It is striking to observe how asymmetrically set up reward systems can be.  In spite of the deep impact they have on how management teams acknowledge risks and adjust for them, the remuneration systems seem to be only designed to capture the upside of business performance.  Anything deviating from a full set of objectives will create winners and losers within the management team.


In a way, executives know that being in charge is a lonely and transient job.  In the race to the top, people see each chapter of their corporate life as another opportunity to assert their claim for higher responsibilities.  If personal interests are best served with decisions that favour their part of the organisation at the expenses of the whole, some might see such steps as a convenient option, even if it weakens the cohesion of the management team. 


Yet, a lack of cohesion at the management team level will produce all sorts of strains across the organisation.  Who has not seen a centralised procurement control identifying low-cost global outsourcing partners at the expense of operational flexibility at the plants, cost cutting in repair and maintenance driving high levels of customer dissatisfaction, finance keeping costs under control by starving product development initiatives, or sales contracts impossible to deliver at profit?  Quite soon, these diverging agendas will clash and members of staff in the different functions will lose the goodwill towards colleagues from the opposite faction.  Where processes worked through common sense approach, things will start to grip and productivity to drop.


Developing a team from a set of direct reports is therefore a stern challenge for a CEO.  It entails managing the tensions between the different functions to avoid situations where zero-sum games are at play.  For that purpose, the members of the management team must be aware of the impact their function has on others, what their interfaces and interdependencies are, and how these can be worked at together rather than in isolation.  Risks linked to these interdependencies can then be factored into what the management team wants to focus on, and how it will achieve it.  Only then will a reward system align agendas and better support a meritocracy across the organisation.


So, when you think about how your organisation deals with conflicting internal objectives, it might be worth asking yourself the following questions:

1. Are friction points between functions discussed and resolved at the management team level?
2. How well documented are the trade-offs behind decisions to follow a given direction?
3. Are these trade-offs explained to staff as part of their objective setting?

It is when you think that change has become unstoppable that it will face its most acute resistance.  Picture this.  You have realised that something in your business was not quite right anymore.  After a period of sluggish performance, you have come to admit that your business was not fit for survival and have thrown a lot of effort into analysing and understanding what needed fixing and how to do it.  You even had your entire management team to acknowledge that the path for transformation was sound and would promptly lead to recovery.  Yet, three months after putting changes in place, no sign of improvement is visible.  What could have gone wrong? 
 
Leaving aside a lack of preparedness of the transformation, one of the most likely pitfalls would be a unilateral communication.  Most of the material supporting a transformation is framed in positive terms.  It is all about how the change will turn the organisation into a better one, and how there can only be upsides to consider.  This viewpoint reflects the beliefs of the project team and its sponsor, who have battled sceptics in and around the boardroom and have won the argument.  However, such content will only resonate with staff who are easily sold on the merits of the change, because they either benefit from it or are not affected by it.  For all people having something to lose from the transformation, a reinforcing message will generate passive resistance in the hope that this transformation is not there to stay.
 
In addressing this problem, acknowledging that staff in the organisation have different goals, beliefs and perceptions linked to their work is a first step.  Identifying how the change will impact whom is a second.  And developing narratives to address legitimate concerns about specific interests is a third.  It requires the agility to reframe the message in order to mitigate the fears caused by the change.  These fears can be wide-ranging, going from responsibilities of a new role to new tools and techniques to master, to changes in reporting lines, and redundancies of colleagues.  Staff are unlikely to tune in on a brainwashing communication that leaves them with more questions than answers.  As a collateral, the management will not be fully trusted and all stops will not be pulled for the transformation to be a success.
 
So, when you plan to communicate about things that are about to change in your organisation, ask yourself the following questions to ensure that your messaging will reach all parties with the desired impact:

1. What are the constituents of your organisation?  How will the change affect them?
2. What is their currency?  How should you express the merits of the transformation to gain them over?
3. Are there mechanisms in place to establish a two-way communication between the programme office and the different constituents?
4. Are you able to reframe the message to factor in the reactions from the impacted constituents?