Latest news with #changefatigue
The National
2 days ago
- Business
- The National
You can't force workplace change – but you can inspire it
Change fatigue is the defining challenge of the post-pandemic workplace. Employees have faced a non-stop carousel of directives: 'Work from home. Return to the office. Go hybrid. No, back to five days. Use Zoom – no, Teams.' In response, many companies are defaulting to the old playbook – not because it works, but because it's familiar. Employees around the world are exhausted by constant shifts – and they're showing signs of resistance. According to Gartner, the average employee went through 10 major workplace changes in 2022 – up from just two in 2016. No wonder burnout and disengagement are rising. Between 'Quiet Quitting' and 'Bare Minimum Mondays', a deep sense of disengagement has taken hold – just as organisations need agility most. And it's not just policies or preferences that are shifting – it's the tools of work itself. AI is no longer emerging; it's embedded. From intelligent recruiters and automated onboarding to generative design and real-time feedback systems, AI is rapidly transforming what jobs look like and how people perform them. It's not an add-on. It's foundational. That's because workplace transformation, whether welcomed or not, can no longer be avoided. AI recruiters, decentralised working environments and virtual offices are just a few examples. Think XR training, gamified workdays or even AI-driven wellness. These aren't experiments – they're now the new normal as we know it. These are just a few of the trends that the future foresight team I lead identified in the recently published Emerging Trends Report in Talent Management (2024 to 2040), which was compiled following extensive research by the Department of Government Enablement – Abu Dhabi. To make change stick, organisations need more than memos – they need emotional buy-in. That means showing, not just telling. Be candid about challenges. Share real feedback. Show employees how their work connects to what matters, why it's imperative for survival or why it benefits both them and the company. I'd argue that work should trigger an emotional response. It should feel relevant and real. It's not about more dashboards and KPIs. It's about having purpose and meaning. Take Lego, for example. After competitors such as Tamagotchi, PlayStation and Game Boy dominated the market in the 1990s, the toymaker faced near-bankruptcy. Reducing costs and improving margins were initial priorities for their chief executive. But they were only one part of the turnaround story. It rebuilt its reputation brick by brick by rolling out the now-famed 'Ideas' platform, which crowdsourced design suggestions from fans. Its creative teams – reeling from layoffs – were handed real customer ideas and challenged to bring them to life, not just to innovate, but to help save the company. Within a decade, Lego went from near collapse to being named the world's most powerful brand. By 'showing' employees what customers wanted, Lego provided a tangible example of how change could benefit its entire operation. This was complemented with logical reasoning and open invitations for staff to provide feedback and input, successfully instilling a more inclusive mindset instead of a 'do as we say' approach. Another example can be found in Timpson, a family-run retail chain in the UK. In the late 1990s, chairman John Timpson sought to fend off an aggressive takeover plot by, and in his own words, doubling down on what made them unique: their people. The shoe repair and key-cutting store adopted an 'upside-down management' style. Timpson flipped its organisational chart, putting frontline workers at the top – with management serving to support them, not command them. They don't tell staff what to do, he said, they empower them to make decisions and support their journey. At the summit sit the thousands of customer-facing employees, who are given full autonomy of running each retail outlet with only two rules: they must present themselves and the shop properly and they must 'get money in the till'. They can set their own prices and opening hours, try new services and products, and they can resolve problems as they see fit. Why does it matter? During a spot visit at one store in 2003, Mr Timpson and his son James found one staff member doing something he thought he shouldn't be. When the pair asked what he was doing behind the till, the staff member, slightly embarrassed, apologised and admitted he was fixing the watch of a paying customer. However, instead of challenging him, giving him a warning or worse, they agreed it aligned with their only two rules and sent the employee on a watch repair course. Rather than punishing him, they trained him. That one action eventually became Timpson's most profitable service offering in its stores. Companies must nurture a culture of lifelong learning, equipping employees with the skills and tools to adapt or break out of a stagnant routine Employees will respond to change differently – some resist, some embrace it, but most wait and see. The key is to win over the persuadables. Positive communicators are powerful, and they can influence their colleagues in much more effective ways than a team leader or boss. Build trust by involving employees early. Share the challenge, ask for input and act on it. Spell out the problem the company is facing – costs, staffing resources, communication inefficiencies, newer and cheaper technologies, face time with clients – and invite employees to address the issues and provide solutions themselves. This isn't a token gesture – it's a shift rooted in shared ownership. And when those solutions are identified and agreed upon, we should all expect adoption and implementation to take time – expecting instant results is unrealistic. At Lego and Timpson, progress came year by year through trust and trial. Take change step by step. That's how confidence grows – not from pressure, but from progress. Along the way, companies must nurture a culture of lifelong learning, pushing employees to venture beyond their comfort zones and equipping them with the skills and tools to adapt or break out of a stagnant routine. Most importantly, they help them to prepare for what's next. Because the next wave of transformation is already here: AI is reshaping how we operate, collaborate and deliver value. When used thoughtfully, these technologies don't need to pose a threat – they don't replace people, they amplify their potential. I'll leave you with a closing thought: the question isn't if change happens. It's how we lead through it. Lead with trust. Lead with purpose. Connect through meaning. That's how real change takes root.
Harvard Business Review
07-05-2025
- Business
- Harvard Business Review
When You're Asked to Meet Impossible Goals
John, the CRO of a private equity-backed tech company, faced mounting pressure to meet sky-high sales targets tied to an acquisition. He knew the goals he was given were unachievable. Saying yes risked burnout and failure; saying no risked his credibility. It wasn't just the sales targets. His company was undergoing multiple changes at once: shifting to a SaaS model, rolling out a new CRM, restructuring teams, and enforcing a return-to-office mandate. John's dilemma is now common. Change is no longer an occasional disruption but a constant. Employees are now experiencing five times more planned change initiatives than they did just a decade ago. Add unrealistic goals, and the result is predictable: disengagement, burnout, and a sharp decline in execution—in short, widespread change fatigue. As executive coaches, we've consistently seen that leaders who take on impossible goals don't do it because they lack judgment—they do it because pushing back feels risky to them. Pressure from the top, a culture of 'yes,' and intense market competition make committing the only safe choice. Many leaders also fall into the well-known traps of optimism bias, perfectionism, or a need to prove their worth, all of which skew their decision-making ability. The real leadership skill is not figuring out how to do it all; it's knowing when and how to push back. That's where strategic refusal comes in. Strategic refusal is a structured method to force prioritization and push back on unrealistic demands that jeopardize team productivity, morale, or well-being. The idea isn't to avoid responsibility, but rather to protect the team, maintain long-term performance, and ensure sustainable outcomes—all while safeguarding your reputation. Strategic refusal has two main components: a matrix to help you determine when to act and a framework to guide you on how to act. The Strategic Refusal Matrix Prioritizing work under competing demands can be difficult, especially when pushing back feels risky. The strategic refusal matrix provides a structured way to assess whether to commit to, renegotiate, deprioritize, or decline a request based on both strategic importance (i.e., how critical is this initiative to long-term business success?) and execution feasibility (i.e., do we have the capacity, resources, and timeline to execute effectively?). Low Strategic Importance + Low Feasibility → Decline & Justify: 'This initiative is unlikely to drive meaningful results, and we don't have the capacity to execute it effectively. Let's focus our resources on higher-priority efforts.' High Strategic Importance + Low Feasibility → Renegotiate: 'This initiative is critical, but we don't currently have the resources to execute it well. Can we adjust the timeline or allocate additional support?' Low Strategic Importance + High Feasibility → Deprioritize: 'While we could execute this, it would divert focus from higher-value work. Let's pause this initiative and revisit it later.' High Strategic Importance + High Feasibility → Commit & Focus: 'This is both critical and feasible. Let's allocate the right resources and move forward.' The Strategic Refusal Framework Once the strategic refusal matrix has helped you determine that a request should be declined, renegotiated, or deprioritized, the next step is execution. This is where we've seen leaders get stuck because they don't want to be perceived as difficult, uncommitted, or defiant. The four steps below provide a tactical approach and long-term plan for pushing back in a way that's constructive and strategic, protecting your team from change fatigue and yourself from reputational damage. 1. Reframe saying no. Because a message's framing significantly influences how it's received, reframing how you present your refusal will shape whether it's seen as an obstacle or a demonstration of strong judgment. Framing refusal as a leadership decision focused on impact shifts the conversation toward having to make a choice. Reframe refusal as prioritization. Simply saying 'This initiative will overwhelm our team and lead to missed deadlines' can be interpreted as negativity. Connect your decision to the company's strategic priorities. For example: 'We can take this on, but only if we pause X.' 'I want us to succeed—let's focus on X and Y and do them well.' Reframe the conversation from tasks to impact. Rather than discussing what can't be done, frame the conversation around what's most valuable to achieve. For example: 'If we take on this new initiative, we won't be able to execute some of our critical projects on time. To ensure we deliver on the new initiative, we would need to deprioritize X or Y. What's more important from your perspective?' Key Insight: Loss aversion means people prefer avoiding losses over gaining rewards. Therefore, reframing a refusal as avoiding negative business consequences (like missed objectives, resource dilution, and execution failure) is often more persuasive than focusing on personal capacity limits. 2. Show the cost of saying yes. Senior leaders often make decisions without fully grasping operational constraints, resources, and risks, and can fall into planning bias, causing them to assume best-case scenarios and underestimate challenges. Prioritization is easier when the cost of saying yes is visible to them. Expose leadership to operational realities. Bringing senior leaders into execution discussions forces them to confront the reality of feasibility. You could suggest: 'Let's have leadership sit down with the teams who would execute this to get a clear sense of timeline, risks, and capacity.' 'Before we approve this, let's hear from the teams executing it to confirm feasibility.' Expose the trade-offs. Help executives weigh consequences by framing decisions around priorities. Guide them to make informed choices by laying out the consequences and what will be delayed, deprioritized, or compromised. This reframes your refusal as responsible leadership. You can say: 'We can hit that number, but we'll need to cut back on product development—are we okay with that?' 'Are we willing to accept these execution risks to achieve this new goal?' Present feasible alternatives. Offering what's possible instead of rejecting what's not keeps you in solution mode, reinforcing your credibility while making you appear less resistant. For example, you might say: 'Given our core priorities, I know my team won't be able to launch the new business line in six months. But we could complete the necessary research and draft a product design to set us up for launch in the new year.' 'Instead of a 40% increase now, what if we commit to 25% but make it sustainable?' Key Insight: Planning bias is a product of System 1 thinking, which is fast, confident, and overly optimistic. Slowing decisions down surfaces trade-offs and sharpens strategic focus. 3. Build a culture of strategic refusal. Prioritization should be a built-in process, not an individual struggle. The most effective organizations don't leave tough decisions to individuals alone; they build a decision-making process that embeds discernment—normalizing questioning goals and evaluating change initiatives before committing—into their culture. By systematizing the process, you ensure that decisions are made deliberately and strategically and are backed by solid data and rationale. Implement red team reviews. Before approving any major initiative, convene a cross-functional team to stress-test its feasibility and evaluate its potential impact. One CEO we worked with adopted this approach and ultimately narrowed their annual priorities from eight to three, driving significantly better execution. This prevented leaders from overcommitting and helped the company focus on high-impact initiatives. Conduct pre-mortems. Before committing to an initiative, conduct a session to predict potential failure points. Ask: 'If this initiative fails in six months, why did it fail?' This forces teams to surface risks and capacity constraints up front, which helps them create more realistic plans. Establish kill criteria. For every major initiative, establish predefined signals that would trigger a pause or stop. This allows you to manage expectations up front and reduce sunk-cost bias if conditions change. Key Insight: Decision fatigue leads to poor prioritization. Systematizing refusal reduces mental overload and ensures consistent execution quality. 4. Model strategic refusal. The strongest leaders aren't the ones who take on the most; they're the ones who prioritize the best. The most effective CEOs and executives we've worked with actively want their teams to speak up when goals are unrealistic instead of ultimately underdelivering. As one CEO put it, 'I'm always going to have more ideas, but I need my leaders to tell me what's possible, what's not, and why.' Blind agreement followed by missed delivery is the worst outcome. Frame pushback in business terms. Frame your refusal around impact, risk, or trade-offs. Do not position your refusal as a personal bandwith issue. Executives tend to respond best when the conversation is focused on outcomes, customer experience, or business risks. For example, you could say: 'If we focus on solving these three core problems, we'll make the biggest impact for customers and the bottom line. If we spread ourselves too thin, we risk underdelivering across the board.' Support your case with data, not emotions. A leader in a healthcare organization we worked with created a formal resource-planning process to quantify what each new initiative would require. This transparency transformed prioritization discussions, shifting them from subjective debates to fact-based decisions. The result? Normalizing prioritization in public and therefore setting the tone for their organization. Key Insight: Leaders with a strong decision-making process gain credibility, whereas those who agree blindly erode trust when they underdeliver. . . . Saying yes to everything doesn't strengthen your leadership—it overloads it. Being able to say no when needed is what separates strong leaders from struggling ones. Leaders who push back strategically aren't seen as difficult but as credible decision-makers, trusted advisors, and the ones who drive sustainable results. They don't just work hard; they prioritize relentlessly.
