Getting People On (Or Off) the Bus in Your Organization

When he began the monumental research project that eventually became Good to Great, Jim Collins expected to find that the first step to becoming a truly great company was to create a new vision, strategy, and overall direction for the organization, and then get the executive team aligned with (and committed to) moving in that direction. But his research showed the exact opposite, as he recalls, “The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there. No, they first got the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it.” But what happens when the rest of the management team (from middle managers to supervisors) don’t want to accept the prospect of change and are either overtly (or covertly) opposed to moving in the new direction? Do you just “get rid” of people who don’t agree, or is there a more studied and systematic approach that can be used to ensure fair process and respect to all involved?

Even when executive teams have clearly communicated the business case for the new direction and made the reasoning and assumptions that motivated the decisions a matter of public scrutiny, middle managers and supervisors in organizations often fall into a well-defined distribution that follows a 20-60-20 Rule where about 20% of the people will be strong supporters of the new direction and about 20% will be strongly opposed. The 20% groups on both ends of the distribution are normally so firmly set in their ways of seeing that it’s unlikely that training, development, or persuasion will change their views. The remaining 60% of the organization will tend to align with whichever end of the distribution gains real (or perceived) power and control. As a rule of thumb, if you have a low performer who does not support the new direction, you move them off the bus. If you have a moderate performer who supports the new direction, you work with them to improve their performance and make sure that they’re in the right seat on the bus.

The most difficult situation is when high-performing middle managers or supervisors do not (or will not) support the new direction and frustrate and undermine the organization’s performance in overt or covert ways. The first strategy should be to try to migrate them as far as possible to the positive side of the 20-60-20 distribution by direct involvement and engagement in making the new direction an organizational reality, which follows the principle: “No involvement; no commitment.” If direct involvement does not get them engaged in the process, often the new social norms that emerge make the pressure to support the new direction so powerful that a percentage of the initially dissenting people may begin to support the change. Over time, those who still don’t buy in (or won’t buy-in) begin to self-select out of the organization.

But when people will not self-select out and they continue to frustrate and undermine the organization’s performance in overt or covert ways, it’s time to follow Jim Collins’ advice about the bus. Here’s an approach to making this happen that helps to ensure fair process and respect to all involved; e.g., the organization, the dissenting middle manager or supervisor, and the people who remain in the organization after the individual is gone. The responsible manager and the individual should use the six-step process listed below to try to move beyond the impasse:

• What does the company really want from the individual?
• What does the individual really want from the company?
• Can these expectations be met in the current situation?
• Do the company and the individual want it on the same time frame?
• What would it cost to make it work (time, money, energy, etc.)?
• Three choices: accept it, change it, or terminate the relationship

Sometimes an organization wants very different levels of performance and attitudes from a middle manager or supervisor than the person wants to give. Sometimes the organization and the individual both want the same things, but they can’t make it happen in the present context. For example, the organization and the individual agree that the person is best suited for a new position given the organization’s new direction, but they don’t have an opening for them at the appropriate organizational and salary levels. Maybe the organization and the individual want the same things, and even want them within the present context, but they want them on very different time frames. For example, the organization wants the individual to move from a front-line supervisor to a middle manager, but they don’t have the budget to support the promotion until the next fiscal year and the individual has a job offer from another company and needs to make a decision now. Sometimes organizations and individuals want the same things in the work relationship, on the same time frame, but one or the other may be unwilling to pay the price it would take to make the professional relationship work. Based on these questions, the responsible manager and the individual only have three choices:

• They can accept the situation (do nothing)
• They can try to change the situation
• They can terminate the work relationship

When you have the wrong person on the bus almost everyone knows it, including the individual, but in many organizational cultures it takes a long time to move from awareness to action. Staff members who sincerely want to be supportive of the new direction are keenly aware of the day-to-day realities of how dissenters overtly and covertly frustrate and undermine the organization’s performance, and they commiserate privately in disbelief – “Don’t they see what’s going on? Can’t they tell the negative impact this is having on morale? They can’t really be serious about this new initiative or they wouldn’t tolerate this.”