Don't choose the chainsaw

Hey Reader,

Did you miss the most viral image from last week's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C.? The one of Elon Musk on stage next to Argentina's far-right President Javier Milei, waving a chainsaw in the air? If so, I envy you and your news algorithm. Mine is basically all Musk, all day.

A gift from Milei, the chainsaw was apparently a reference to the “chain saw plan” for Milei's own government – essentially what Musk is doing to the US government right now. When I saw the photo, my first thought was my standard reaction to Musk: disgust, plus a number of things I can't write here.

My second thought was, Ah, you are a different type of leader for my list.

In my last newsletter, I dug into how leaders sabotage organizational change from the very start when they fail to connect the purpose of a change with the change strategy they end up designing

Basically, when they think or say one thing behind closed doors, then say and do another out in the open. I presented three reasons I see most often in the real world for why leaders fail to design change strategies and create stakeholder communication rooted in a change’s real purpose:

a combination of ego and fear
they simply don’t know how, because the way they have learned to lead change is fundamentally broken
their organization’s purpose – and therefore the purpose of every change at their organization – is to extract from and exploit employees (and other “resources” along the supply chain) for profit, and so they only make the decisions and attempt to implement what they decide based on what they think will result in the most profit (which doesn’t make for good marketing and PR)

But there is another category of leaders: ones whose purpose is to sabotage

They don't fail to connect the purpose of a change from the change strategy they end up designing. They show you exactly who they area and how much chaos and harm they are willing to cause – by wielding a chainsaw on stage. Destruction is a feature, not a bug, and that is a message they share with pride.

But I'm not really here to talk about Elon Musk (like the diarrhea he is, I just had to get him out of my system). I'm also not here to talk about leaders who, as I describe in bullet number three above, actually intend to extract and exploit.

I just felt that I had to make it clear that there is a difference between fear/ego, ignorance, deliberate exploitation, and Musk: while leaders who fall into all four categories can choose to change, the Musks of the world won't, and the extractive and exploitative leaders usually don't either.

I won't spend my remaining time on earth propping up their damaging systems, and I hope that other intelligent, committed folks don't either. And, as much as folks DM me about their shitty bosses, if they are Musks or actually exploitative on purpose, I'm so sorry to say this: you can't fix him. It's time to break up and move on, honey.

What I can and will do is explore the first two bullet points I mentioned above

How 1) fear/ego and 2) ignorance guide leaders’ decision-making when it comes to organizational change – and sabotage their organizations’ success in the process (if you define success as more than just generating profit at the expense of the planet).

The majority of leaders I have (and will) come across (including myself) are "guilty" of screwing up organizational changes because of the first two bullet points. But there's a better way – and sometimes they're (we're) open to it! Let's dive in:

A combination of ego and fear often leads to change fails

If ego and fear sound like harsh words, know that I am mainly concerned with defining ego as the self, especially as contrasted with another self or the world, or as a synonym for pride, a reasonable or justifiable sense of one's worth or importance (Merriam-Webster). And when it comes to fear, I'm thinking mostly of fear of failure, exposure (of failure), or loss (of success).

Ego and fear cause leaders to make assumptions, and those assumptions are often wrong. They assume folks won't buy into the change they have planned, so they choose lie about the change's purpose from the very start. They assume they know best, so they don't ask for feedback or input. Or they make hasty decisions based on prior experience, when they are actually out of touch with what's going on on the ground. They assume that when it comes to change, it's the visionary leader against a bunch of people who love the status quo. But the most status quo mindset is theirs.

They are afraid of failure, even though they say they learn from mistakes or love to take smart risks. They might think that the higher you are, the more your organization's failures reflect on you as a person. They don't feel like they can be exposed in any way, so they will – consciously or unconsciously – backtrack, cover things up, or tell new stories to make it seem like they've got it all figured out and always have.

This might all sound quite mean and negative, but it's simply human

I have ego and fear too; most of us experience them every day. But what do you do next?

Recognizing them, defining them, accepting them, exploring them, seeking support for them, and questioning assumptions and beliefs are key steps most leaders fail to take – and so they end up sabotaging their organizations' change initiatives in ways both small and large.

And/or, some leaders simply don’t know how to lead change rooted in purpose, because the way they have learned to lead change is fundamentally broken

McKinsey's 7S, Kotter's Eight-Step Plan, ADKAR, Lewin's Unfreeze - Change - Refreeze. Do these work? I mean, honestly. You can pay McKinsey – or me! – as much as you want, but if your REAL purpose and your strategy aren't aligned, if you are not honest in your planning and execution about why something is happening, if you keep thinking of great ideas and trying to convince everyone to do what you want them to do, if you can't communicate change well or leave your communication far too late, if people are Slacking make it make sense memes to each other, then you're wasting resources and eroding trust.

So my challenge to leaders is this: if even "positive" changes at your organization are an uphill battle, does the struggle start with you?

And, are you willing to solve the problem with a tool other than a chainsaw?

Can you lean into curiosity, lead with compassion, embrace clarity, connect purpose to strategy, and enable successful organizational change?

(If the answer is yes, and you need some support, let me know. I'm booked through the end of Q2, but it's never too early to start the conversation.)

Talk soon,

Caitlin Harper
Founder, Commcoterie

P.S. – Know someone who needs to read this? Forward them this issue or share this page on your socials – there folks can check out past issues and subscribe so that they never miss a new one.