Middle leaders and culture change. Part 1

​The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) sent out an article recently* saying how ‘ownership mentality’ is needed to drive change and how it needs to be part of an organisation’s culture.
This has been understood for a long time. But from what I see, I can only assume that it must be easier said than done - because we come it very often. Why is it taking so long to get widely established?
Part of the answer is the focus of CCL’s research, not the findings. In particular, consider the people they surveyed. There is a lot of talk about discussions with VPs, directors and C-suite executives. If you want whole organisational buy-in of a vision, don’t place so much value on what those at the top of the hierarchy think. Get middle leaders involved. This will help embed the culture needed to make the vision work.
The usual comments about getting “commitment from everyone involved” and “clear communication” from leaders appear. This is accepted advice. But this in itself is a contradiction when considering the people whose opinion they seek. It supports the thinking that everyone needs to be involved, yet not everyone is surveyed. This is where middle leaders can drive performance. They need to be involved in surveys because they know the mood of the wider workforce.
The article cites these top level people recognising a disconnection between the current culture in an organisation and the “needed culture to implement the future-proof strategy”. Key question: Why is there a disconnect? Where is the break in communicating the vision? It must be somewhere in the middle.
An interesting section is where CCL Chief Research and Innovation Officer David Altman introduces the notion of ‘renters’ – who may be responsible for the gap, and ‘owners’ – who are fully aligned. This is valuable. I have a simplified take on it.
He describes ‘renters’ as employees who don’t feel they have a say in any decisions about the future. They don’t feel any sense of responsibility. I suggest that there are probably two reasons for this:

1. These employees are quite happy not having any say in things.  Or,
2. They haven’t been given the chance to contribute.

Permission and delegated authority need to given from higher up. It’s all very well criticising ‘renters’ but if they don’t feel their views are invited or accepted, they won’t bother.
 
‘Owners’ on the other hand, “take responsibility for their team and organization” and let everyone know they are committed to the cause.
The reasons for this?

1. They are keen to take on this responsibility.
2. They are allowed to and genuinely encouraged.

We think this is where middle leaders play a significant part. By their very nature, good middle leaders will be looking for chances to influence their organization’s culture. They know their team members and how to motivate them to become ‘owners’.
An effective middle leader will work at giving everyone the chance to contribute and then value the input. If they can see that certain team members aren’t fussed about it or would rather not bother, then they will tailor work around them. If they get complaints from self-identified ‘renters’, they can at least tell them that they were given the chance.
Time and effort can then be put to more effective use with employees who want to be part of the change. And make no mistake – time and effort will be needed. A good understanding of distributed and delegated leadership is required.
But above all, this will only work if middle leaders are given the permission and power to get it done properly. In order for this to happen, some middle leaders will have to ask for these tools. They aren’t always offered.
This is where ownership mentality works both ways. Middle leaders need to be owners of upward influence, especially if they are needed to change a culture and move the whole organisation forward.
Being part of culture change at middle leadership level is perfect preparation for senior leadership and that benefits everyone.
 
*original date 19 May 2020