzing past performance and identifying opportunities for growth, organizations can take proactive steps to avoid falling into a constant firefighting mode in the future.

5. Seek Outside Perspectives: If problems or issues are persistent, in spite of the actions taken to reduce or eliminate them, it’s time to bring in new voices. Competent people from outside the organization will quickly identify the issues without personal investment or ego, so that corrective actions can be taken.

Conclusion

Firefighting is required on some occasions but should be closely monitored. It is too easy for the rare ‘emergency’ situation to evolve into the way an organization does business. As explained above, constant firefighting mode presents severe and damaging challenges for organizations. By taking a proactive approach to problem-solving, prioritizing strategic projects, investing in training and development, and reviewing and reflecting on their performance, organizations can avoid the pitfalls of firefighting and position themselves for long-term success.

So, the next time firefighting creeps up, pull out a lesson from the Star Trek handbook. No, not the Scotty Principle. Instead, try the ‘Doctored <pun intended> McCoy’ Principle. It's where you say: "Darn it, Jim! I'm a <insert your job here>, not a firefighter!" Then you pull your team together, work out a strategy to get things back on track, and work together to execute that plan.

Your team, your organization, and your customers will be glad you did!

Thanks for reading! Please let me know what you think. I respond to all comments personally.

Also - please consider signing up for the Leitwolf newsletter!