A CEO has an idea about how his company can grow and improve its position. He has thought long and hard about it, invested a great deal of energy, and is convinced of the merits of his plan. Then he announces the change, and the workforce reacts in very different ways.
Some are immediately enthusiastic. These people aren’t afraid of new things and drive the initiative forward. Others are cautious, skeptical, and ask questions.
At this point, the success of many change projects is already determined. Rarely is it due to the idea itself. Much more often, it comes down to how a company assesses these different reactions.
Those who applaud will be heard
I keep seeing the same pattern over and over again. Those who applaud and encourage the initiative are viewed more positively and are well-liked. Skeptics, on the other hand, are not given enough of a voice. They are quickly labeled as naysayers who resist change and want to stay in their comfort zone. However, that is by no means always the case.
Change processes usually take months. During this time, those who motivate and drive the process forward are promoted. Critical voices lose influence or end up in positions with little room to maneuver. I’ve seen skeptics gradually weeded out. Suddenly, they no longer fit into the culture or the new direction—simply because they had raised their hands and said, “Stop, wait a minute. We might be getting carried away right now.”
Therein lies a great danger.
Skepticism is a strength
In my strengths model #STÄRKENSTÄRKEN, skepticism is a strength in its own right, as is consistency. People with these strengths recognize early on where a project might go off track. This is often accompanied by a focus on the past. They know what has worked well so far and rightly ask why it should be changed. They see what can stay the same.
At the same time, it is precisely these people who see change through to the end once they are convinced. They persevere even over long periods. Those who possess the strength of perseverance work with focus and determination, almost like a horse wearing blinders, and do not allow themselves to be distracted.
On the other hand, there are people who are adaptable, a trait often linked to a willingness to take risks or optimism. They quickly adjust to new situations and approach change with confidence. Those who are also forward-thinking don’t just think one step ahead—they think five steps ahead.
A company needs both. It needs people who spot the fly in the ointment, hit the brakes, and call for further analysis. It also needs those who move quickly and embrace new ideas. When you succeed in bringing both sides together, you create something that neither side could achieve on its own. That’s where the sweet spot lies.
A company made up entirely of “preservers” would be slower, more cautious, and less agile. It would, however, achieve its goals with great focus. Perhaps these goals would be smaller than those of people who aim for the stars. But they would still be achieved.
The higher you go, the thinner the air
One objection I often hear from executives is: “We can’t possibly cater to every single person.” My response to that is: You personally, perhaps not. But your managers can—and that’s exactly what they’re there for.
Those who fail to do so lose something that can never be bought from outside the company: internal knowledge and people who are committed to the company. Of course, senior management can’t speak with every employee personally. That’s what the management level below them is for. Imagine if that level thought exactly the same way you do. Individual voices would be drowned out, and diversity would quickly be seen as something negative.
Psychologically speaking, this is a case of confirmation bias. We tend to surround ourselves with people who agree with us. This is particularly risky for executives, because the higher the position, the thinner the air becomes. There are fewer and fewer people who will honestly reflect our views, challenge us, or even say that a decision feels wrong.
If this effect intensifies and the management team is surrounded primarily by voices that simply agree with them, it could, in the worst-case scenario, threaten the company’s very existence. When companies fail, there is rarely just one reason. However, if I had to name one, this would certainly be among them.
Start-up, Small and Medium-Sized Business, Corporate Group
Startups are usually dominated by people who embrace change; improvisation is part of everyday life. The founders themselves often think the same way. The smart ones among them therefore deliberately bring people into the team who are reliable, work conscientiously, and bring order to the organization.
In small and medium-sized businesses, there comes a point when casual discussions in the hallway are no longer enough. Keeping the company together becomes more difficult, and processes become necessary. This tipping point is interesting because those who embrace change often struggle with rigid processes. Those who consciously work with a startup mentality and suddenly find themselves in a process-oriented environment often fail to adapt and end up leaving the company. The composition of the workforce then shifts noticeably.
In large corporations, there are many people who tend to want to preserve the status quo. At the same time, diversity is greater there, and differences have long been the norm in many places. What matters is which area you work in and how differences are handled there. At its core, a small-to-medium-sized business faces similar challenges to a large corporation, only with significantly fewer people. This increases the risk that everyone will fall into line and no one will speak up anymore.
No strength is more valuable than another
Which side is considered more valuable often depends on what a company is going through at the moment and what makes the person at the helm tick. The other side is then perceived through the lens of its negative aspects. Consistency becomes stubbornness, and adaptability becomes a weathervane.
I’ve also seen this happen outside the context of change projects. At one company, certain strengths had such a bad reputation following negative experiences that they were described only as downsides. Ever since I reflected on this and illustrated it with examples, the perspective there has slowly begun to change. No one has to possess these strengths themselves. But those who demonize them prevent them from having their full impact.
The same applies to change management. Those who label the status quo defenders as the “bad guys” are giving up a whole range of options—and with it, important potential. The reverse is also true. Those who label those open to change as chaotic, reckless, and economically clueless are missing a large part of the DNA that drives a company forward.
What Leaders Can Do Differently Starting Tomorrow
The most important step is not to prioritize one strength over the other. Instead, it’s about identifying both sides and using them strategically.
I like to use the image of a star to illustrate this. Every person has peaks and valleys, and where I have a valley, someone else often has a peak. Putting these stars together like pieces of a puzzle is the true task of leadership.
So the next time someone in the group raises their hand and says, “Wait a minute,” it’s worth listening. Maybe that person is exactly the one who will ultimately help you achieve your goal.
