As virtual and hybrid work environments continue to grow, the demand for strong communication skills among employees has never been more critical. Digital communication platforms often strip away the subtle, yet essential, elements of human interaction. According to Dr. Albert Mehrabian’s seminal research at UCLA (1971), only 7% of effective communication is derived from the actual words spoken, while 38% is conveyed through tone of voice, and a striking 55% through body language. This highlights a significant challenge in remote communication: the loss of non-verbal cues that are fundamental to shared understanding.

In the absence of face-to-face interactions, employees must learn to compensate by refining their verbal and written communication. Clear articulation, vocal tone, and precision in language become crucial. Beyond technical proficiency, the ability to actively listen and demonstrate empathy through digital channels is a defining skill in today’s workplace. These elements of communication are no longer optional—they are core competencies necessary for success in collaborative, team-driven environments.

Leadership plays a vital role in fostering a culture where communication thrives. It is not enough to simply encourage open dialogue; leaders must actively cultivate an environment of psychological safety where individuals feel empowered to share their thoughts without fear of repercussion. This trust is foundational to adaptive organizations undergoing structural or cultural transformation. As these changes unfold, communication becomes not just a tool, but a strategic asset.

Here’s a story that serves as a telling example. In this situation, internal IT protocols impeded effective communication, creating a disconnect between service teams and internal clients. While technology may have played a role, the underlying issue was systemic—rooted in rigid procedures for managing service requests. As explored in the Performance Management chapter of our book – Leadership Whack-A-Mole – identifying the true source of a breakdown often points to organizational policies or leadership inaction, rather than individual performance. When communication channels are constrained by outdated protocols or unresponsive leadership, the impact on organizational performance can be substantial.

Get More Tools From the Resource Bank

Senior leadership must ensure that teams are not only trained in communication but are also held accountable for practicing it effectively. Setting clear priorities and fostering open communication are essential to achieving business goals—especially during periods of transformation. Effective communication supports performance improvement, strategy implementation, and innovation across products and services.

Unfortunately, many organizations lack a coherent internal communication strategy. Training programs often emphasize persuasion and influence over skills like productive conflict resolution and constructive debate. Yet, these are the very capabilities that modern teams need to navigate complexity and drive meaningful outcomes.

Just as we continuously strive to improve our products and services, we must also commit to evolving our communication practices. Building a culture of open, effective, and empathetic communication is no longer a luxury—it is a business imperative.

Adapted from Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges. (c) 2024 Ric Shriver and Jeff  Fierstein.

To learn more about organizational communication, click on the banner below to see our book.

We value your thoughts and experience with this topic. Leave them in the Comments field below and let’s start a conversation.

The post Mastering Communication in a Virtual World appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

Open Systems Theory teaches us that a change in one part of a system inevitably impacts other parts—and the system as a whole. Within this framework, the concept of “suboptimization” is critical. Suboptimization occurs when one part of a system seeks to optimize its own performance without considering the broader organizational context. This can result in unintended negative consequences for other parts of the system or the organization as a whole.

To illustrate this point, consider a real-world example from my experience. I worked with a company that had launched a quality improvement initiative. Each department was tasked with developing its own project tailored to departmental goals. These projects were tracked monthly and reported to a central program coordinator, who monitored progress and outcomes.

At one point, senior leadership celebrated a particular department whose cost-saving initiative was selected for presentation at a state-level quality conference. However, while that department was being recognized, a manager from another unit contacted me with concerns. The improvements made by the presenting department, while impressive in isolation, had inadvertently slowed down workflows in other areas. Their drive for cost savings had increased wait times and decreased overall productivity for other departments. In other words, they had optimized their own performance at the expense of the system—classic suboptimization.

This example underscores the necessity of adopting a systems-wide perspective when implementing change. Without it, we risk creating ripple effects that harm overall performance.

Get More Tools From the Resource Bank

In the introduction to our book Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges, we used the analogy of the classic arcade game “Whack-a-Mole” to explain this phenomenon. In the game, every time one mole is hit, another pops up. This metaphor reflects the persistence of organizational problems when tackled in isolation—one issue is resolved, only for another to emerge. This cycle results from a segmented, rather than holistic, approach to problem-solving.

Fortunately, organizations are beginning to adopt strategies that take a more integrated view. Tools and methods such as visioning, purpose alignment, cross-functional teaming, strategic thinking, Lean Six Sigma, Agile methodologies, non-linear organizational structures, experimental work protocols, and decentralized decision-making are showing promise. These approaches help organizations respond more effectively to both internal challenges and external pressures.

The critical question for organizations today is how quickly and effectively they can adapt before reaching a state of entropy or decline. History offers numerous examples—across industries—of companies that failed to see the whole picture. Their segmented approach to change was insufficient, and as a result, many no longer exist.

Sustainable success requires a systems-thinking mindset. Organizations that prioritize integration and alignment across all parts of the system are better positioned to thrive in today’s dynamic environment.

Adapted from: Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges. (c) 2024 Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein.  To learn more about the book, peruse this website or click on the banner below.

We value your thoughts and experience with this topic. Leave a comment below and let’s start a conversation.

The post Why Segmental Solutions Fail: The “Whack-a-Mole” Problem in Business   appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

As a management consultant, I’ve frequently encountered instances of customer dissatisfaction that were not directly tied to a company’s products or services. In many cases, the root cause stemmed from internal performance issues within the organization.

For example, a manufacturing facility received numerous customer complaints due to delayed order deliveries. The dissatisfaction was not about the product itself, but rather the result of an inefficient manufacturing process that could not meet delivery timelines. From the customer’s perspective, the internal challenges are irrelevant—they expect the product to be delivered as promised. If your organization fails to meet these expectations, rest assured that your competitors are ready to fill the gap.

This scenario underscores a critical leadership responsibility: to establish a structured, objective process for identifying and addressing the root causes of customer dissatisfaction. Without such a framework, businesses risk not only losing clients but also damaging their reputation in the market.

In my experience, the most effective way to ensure consistent customer satisfaction is through process management. A business functions as an interconnected system, where various processes must work in harmony to deliver value to customers. To meet customer expectations, all internal processes must be both optimized and aligned.

Get More Tools From the Resource Bank

Each process in the system produces outputs that must meet specific standards—typically in terms of cost, quality, and schedule. These outputs must be measurable to ensure compliance with those standards. Conceptually, a business operates like an assembly line, with each functional unit passing its output to the next stage in a coordinated sequence. Although the example often originates in manufacturing, the same principles apply across service-based and other non-manufacturing industries.

Functional “Assembly Line” as a Process Flow

The Process Management Method

A structured approach to process management includes the following key steps:

1. Identify and quantify customer requirements, focusing on cost, quality, and delivery timelines.
2. Map the processes and functions necessary to fulfill those requirements.
3. Establish a clear process flow that defines how materials or services move internally between functions.
4. Ensure each function’s inputs meet predefined standards for cost, quality, and schedule.
5. Develop internal systems for communication, monitoring, and measurement of each function’s inputs and outputs.
6. Assess the effectiveness of each function’s output as input for the next stage in the process.
7. Identify performance gaps or process variations and implement corrective actions.
8. Continuously repeat and refine the process, particularly when customer requirements evolve.

Each function—or department—within an organization contributes to a larger process flow that ultimately culminates in product or service delivery to the customer. Each function receives inputs, transforms them through its unique capabilities, and produces outputs that serve as inputs for the next function in the chain. This creates a system of internal “suppliers” and “customers,” with each function accountable for meeting the needs of the next.

For example, as illustrated in the figure above, the Design department receives customer specifications (channeled through Sales) as input. In turn, the Design team must ensure its output meets internal requirements—such as cost, quality, and schedule—for the Engineering department to proceed effectively. This cascading sequence continues until the final product or service is delivered to the external customer.

By applying disciplined process management principles, organizations can significantly enhance their ability to meet customer expectations consistently, reduce inefficiencies, and remain competitive in their respective markets.

Adapted from: Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges. (c) 2024 Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein. To learn more abut the book, peruse this website or click on the banner above.

We’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with this topic. Leave a comment below and we’ll respond to you.

The post The Hidden Link Between Customer Satisfaction and Your Internal Processes appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

Overview

Two years ago, I was approached by a nonprofit organization facing significant financial and operational challenges. Among the issues raised were ineffective fundraising, siloed departments, and a toxic workplace culture. A newly appointed CEO sought to reverse these trends by leading a culture transformation initiative. I was engaged as an external consultant to help guide and implement this change.

The chapter in question was part of a national nonprofit network of 50 chapters. At the time, the Chapter ranked last in performance and had been placed on probation by the national office. The CEO believed that transformation was achievable with a strategic and data-driven approach to cultural change.

Objective

The central objective was to shift the organizational culture—fostering collaboration between departments, reducing destructive behaviors, and creating a mission-aligned, high-performing environment. This transformation would be supported by employee engagement, leadership development, and performance metrics, and would unfold over two years.

Strategic Assumptions

Working with the Senior Leadership Team (SLT), we defined key assumptions to guide our change strategy:

• Employee involvement is critical for successful change.
• Strengthening collaboration between Operations and Development departments would enhance overall performance.
• All employees, including leadership, must commit to and model new behaviors.
• Ratings from national headquarters serve as a key performance indicator.
• Continuous learning and feedback are essential.
• Change efforts must align with the organization’s strategic plan and mission.

Methodology

We implemented a structured change management process that included:

1. Defining Clear Goals and Metrics: Organizational and departmental objectives were established and communicated organization-wide.
2. Employee Climate Surveys: Annual surveys measured organizational climate across dimensions such as communication, trust, and engagement.
3. Team Assessments: Using The Five Dysfunctions of a Team framework, teams identified and addressed barriers to collaboration.
4. Behavioral Reinforcement: Operating norms were developed, training was delivered, and recognition programs were introduced.
5. Individual Assessments: All employees completed the DiSC profile to improve communication and self-awareness.
6. Strategic Planning: A strategic plan was created to ensure long-term alignment and sustainability.

Implementation Highlights

• Survey and Feedback Loops: The 57-item Climate Survey provided a baseline and guided annual action planning. Focus groups helped interpret results and shape priorities.
• Behavioral Training: All employees participated in workshops based on The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Team norms were created and reinforced in monthly all-hands meetings.
• Leadership Coaching: The CEO and SLT received weekly coaching, enabling continuous reinforcement of cultural expectations.
• Performance Incentives: A new financial bonus structure was tied to organizational performance metrics.

Get More Tools From the Resource Bank

Results

Organizational Outcomes

Across a four-year span (extending beyond the original two-year plan), employee satisfaction improved markedly, as measured by the Climate Survey. Year-over-year gains were evident in all categories, and organizational performance followed suit:

• Operational efficiency improved by 12% in Year 1.
• Fundraising (Development) increased by 18% in the same period.

Low-rated survey items—related to promotion opportunities and compensation—were addressed through targeted goals and initiatives led by the SLT.

Team-Level Progress

All teams completed a team effectiveness assessment using the Lencioni model. By Year 2, scores improved significantly in all five dysfunction categories (Trust, Conflict, Commitment, Accountability, Results). These assessments informed team-level planning and performance reviews.

Individual Development

DiSC profile assessments enhanced understanding of communication styles. Teams used these profiles to improve collaboration, reduce conflict, and enhance productivity. A composite assessment of the SLT revealed a strong presence of Steadiness (S) and Influence (i) styles, which helped guide communication and leadership strategies.

Cultural Impact

By the end of Year 4, the Chapter had developed a reputation for excellence. The organizational climate was visibly more positive, collaborative, and focused on continuous improvement. The chapter was formally recognized by the national headquarters as a model for turnaround success.

Leadership as the Catalyst

Crucially, the transformation was driven by the vision and commitment of the CEO. Her leadership—marked by clarity, consistency, and personal accountability—was instrumental in aligning the organization around shared values and goals. Without her stewardship, this culture change would not have achieved the scale or speed of success realized.

Conclusion

The Chapter’s cultural transformation underscores the power of structured, participatory change. A focused, data-driven plan—executed with discipline, transparency, and full organizational commitment—enabled this chapter to not only reverse its decline but emerge as a top-performing unit within its national network.

For a free copy of the 9-page case study summary – with detailed Methodology, Actions, Graphs, and Results – type the word “Transformation” in the Comments section below and submit. We’ll email your case study to you.

To learn more about the book Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges, peruse this website or click on the banner below.

The post How We Transformed an Organization’s Culture in 2 Years appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

Toxicity in the workplace—whether exhibited by managers or peers—is often overlooked in organizational discourse. However, both research and real-world experience consistently highlight its significant impact. When left unaddressed, toxic behaviors can lead to heightened stress, reduced productivity, diminished morale, increased burnout, higher turnover, and even disruptions to employees’ personal lives.

Purushothaman and Stromberg (2022) estimate the cost of U.S. workplace toxicity at $50 billion annually.

Surprisingly, toxic individuals are not always reprimanded; in some cases, they are promoted. This paradox often stems from a focus on performance metrics, where strong individual results may overshadow destructive interpersonal behavior. Toxic traits, especially when subtle or concealed, may go unnoticed by upper management. In other cases, such individuals may be politically savvy enough to deflect criticism or avoid accountability. As one anecdote reveals, a persuasive but manipulative leader maintained their position despite multiple complaints—likely because of their effectiveness or the permissiveness of a toxic organizational culture.

Some leadership experts suggest that toxic behaviors may originate from deeper psychological patterns. Narcissism, for instance, can manifest as a constant need for admiration, grandiosity, and a willingness to manipulate others for personal gain. Individuals with such tendencies are often poor collaborators and may be compensating for underlying insecurities. While not a clinical diagnosis, this perspective may help explain certain destructive leadership styles observed in organizations.

In some companies, toxicity is not isolated to individuals but is woven into the fabric of the culture, starting at the top. When CEOs and senior leaders exhibit toxic behaviors, it sets a precedent throughout the organization. Employees look to leadership for cues on acceptable conduct, and when toxic behavior is normalized at the highest levels, it tends to cascade downward. This environment fosters disengagement and attrition—how many professionals have you known who left a role due to a toxic team or corporate culture? I count myself among them.

Transforming a toxic culture requires commitment from the top. Since culture is shaped and reinforced by leadership, meaningful change must begin there. Unfortunately, many executives are either unaware of their role in perpetuating toxicity or lack the skills to effect change. In such cases, external support through coaching or organizational development consulting is often essential.

While a comprehensive guide to cultural transformation is beyond the scope of this article, some promising approaches include individualized coaching for toxic leaders, facilitated discussions between management and staff, team-based norm-setting sessions, and establishing clear behavioral expectations across the organization.

Addressing toxicity is not just a matter of improving morale—it’s essential to the long-term health and success of any organization.

For a detailed discussion of workplace and leader toxicity, see the book Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges. (c) 2024 Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein. Click on the banner below.

We’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with toxic people and workplaces. Leave a Comment below.

The post Toxicity in the Workplace: A $50 Billion Problem appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

Performance issues are a reality in any workplace—and they’re not always the fault of the individual. When problems arise, jumping straight to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) may not be the most effective path. Instead, it’s far more useful to take a step back and conduct a performance analysis.

Performance analysis helps identify the true cause of the issue, and there are several models designed to do just that. By looking at the broader performance system—not just the person—you’re more likely to find sustainable solutions.

Start With the Basics: What’s the Goal?

The first step is to define what successful performance actually looks like. That means establishing clear goals and standards. Let’s say the goal is to produce 100 widgets a day, but someone is consistently producing only 75. The 25-widget gap tells us there’s a problem, but it doesn’t tell us why the problem exists.

Blaming the person is often the default response—but it can be a costly mistake. To fix the issue properly, we need to dig deeper and identify the other possible causes.

What Impacts Performance?

One useful model (from my Performance Planner) breaks performance down into three main areas of influence:

1. The Performer
   Sometimes, an individual may lack the ability to meet expectations, even with training or support. No amount of pressure or discipline will change that. For example, I’m not on the Chicago Bulls—and no amount of effort is going to change that! Similarly, the idea that “you can be anything you want” simply isn’t realistic.
2. The Job
   Sometimes the job itself is the issue. If it’s poorly designed, lacks clear standards, or doesn’t offer proper feedback, even the best employees will struggle. I once saw performance reviews docked because of impossible standards (100% accuracy on every task, every time). The manager couldn’t or wouldn’t adjust the expectations—so the system set people up to fail.
3. The Environment
   The work environment plays a major role too. This includes resources, tools, incentives, and even company culture. If people are punished for doing the right thing—or rewarded for the wrong one—performance will suffer. In one of my roles, the organizational culture clashed so deeply with my values that it became a barrier to doing good work

Why This Matters

Skipping performance analysis and blaming the individual can damage trust and morale. Worse, it can lead to resignations from talented employees who feel unfairly treated.

Taking the time to analyze the whole system—not just the performer—shows leadership, builds credibility, and leads to better outcomes.

Adapted from: Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges. © 2024 Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein. To learn more about the book, peruse this website or click on the banner below.

We value your thoughts on this topic. Leave a comment below.

The post Beyond the Blame: How to Solve the Real Performance Problem appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

Ongoing performance feedback and coaching are among the most effective strategies for reinforcing targeted learning and improving outcomes for both individuals and teams. Yet, a common question arises: How does this emphasis on regular coaching align with the more traditional, annual performance reviews and appraisals embedded in many HR structures?

The answer often lies in compliance. Annual reviews are frequently maintained to satisfy legal and regulatory requirements, serving as a safeguard against potential litigation or costly settlements. However, while these reviews are important from a risk management standpoint, they fall short in supporting real-time development and performance improvement. To close this gap, organizations must evolve their approach by incorporating frequent observation, assessment, coaching, and documentation into everyday management practices.

The Rising Importance of Coaching

Coaching is gaining traction in modern workplaces and is poised to become even more essential in the years ahead. It enables employees and teams to meet their objectives effectively, while also preparing individuals for advancement and long-term career growth. While mentoring often supports development for a specific future role, coaching tends to focus on enhancing immediate job performance, typically involving specific tasks or skills.

In today’s complex work environments—characterized by cross-functional collaboration, rapid change, and the need for strategic agility—leaders at all levels must ensure employees can apply new knowledge and capabilities effectively. This requires not only structured training programs but also deliberate coaching efforts led by managers and organizational leaders.

Moreover, senior executives will need coaching themselves to navigate organizational design, strategic planning, evolving markets, and other leadership competencies. As traditional command-and-control leadership models give way to more dynamic approaches, organizations must equip leaders with the behaviors and skills required to lead in this new era…

Internal vs. External Coaching

Organizations are increasingly reevaluating the balance between external coaches and internal coaching provided by managers and peers. External coaching can be valuable—particularly for executive development and major transitions—but it must be results-oriented and aligned with business goals. Unfortunately, many engagements become overly focused on personal venting, which rarely leads to meaningful, long-term behavioral change.

In practice, coaching should not be viewed as a remedy for “fixing” individuals perceived as problematic. Rather, it is a shared leadership responsibility—especially for managers—to guide and support their team members in developing the competencies needed for current roles and future opportunities.

Leveraging Internal Coaching Capabilities

Many companies are adopting peer and manager-led coaching models, supported by structured training programs. Internal coaches bring a critical advantage: familiarity with the organization’s culture, systems, and strategic direction. Intra-team and cross-functional coaching also facilitate knowledge sharing while reducing reliance on costly external consultants.

That said, no single manager can coach team members in every skill area. Instead, the role of the manager-coach is to facilitate development pathways, especially in preparation for promotions or participation in complex project teams. Peer coaching plays a complementary role, enabling frontline employees to support one another’s growth and reinforce critical competencies.

When equipped with the right tools and training, both leaders and peers can coach effectively. Ultimately, how we coach—whether as executives, managers, or peers—will shape our teams’ capabilities, resilience, and success.

Adapted from: Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges, (c) 2024 Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein. Learn more about the book by perusing this website or clicking on the banner below:

We value your thought and experience with this topic. Please leave your comments in the Comment section below and we’ll respond to you.

The post The New State of Coaching: The Future of Performance Management appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

Leadership is a concept with hundreds of definitions—so it’s no surprise that leadership development programs often lack consistency. Studies frequently attempt to identify the most effective leadership competencies, yet their conclusions rarely align. While some core competencies appear repeatedly, the majority of findings vary significantly, reflecting the diverse and evolving expectations of leaders across industries.

Traditional leadership development methods still dominate many organizations. These programs often rely on static content—reading well-known but outdated books like Good to Great (2001) or In Search of Excellence (1982), followed by group discussions or sporadic interactive activities. While such content may still have value, this approach fails to meet the demands of today’s fast-changing business environment.

Modern markets are evolving at an unprecedented pace. To keep up, leadership development must go beyond traditional models. The most effective approaches are experiential and hands-on—such as job redesign, cross-functional projects, and real-time problem-solving. Yet even these methods often rely on conventional content that lacks the adaptive dimension necessary for long-term success.

The competencies required of leaders today are fundamentally different. Strategic and systems thinking, adaptability, cross-functional collaboration, decentralized decision-making, cultural agility, and change management have become essential. Leaders must also be equipped to understand customer behavior shifts, integrate values into decision-making, and work effectively with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.

Consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses that lacked adaptive leadership capabilities were unable to pivot quickly and ultimately closed their doors. In contrast, companies that shifted operations—like restaurants moving to takeout-only or retailers focusing on e-commerce—survived and, in some cases, thrived. As Charles Darwin noted, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change.”

Leadership development programs must go beyond information delivery. The mode of learning and its application in real work environments are crucial. Research from the Center for Creative Leadership (McCall et al., 1988) confirms that classroom training alone has limited effectiveness. Despite this, the global market for leadership development—valued at $166 billion (Westfall, 2019)—continues to be dominated by these traditional methods.

Real development occurs through structured, on-the-job experiences—such as job rotations, mentoring, cross-functional team projects, and learning from failure. These methods help individuals build the adaptive competencies required for leadership success. Importantly, these experiences must be guided by skilled mentors or higher-level managers, not solely by HR or Learning & Development departments. Passive learning through self-paced courses or workshops simply does not suffice.

A “one size fits all” approach to leadership development is outdated. Each leader’s context—organizational culture, team dynamics, and strategic priorities—is unique. Development programs must be customized to reflect the specific challenges and future needs of the organization.

As organizations prepare leaders for succession and promotion, development plans should be aligned with strategic goals and shifting market realities. Lower-level managers should be groomed for higher-level roles, with increased responsibility in decentralized decision-making, innovation, and cultural transformation. These skills will be vital in building resilient, future-ready organizations.

Longitudinal research at the Center for Creative Leadership underscores the power of real-world experience in leadership development. According to the widely accepted 70-20-10 model (Pedler, 1997), effective leadership growth consists of 70% challenging assignments, 20% developmental relationships, and only 10% formal coursework. This is how successful leaders learn and evolve.

Going forward, leadership development must prioritize adaptability, strategic foresight, and agility. Organizations must identify, hire, and promote individuals who not only demonstrate current competence but also show the potential to grow into tomorrow’s adaptive leaders.

Adapted from: Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges (c) Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein 2024.To learn more about the book, peruse this website or click on the banner below.

We’d love to hear your comments about this topic and your experience with it. Add your comment below and we’ll respond to you.

The post Beyond Tradition: Why Leadership Development Must Evolve appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

In 2023, managers accounted for approximately 32% of all layoffs. This marked a notable increase from just under 20% in 2018, indicating a trend toward flattening organizational structures and reducing management layers.

As senior leadership roles evolve in response to the changing business landscape, the responsibilities of managers must also adapt. Historically, during the Industrial Age, managers were primarily tasked with controlling work output by organizing and directing employee tasks. Henri Fayol’s seminal 1949 work, General and Industrial Management, defined the core functions of management as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling—principles that have largely guided managerial roles throughout the 20th century and, in many cases, still persist today.

However, the future of management demands a fundamental shift. Today’s managers must move beyond traditional models of control and supervision to become facilitators of growth, collaboration, and strategic contribution. In this new paradigm, managers will play a pivotal role in supporting employees as they expand their skill sets, navigate cross-functional teams, and pursue career advancement.

Unfortunately, many current managers are underprepared for this transformation. Their own development has often been overlooked, leaving them without the skills necessary to thrive in a more dynamic, people-centered leadership environment. Just as employees require “reskilling” to remain competitive, so too must managers.

The manager of the future must become an effective coach—one who guides rather than commands. This includes fostering collaboration within project teams, especially those that span across functions. Letting go of the traditional “control” mindset will be a challenge for many, but it is essential. As employee roles shift from purely functional to increasingly strategic, managers must be equipped to support this transition.

A skill-based approach to workforce development is also redefining the hiring process. Instead of focusing solely on formal education or narrowly defined job roles, managers will need to assess a candidate’s potential for growth and ability to contribute to strategic initiatives. This requires new competencies in talent acquisition, selection, and long-term development planning.

Managers will become the strategic bridge between senior leadership and the broader workforce. They must align team efforts with organizational goals, performance expectations, and cultural values. Success in this role will hinge on the development of soft skills—particularly coaching, emotional intelligence, and communication.

Additionally, with the rise of remote and hybrid work environments, managing virtual teams is quickly becoming a core competency. Managers will need to navigate increasingly fluid team structures, where employees participate in multiple project and innovation teams beyond their traditional departments. Performance evaluations will incorporate feedback from a wider array of colleagues, requiring managers to build strong internal networks and gather insights from across the organization.

The new manager will be expected to help employees thrive within these networks, maintain excellence in their core responsibilities, and cultivate the capabilities required for future strategic roles. Collaboration and cross-functional coordination will be central to this effort.

Historically, managers were often viewed as expendable during periods of organizational change or financial strain. The rise of self-managed teams in the 1980s and 1990s even led some to predict the end of management altogether. While a few organizations did reduce these roles, most retained traditional hierarchies.

Today, the importance of management is more pronounced than ever. These leaders are critical to implementing change, maintaining strategic alignment, and ensuring organizational resilience in a complex and rapidly shifting environment.

The message is clear: we must invest in the continuous development of leaders at all levels—particularly those in management roles.

Adapted from: Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges     © 2024 Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein. Peruse this website or click on the banner below to learn more about Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges.

What are your thoughts about eliminating managers? How important do you think their role is as described in this blog? What is your experience in downsizing managers? Leave your comment in the space below and we’ll respond to you.

The post Thinking of Tossing Your Managers? Think Again! appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.

In my publication, “How Organizations Really Change: A Research Model,” I introduced a change model grounded in empirical research findings:

Below is an overview of the key components of the model:

1. Ongoing Communication
   Research indicates that employees are more likely to embrace change when they understand the rationale behind it. In the organizations studied, senior leadership ensured transparent and continuous communication about the company’s market position. As environmental conditions worsened, employees were informed of the challenges and, in response, became more supportive of change initiatives rather than resistant to them.
2. Leadership Vision and Core Ideology
   A clearly articulated vision from top leadership provided direction, motivation, and a sense of purpose. This vision served multiple functions: it presented a compelling future, guided organizational direction, energized employees, and demonstrated that change was a strategic step—rather than a reactive or haphazard decision. A strong core ideology, comprised of enduring values and purpose, offered a stable foundation to support innovation and progress.
3. Strategic Contingency Planning
   High-performing organizations maintained a forward-looking perspective by continually scanning the external environment and evaluating the feasibility of their goals. These organizations adapted their strategies and reallocated resources in anticipation of unforeseen developments, enabling them to remain resilient in the face of change.
4. Stakeholder Input
   Effective change efforts often incorporated input from a broad range of stakeholders. This feedback was instrumental in shaping strategic direction and organizational objectives during the environmental scanning process.
5. Results-Driven Goals
   Change efforts were centered around clearly defined strategic outcomes. Rather than adopting change initiatives based on trends or external pressures, organizations selected changes that were aligned with targeted business results. Change agents were held accountable for delivering these results—not merely for implementing a program. These objectives, while ambitious, were essential in guiding innovation and organizational transformation.
6. Vision and Results as Catalysts for Change
   Successful change initiatives were rooted in a clearly communicated vision and desired outcomes. Rather than prescribing specific methods, senior leadership articulated expected results and allowed organizational units the autonomy to experiment with different approaches. This decentralized model avoided imposing top-down programs and instead encouraged practical, localized solutions aligned with the overarching vision.
7. Innovation through Experimentation
   Front-line units employed cross-functional collaboration to pursue innovative approaches tailored to their contexts. Senior leadership communicated desired outcomes and then delegated responsibility for developing solutions to specific teams. Innovation was not mandated across the entire organization; instead, it was piloted locally, enabling focused experimentation and rapid adaptation.
8. Cross-Functional Design
   Many successful organizations adopted cross-functional structures—initially matrix-based and more recently team- or project-based. These designs promoted collaboration and innovation across organizational boundaries.
9. Operational Problem Solving
   Some organizations achieved meaningful change by assembling temporary, cross-functional teams to address urgent operational challenges. These ad hoc solutions, once validated, were often replicated in other parts of the organization to drive broader transformation.
10. Coalition Building
    Change efforts frequently encountered resistance. To overcome opposition, change agents built strategic coalitions within the organization. These alliances were critical for securing necessary resources and influence to advance change. Cross-functional structures further enabled effective coalition building.
11. Surfacing Solutions
    Leaders with strong political and networking skills played a vital role in successfully launching new ideas. Timing was essential—innovators built support gradually, eventually gaining executive sponsorship. The likelihood of a solution being adopted increased during periods of environmental disruption, when leadership was more receptive to new approaches.
12. Decentralized Replication
    Once a pilot initiative demonstrated success, other units were encouraged to replicate and adapt the model to their specific contexts. This replication was not a rigid process but a dynamic one—teams reinterpreted and improved the original solution to suit their unique needs, resulting in continual innovation and refinement.
13. System and Structure Alignment
    Organizations that sustained successful change eventually aligned their systems and structures to support the new direction. Contrary to traditional theories advocating for early structural change, research showed that delaying these adjustments allowed for greater flexibility during the change process. Key systems that required realignment included information systems, reward mechanisms, and performance management structures—ensuring they reinforced the desired behaviors and communication patterns.

Adapted from: Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges (c) 2024 Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein. To learn more about the book, peruse our website at www.leadershipwhackamole.com or click on the banner below.

For a free copy of the entire article, type “Change Model” in the Comment field below and submit with your name and email address.  Your copy will be emailed to you.

The post How Organizations Really Change appeared first on Leadership Whack-A-Mole.