One of the most surprising characteristics still found in organizations today is the “them and us” culture. It seems to pervade the thinking of management teams no matter what country they’re in.

It’s the idea that they at the top know so much more about what we at the bottom ought to be doing. And the truth is that those at the top have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, what happens at the bottom.

That this is the case is apparent to the millions of people who have watched the various television programmes where directors and other senior people go undercover for a week.

What’s so revealing about those shows is that those at the bottom often have a much better understanding of what changes are needed at the top; and one of the things that makes those programmes so interesting is when those at the top realise that those at the bottom know more than they do.

It proves what so many academics and management consultants have been saying for decades: That collaboration between both camps is necessary for change to occur that will satisfy, rather than pacify, the needs of everyone.

It is widely believed, and has been for many years, that employees are the main obstacles to change in organisations.

Predictably, however, the methods used to effect change cause this to occur. Mass emails, for example, that are intended to look personal are seen as disingenuous communications that are designed to be efficient, rather than effective. Corporate policy statements about what will happen and the responsibility that everyone has to embrace them feel like mandates, and the only thing that the multitude of Power Point presentations do is to inflict on their audiences a slow and painful death, figuratively at least. None of these things will encourage positive organisational change . . . ever. In fact, you can practically guarantee that they will only make matters worse.

Strong leadership has been cited as one of the key components to bring about effective change, but what hasn’t been considered is where the leadership really lies. If the organization chart is to be believed, then those who are the heads of divisions and departments are the true leaders; however, is rarely the case. Those who actually lead – the ones who people willingly follow – are found in the informal groups of the organization.

Why are informal leaders followed?

Because they are one of them, and not one of us. They think like those in their groups, they share the same interests and concerns and, to a certain extent, they are all fighting against the same enemy – you.

Apart from being ostracised for failing to conform to the group – which itself can be a huge motivator for doing so, informal group leaders are less threatening to employees than those in the organizational chart. That’s because they don’t carry the authority that formal “leaders” have. In other words, they can’t mete out punishment; and so their relationship to those in their group can be more open. People can say what they think without fear of reprisal, from the company anyway.

Senior managers – those who want to implement change – recognise the influence that informal leaders have on those who seek their guidance and advice. And so their thinking is that if senior managers can identify the informal group leaders and get them involved early in the change planning and design, then those people will sell the benefits of change to those in their groups.

A cynic, however, would say that the formal leaders were getting the informal leaders to do their dirty work for them.

The best managers are always on the alert for how to keep their costs under control – to keep them as low as possible; and so rather than involve all of the informal leaders, they’re more likely to reach out to those who collectively have the greatest influence. This is cheaper than getting all of them involved.

It’s also a huge mistake.

Instead of being inclusive, it sends a very clear message to those who have less influence that they aren’t important to the success of the organization. And the truth is that if they weren’t, then they wouldn’t be working for you at all. The fact that they are on the payroll proves that they are; and that means that you have to include their informal leaders as well.

But there’s another problem.

When you include those who support what you want to do and fail to include those who don’t then it gives the impression that you can’t be trusted; that you’re manipulating people for your own ends.

That alone will kill your programme.

You must recognise from the outset that the goal really isn’t about getting enough influence to implement the changes that you want to make. Instead it’s about getting the best possible result; and that result is more than meeting the objectives of the change programme.

It’s about what happens afterwards. That’s the key. In fact, that’s really what senior managers are focusing on. They see what the changes will enable them to do. The problem is that they just don’t communicate this very well.

The message that employees get is that change will be good for those at the top, but at their expense.

Can you blame them for resisting you?

For more information contact us here.