How to lead change when the stakes are high
Leading change is a notorious challenge, but when the stakes are high—whether due to restructuring, shifting priorities, or times of crisis—an uphill battle can quickly turn into scaling Mt. Everest. More transformation efforts don’t achieve their goals than those that do; research tells us that just 34% achieve clear success. With many teams and leaders reporting increasingly-high levels of change fatigue, transformation isn’t going to get easier anytime soon.
I recently worked with Lee, a Sourcing Executive, whose team members were struggling to shift from a “company-centric” to a “customer-centric” mindset. With the best-in-class technology on the market, the organization had initially benefited from a surge of early adopters who clambered for their product. However, as the company pursues enterprise customers as its growth strategy (vs. B2C buyers), the product alone was not enough to overcome the challenges B2B customers faced to purchase the product.
Brought in by the CEO, Lee was charged with helping to change the status quo approach. It was a tall order. Team engagement scores were at an all-time low, which is common when driving organizational change (see the chart below). His team hesitated on initiatives, siloed work—causing duplication and delays—and their task-motivated mindset wasn’t considering customer impact. It wasn’t that the team didn’t want to be successful, rather the shifts in working norms were like comparing apples and oranges.
Sound familiar? Don’t give up hope; working together to build a year-long approach, we helped Lee’s team move from resistance to alignment to embracing the necessary change. Here are three key strategies any leader can use to drive change effectively.
Surface resistance early
One of Lee’s biggest obstacles was that his team was initially reluctant to embrace his vision, but cultural norms and past experiences with top-down leadership made employees hesitant to speak up about their concerns. Lee’s team is Scandinavian (he’s not), and their long-term immersion in that work atmosphere made them less likely to be candid with their feedback. Lee isn’t alone in this cultural challenge; one survey of employees across 90 countries found that 89% of remote teams had at least two cultures represented, and more than one-third included four or more. Not only that, his predecessor had historically been disengaged, which set a precedent for the rest of the team. Without open communication, their resistance remained hidden, which slowed down progress.
In order to get his team to speak up, Lee needed to make them feel comfortable enough to do so. To encourage participation, Lee made some shifts in how he asked his team for feedback.
To encourage his team to be more candid, I worked with Lee to implement anonymous feedback tools, like surveys, to uncover concerns, identify opportunities, and gauge perceptions of change.
Instead of expecting his employees to voice concerns in a large meeting, Lee broke them into smaller groups and designated spokespersons to share key insights.
In particularly sensitive discussions, Lee temporarily left the room, allowing his team members to speak with him more freely.
By creating multiple avenues for feedback, Lee gave employees a safe way to express their concerns, which made them feel heard and reduced silent resistance.
Ask yourself: How can I create an environment where my team feels confident to voice concerns and raise potential issues?
Connect change to a clear and meaningful purpose
Lee had a strong vision for his team, but they struggled to see beyond their immediate tasks. Without a clear connection between their daily work and the broader strategy, motivation lagged. And Lee isn’t alone in experiencing this issue. A recent Gallup poll found that employee engagement in the U.S. fell to its lowest level in a decade in 2024, with only 31% of employees engaged. His team needed to understand why their work is critical to the organization’s success and shift their mindset to a more impact-driven approach.
Here’s what we did.
First, Lee defined the “why,” articulating how the team’s shift from transactional work to strategic sourcing would impact the company’s success.
Then, Lee and I created a plan to bring in stakeholders from dependent departments to articulate the reason his team and their work is essential and how it positively impacts them. Making these discussions personal will only increase the impact, so we framed them around the question: “What would it mean to you if the sourcing function were operating at its full potential?” This helped Lee’s people see how change could benefit them.
Finally, the team needed to create a team purpose that inspires action. In a breakout session, the team split up into triads to generate ideas, using this fill-in-the-blank exercise: “This team exists to… by… so that…” From there, groups shared their thinking with the broader team, and once aligned, crafted the vision. You can learn more about this process here.
Because Lee’s employees better understand the why behind change and how it affects them, they became more engaged and willing to move forward.
Ask yourself: What barriers might be preventing my team from grasping the bigger picture, and how can I help remove them?
Balance change with stability to prevent burnout
Change initiatives, while necessary, put pressure on everyone involved. Lee was worried that if he pushed transformation too aggressively, his team would burn out, especially his high performers. He’s right to be concerned; a Gartner study found that 73% of change-effected employees report experiencing moderate to high stress levels. While his team members might understand their purpose, they may not feel connected to it due to overwhelming workloads.
His team needed to move forward, but not at the cost of stability. I acknowledged this challenge and suggested that realigning purpose and workload management could help re-engage employees and retain talent.
To prevent overwhelm, Lee and his team started by identifying what would stay the same. Together, they outlined the core processes and values they wanted to preserve, ensuring change didn’t feel like total upheaval.
Then, Lee and I worked to create a plan to implement changes gradually, instead of tackling everything at once. This allowed him to balance quick wins with sustainable progress. This plan iterated over time and gained buy-in from the employees, so it wasn’t perceived as something to them—Lee and his team did it together.
Over time, Lee held regular and structured check-ins to assess how employees were handling the transition and to make adjustments as needed.
Change is more effective when employees feel they have solid ground to stand on. By providing stability and a phased approach, Lee helped his team adapt without overwhelming them.
Ask yourself: What guiding principles can help me balance the urgency of change with the capacity of my team?
To quote Philip Crosby, “If anything is certain, it is that change is certain. The world we are planning for today will not exist in this form tomorrow." Lee’s journey shows that resistance isn’t a roadblock; it’s part of the process. With the right approach, leaders can turn hesitation into engagement and uncertainty into momentum. The key is to meet people where they are, help them see the bigger picture, and support them as they move forward.