In one my past engagements, where we had agreed to implement a whole bunch of changes, the CEO asked me, “how do we do that?”, “how do we implement this new way of thinking?” After explaining all the concepts of change leadership, operational alignment and organization alignment, I felt they were still not all on the same page. So, I added: “you have ALL to walk the talk”, I said.

As smart as I thought I was, the answer clearly remained unfulfilling, I could see.

What does “walking the talk” mean?

We intuitively know that you can’t say one thing, point everybody in one direction, and then walk in a different path. We all understand it means preaching by example.

But to preach something, by example or not, you need to have something to preach about. More precisely, you need to be complete, coherent and abundantly clear about your preaching. There should not be much room for interpretation. There should not be ambiguity. There should not dissonance in what is being preached.

In leadership terms, what is it that leadership teams are preaching about? To make change happen, leadership teams need to paint a picture about the company (its culture), paint a picture of the future (the envisioned future), explain the main strategies to get there, clarify how the company will organize to execute the strategies and deliver on the vision, explain the responsibilities each will add up to the execution of the plan and how this all relates.

In this context, all executives and managers need to be using the same exact language when describing all of the above, they need to act in the exact same way, in a way that is highly coherent with the above, make decisions that support all of the above.

To enable all this, to be able to walk the talk, the “talk” needs to be written down, literally. Just like a theater play is written down for all comedians to understand the whole plot.

I was reading a post at LeadershipNow entitled Getting the Information You Need. It referred to an article written by Mark Ronald and Robert Shaw from the Leader to Leader institute entitled Developing Peripheral Vision.

They warn to watch for signs of resistance to change:

Silence: In leadership teams, members who don’t support the trend of a decision often simply disengage from the dialogue and remain silent rather than pose a contrary point of view—particularly if the leader appears to support the decision or the group is moving quickly to closure. Who has checked out?
Non-answers: People can opt out by appearing to agree with the leader when, in fact, they do not. “If you think it’s the right decision, that’s good enough for me.”
Omissions: It is often what is not said that is most critical—particularly on issues that the leader believes will be problematic.
Specific language: People surface their true feelings in hundreds of subtle ways. Leaders need to pay attention to the specific use of words that are flags suggesting that more discussion or follow-up is needed.
Offline input: Often, the insights people bring to a leader (or each other) during the breaks of meetings or in informal hallway conversations are more important than what is said in formal discussions.
E-mail traffic: In many firms, e-mail offers insight into potential issues that may require a leader’s attention. For example, an overly formal e-mail message with multiple people copied (or blind copied) is often a protective action taken by a team member with concerns.

Those six behaviours are part of what I call “background conversations” which are typical incarnations of “passive resistance” – the worst kind of resistance. Background conversations occur when one’s head says YES and one’s heart say NO; when one lets other under the belief that agreement exist, when in fact it does not.

What I don’t find discussed much however is that such problem should not be a Leader-subordinate issue. Most leaders have, or should have, developed a leadership team, and in there lies a powerful tool. In companies I lead, we openly talked about background conversations at the leadership team level.

When Ronald and Shaw say “know your people”, the one thing we already know for certain about your people is that there is always resistance to change. So, the CEO has to establish [as early as possible in his/her tenure] a leadership model based on the assumption that there will be resistance to change. The best way of dealing with change is to establish a “change leadership” culture at the senior leadership level, and allow open and frank argumentation, and where, in the initial stage, disagreeing is OK to a degree.

By getting the leadership team on that page from the get go [regarding change leadership], more eyes on the watch for signs of weak support, no only with subordinates, but more importantly amongst peers. I have countless examples where one member of the leadership team was “taken on” by the rest of the team, without the need for CEO influence. They used “we’re on the same boat and have to row in the same direction” message. It was no-longer the problem of the CEO, but that of the leadership team. This behaviour propagates through the organization and sets in as a cultural characteristic.

In this way, the leadership team become the primary guiding coalition which can propagate the vision and the plan.

Many organizations throw sales people out on the street in the hope they will make their companies successful. Although sales success is not possible without great sales people, a lot more than hiring great sales people is required to achieve sales success.

Sales leadership starts in the office of the CEO. The office of the CEO must induce a culture of strategic selling to the whole organization. Selling strategically means implementing a Sales Governance Model and developing competencies at 3 levels: Sales Governance, Sales-Cycle Management and Sales Execution.

As you look at the list of competencies an organization has to develop, at various levels of its hierarchy, it is not surprising that there are many weak spots that need serious attention.

Bad sales leadership is just as lethal as ineffective closing skills. Going after the wrong market is just as ineffective as delivering poor customer presentations. Keeping underperforming sales people is just as expensive as working on unqualified prospects.

A great sales person will manage his/her sales cycles to mitigate other weaknesses in the organization’s selling paradigm, but it would be a mistake to believe all your sales people are at that level of efficiency and effectiveness. Less than 10% are.

To make the other 90% of their sales people more successful, organizations should look at their sales model in a holistic manner. It is my belief that organizations are responsible for the success of their sales people, and not the other way around.

You can read more here… GOOD SELLING !

This famous quote from Albert Einstein rings so true to me. If Einstein needed a picture to understand, be assured it is even truer for employees. I have met with 8 CEOs over the last week. They all had a few things in common:

• They are all entrepreneurs
  
• They all have great ambitions and aspirations
  
• They are all brilliant people
  
• They all want to grown their company
  
• They all want to “shake” their companies from their torpor
  

But, as they explained how they were going to shake the torpor, I have to say that all of them were all over the map. All of them!

So, how is their staff supposed to get it? This erratic discourse is symptomatic of organizations who have not done the basic effort of analysing precisely how they got were they are. They are not creating a plan to shake the torpor; they are throwing ideas together that further shows the lack of deep reflection. Leadership must make brutally clear the organization’s reality, its envisioned future and the plan (read the strategic plan) to get there. My advice is pause please; and do the following:

• Know Thy Fundamental Belief : Remind yourself of the core belief. What is that belief that is shared amongst employees, investors, and customers?
  
• Know Thyself and Thy Environment : Remind yourself and your employees why the company is where it is. Not via some anecdotal recital, but by digging and analyzing the past: your past strategies, your past successes and failures, your competitors, the market shifts, the macro-economic factors, etc…
  
• Build A Vision : Not a vision statement, but an envisioned future. Remind yourself where you are trying to take the organization over the next 3-5 years. Describe the envisioned future in vivid colors; describe what this envisioned future looks like.
  
• Declare A Culture : The culture is certainly one reason the organizations need a shake up. Declare a culture that will clearly articulates an enhanced DNA focused on achieving your goals and aspirations.
  
• Select Core Strategies : To reach the envisioned future, you need to express the 4-5 major stratagems that, if executed concurrently and effectively, will make your future a reality.
  
• Design The Organization : Make sure that the organization is designed with a focus to execute stratagems, and that the people have the right skills, experience and personality for the tasks at hand.
  
• Plan To Change : Articulate what needs to change, what needs to stop, want needs to be started. Clarifying priorities and critical success factors. Look at your compensation model. Look at key aspects of your organization to ensure that alignment exists. If alignment does not exist, plan to change.
  

All of this is done for only one reason: paint a comprehensive and compelling picture so that all would understand, and justify the changes and the plan.