What the Best Frameworks Get Right.

Let’s be honest: Somewhere out there, another organization has a competency model that feels cleaner, sharper and more actionable than yours.

The roles are clearly defined. Skills, behaviors and proficiency levels are transparent. Development paths make sense. There are learning programs that support it. Managers actually use it. Employees understand it.

And meanwhile, in your organization … the competency model is either generic, outdated, overly complex, inconsistently applied, or still sitting somewhere in draft form.

If that sounds familiar, you’re not alone.

The Quiet Struggle Behind Competency Models

Competency models sit at the intersection of strategy, talent and behavior, which is exactly why they’re so hard to get right.

They’re expected to:

• Define what “good” looks like
• Align with business strategy
• Be usable for hiring, development and performance
• Work across roles, levels, and geographies

That’s a tall order.

Much like change management, organizations often jump to the visible elements — wordsmithing competencies or building frameworks — without first building the underlying structure that makes them usable and sustainable.

The result? Models that look great on paper but don’t drive results.

So, if you’ve ever felt “competency model envy,” you’re not alone. Most organizations are still figuring this out. That’s why we spoke to Shari Chernack, Chief People Officer at Isaacson, Miller and advisor on talent and transformation, who has seen a lot of competency models succeed and fail. She revealed that the best competency models have seven elements in common.

What the Best Competency Models Get Right

Strong competency models are designed for action. Here’s a practical framework to guide you:

1. Clarity Over Completeness

The best competency models resist the urge to include everything.

Organizations often start with a core set of competencies but gradually add technical competencies and role-specific requirements until the framework becomes too large and difficult to use. Strong competency models focus on:

• 6-12 core competencies per role or level
• Clear, distinct definitions
• Minimal overlap
• Consistent organizational needs

If managers can’t explain the competencies without looking them up, the model is too complex.

If your organization needs a more sophisticated model, start small and evolve it over time. Progress matters more than perfection. Set the right foundation, then iterate.

2. Behavior-Based (Not Buzzword-Based)

“Strategic thinking”
“Collaboration”
“Leadership presence”

These sound valuable, but without observable behaviors, they are difficult to apply consistently.

Competencies can oftentimes be so broad and high level that employees don’t even know what they mean. Employees need clarity on what competencies mean within their specific roles.

Strong models define:

• What the competency looks like in practice
• What strong performance looks like
• What falling short of expectations looks like

This is where models shift from abstract to usable.

For example, “strategic thinking” becomes: “Anticipates future conditions and translates insights into priorities, trade-offs, and actions that drive performance.” Or “Weighs short-term wins against long-term impact and makes explicit trade-offs.”

3. Connected to Organizational Values and Differentiators

One of the most common challenges organizations face is understanding where competency models fit within the broader talent ecosystem.

Organizations already have mission and vision statements, core values, skills taxonomies and business goals. Without clear alignment, competency models can feel like just another framework layered on top of existing processes.

Competency models operationalize your values. Or, as Chernack says, “The values are how we live and the competencies are how we work.”

Competencies translate values into specific, observable behaviors that employees can understand, apply and develop. Competencies answer the question: What does this value look like in action?

Strong competency models make this connection explicit. For example, Chernack recalls a time where she rolled out a competency model in-house. “It actually laddered right up to our core values,” she said. “So it was the behaviors underpinning the values and then everything that we did around leadership development was tied to those competencies.”

The best competency models also reflect what makes an organization uniquely successful.

Organizations should avoid borrowing external competency frameworks or relying on generic industry language. The result is a model that could belong to almost any company, and that’s not what you want. Competency models should reflect what drives success inside the organization itself.

To identify those differentiators, organizations can examine top performers and ask:

• What do our best people do differently?
• What behaviors led to our biggest successes?
• What behaviors do we want others to replicate?

Behavioral interviews and structured discussions with high performers can help uncover these patterns.

When competency models align with both organizational values and real drivers of success, they become more than a framework. They become a system that connects culture, performance and strategy.

4. Aligned to Real Work

Competencies should be specific and grounded in practical examples and role-specific expectations. They should reflect how work gets done. That means:

• Grounding competencies in real job tasks
• Incorporating input from high performers
• Reflecting the realities of different employee groups

For example, what “communication” looks like for a corporate employee may be very different from someone in the field, and your model should reflect that.

A broad communication competency might read: “Conveys information clearly, concisely and with intent. Adapts message, tone and medium to drive understanding and action.”

For a corporate executive: “Synthesizes complex information into clear messages that align diverse stakeholders and drive decisions and execution.”

For a field team lead: “Delivers clear, timely and actionable information that drives team understanding, performance and consistent execution.”

5. Scalable Across Levels

A strong model shows progression. Instead of rewriting competencies for every level:

• Use consistent competency categories
• Differentiate by depth, scope, and complexity
• Show how expectations evolve from entry-level to leadership

This creates clarity around growth and makes career paths visible.

For example, a new leader’s strategic thinking competency might be, “Recognizes patterns in day-to-day operations and makes proactive adjustments to improve near-term performance and team effectiveness.”

For a senior leader, it could be: “Interprets broader business trends and cross-functional dynamics to set direction, allocate resources, and drive long-term performance across multiple teams or locations.”

6. Launched, Adopted, Integrated

If your competency model lives only as a PDF, it’s already failing.

Chernack has seen good competency models go to waste. Many organizations invest in developing competencies, but they don’t invest in rolling them out. This is where change management helps. Employees and managers need to understand the purpose of the model and how to use it.

It is also helpful to involve people closest to the work during development and rollout. Competency models built without input from employees and managers often struggle to gain traction.

The best models are integrated into:

• Hiring and interview guides
• Performance management processes
• Learning and development programs
• Succession planning efforts

Think of competency models as infrastructure, not documentation.

7. Easy to Use Daily

The ultimate test to determine if a competency model is good is whether a manager can use it in a one-on-one conversation without preparation. If not, simplify. Because adoption is what drives value.

How to Get Started

You don’t need a six-month project to build a better competency model. In fact, speed can be your advantage. Here’s a practical way to get traction fast:

Step 1: Start with one role (or job family).

Pick a high-impact role or a role undergoing change. Build your model there first, then expand.

Step 2: Identify top performers.

Ask:

• What do the best people in this role do differently?
• What behaviors drive success?

Focus on reality, not theory.

Step 3: Define core competencies.

Group knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviors into themes:

• Decision-making
• Communication
• Execution
• Collaboration
• Leadership (if applicable)

Keep it tight.

Step 4: Write observable behaviors.

For each competency:

• Define 3-5 clear behaviors
• Make them specific and actionable
• Avoid jargon

If you can’t observe it, it’s not a behavior.

Step 5: Validate with managers.

Before rolling anything out:

• Test it with people leaders
• Ask: Does this accurately reflect what we want for this role? Would this be valuable in hiring or performance management?
• Refine based on feedback

Remember: usability beats elegance.

Step 6: Pilot and iterate.

Treat your model like a product:

• Launch it in one area
• Gather feedback
• Improve it

The best competency models are built over time, not in a single workshop.

Progress Over Perfection

Competency models often feel like something organizations need to “get right” before launch. They don’t.

Organizations that make the most progress treat competency models the same way they treat any change. They start with a clear structure, focus on what matters most, and build momentum through use.

Success doesn’t come from winning over everyone immediately or perfecting every detail upfront. It comes from building something practical that employees and managers will actually use.

So, if you’re feeling competency model envy, take it as a signal — not of failure, but of opportunity.

Because the gap between “what exists today” and “what is needed tomorrow” is exactly where better design (and better outcomes) begin.

Want to explore this topic in more detail or learn more about Emerson? Hop on his calendar: Book a meeting with Rich

Our advice: consider welcoming back this old new trend.

In just the last week, I’ve read several articles heralding the arrival of a new trend among office workers: Chronoworking. The term refers to the practice of adjusting your work schedule to align with those times of the day you’re most productive.

The only problem with this new trend? It’s not new.

In ages past, individual workers naturally gravitated toward work schedules that were most productive.  It was only as we entered the Industrial Revolution (with synchronized looms and mills) followed by the Information Age (with its cube farm/corner office dichotomy) that rigid scheduling became the norm.

But even then, there were notable exceptions. Thomas Edison famously took up to three naps a day; he found that the breaks in work allowed for new thoughts or solutions to a problem, and he had a pen nearby to capture thoughts upon waking.

Chronoworking: the practice of adjusting your work schedule to align with the times you’re most productive.

Growing up, I often watched my mom unpack files and manuals on government procurement from her bag and set them on our kitchen table to work on; she tended to do her best work in the evening hours. (With three boys at home, I can’t imagine how our house was conducive to work, but she found a way).

When I worked in an office, I would arrive an hour or more before the workday began; I found that I could accomplish more focused work in those first two hours of deep concentration than I could in the next nine hours.  Working from home, it’s not unusual for me to tackle one or two tasks between 4:30 and 5:30 am, go to the gym, and then return home to “begin” my workday.

Chronoworking is at a new point of inflection. Though working outside traditional office hours has been a “trend” for as long as people could carry home a briefcase, it’s gotten a boost from recent world events and innovations. VPN connections and cloud platforms make it easier. Covid made it normal; the abrupt work-from-home transition necessitated some work hour flexibility that people aren’t keen to relinquish during the return-to-office wave.

It’s now so ubiquitous that we feel we can say it out loud: We don’t all work well at the same times. That’s okay.

So, if you are a leader in your organization and you see this “trend” on the horizon, what do you do?

• Think about your own work patterns. I struggle to think of one executive or entrepreneur who does not (instinctively or intentionally) structure their work patterns to leverage their most productive times of the day. In fact, most leaders get to where they are in large part because they optimize their work patterns. If you have benefited from work flexibility, shouldn’t your employees?
• Foster trust and ownership. You hired great people, right? So let them be great. Give them some choice in the way they deliver on their mission. Working at the right times doesn’t just make people more productive, offering choices makes them feel in control and trusted, which is motivating. If you really need team members to hold down the pneumatic lift on an office chair between 8 AM and 5 PM to feel they’re productive, are they really the best people for your organization anyway?

We don’t all work well at the same times. That’s okay.

• Communicate clearly and intentionally. Employees using flexible work schedules must have stated expectations and accountability. And they need to understand the purposes and benefits of work flexibility. Be intentional in the balance between flexibility and cohesion. For example, create common times when the team comes together, virtually or physically. This sends an important message: While we all work differently, we are one team working toward a goal together.

Allowing chronoworking is a change for many teams, and we know that change is hard. We also know that the most successful organizations embrace change.

There is no one best model for a learning and development function, but there is a best model for your organization.

In any company, L&D interacts with other internal entities according to certain rules: who has decision-making authority, what the roles and responsibilities are, and who owns the money for training development and delivery. So what are those entities? It could be functions within a business – say, Supply Chain or Sales. For a global corporation, it might be geographic regions – North America, Europe, Asia/Pacific. In a consulting company, it might be major service offerings, like Audit, Tax, and Advisory. In a very large company, the components might be a matrix that crosses both regions and functions or offerings.

Whatever the components, your L&D organization falls somewhere on a continuum of authority and centralization. I’ll talk about the pros and cons of structures along this continuum.

The Centralized Model

How It Works

L&D planning and decision-making are driven centrally. Let’s say Jack Lerner is the head of the L&D function for a consumer products company. Jack has a training budget and a team to build a curriculum and courses for each of the functions. He and his team of direct reports are responsible for onboarding, compliance, and leadership programs that cross the functions.

Jack works with each business function to understand its training and development needs. He then looks across all the existing curricula to see whether there are materials or courses that could be leveraged. If Jack can’t find anything, he works with instructional designers – who might be part of his team or a separate service – to build courses the function needs.

Jack prioritizes course development according to the strategic needs of the overall business. For example, the Rental function might be new, and therefore have a heavier need for development than the very mature Manufacturing function.

Why Use This Model

Centralized models are efficient. Jack will have a good view of what is already in the curriculum and what the gaps are. This model reduces redundancy; without this model, each function tends to build its own courses though another function might already have it. A centralized model fosters standardization of content and processes. The model makes it easier to ensure that all training programs are aligned with the strategic objectives of the company rather than the sometimes conflicting needs of each area. Jack gets his budget from the company overall and usually has the authority of how to allocate funds.

Common Pitfalls

If the other entities in the organization aren’t communicating well with Jack or if they don’t have a good understanding of learning and development issues or if they try to circumvent the centralized function and develop training on their own, they risk creating training that is disconnected from the goals of the business. If Jack’s team isn’t large enough and/or skilled enough, they can be too slow and too removed from the business to be useful in a fast-paced functional area.

The Decentralized Model

L&D planning and decision-making reside in the business components. Jack might have responsibility for programs that cross functional areas, such as onboarding and compliance. In smaller companies, these programs might be handled by HR with little or no dedicated L&D support. In either case, some cross-functional programs are typically still held centrally in the decentralized model. The rest of the learning professionals are deployed to the functions. Each reports to the function’s leadership and develop programs specifically for that function.

How It Works

Let’s say that Alicia is responsible for the Manufacturing function’s learning program. Each fiscal year, she and the VP of Manufacturing work on the training priorities and budget to train the professionals. Alicia then partners works with her team to develop the Manufacturing training program for the year. She is aware of the central training that is impacting the people in her group, but has very little visibility to the training is being built in any other business unit.

Why Use This Model

Decentralized models can be very effective and targeted for the business. There is less coordination, as Alicia has a clear reporting relationship only to the function she serves.  With the Manufacturing team as her focus, she can respond quickly to every request. Her budget is allocated by Manufacturing, annually.

Common Pitfalls

Because Alicia doesn’t know what the other functional leads are doing, she won’t realize that, for example, each of them is building a course on communications. That means wasted development dollars. Each function must also prepare facilitators to deliver the training. And, and in some areas, they might not have enough learners to make a full class. Alicia might not know there’s a new and innovative program Luis is building for his function, so she won’t take advantage of his best thinking. Finally, since Alicia’s L&D team is relatively small (it might just be Alicia, in fact), she is less likely to grow as an L&D professional.

Finally, in the middle of the continuum is the Balanced Model.

The Balanced Model

In this model, L&D planning and decision making are driven through a central function with significant partnership from the business. Jack has responsibility for the company’s cross-functional curriculum. The rest of the learning professionals or HR business partners are deployed to the functions. They are responsible for ensuring function-specific training is built. They own the functional requirements and the outcomes.

How It Works

This is the most matrixed model. All parties must coordinate, collaborate, and communicate for this model to work well. Jack probably owns curriculum that impacts all employees. This might include onboarding and compliance training as well as professional, leadership, and/or consulting skills. Jack also owns the company-wide training schedule, and the learning management system and other development and delivery technology.

The business partners or functional designees are responsible for understanding and representing the needs of the business and the functional and on-the-job skills that need to be built. Together, the crew works to balance priorities and build an effective and efficient curriculum.

Why Use This Model

When implemented well, a balanced model represents the best of both worlds. There is a deep understanding of the business married with standard processes, tools, and governance. This model is both effective and efficient, particularly when it works within a clear governance structure.

Common Pitfalls

On paper, it seems like the Balanced model should be the nirvana of organization structures, but successful implementation is tricky. It requires all parties to communicate and collaborate in good faith – weighing the needs of each part of the business with the company overall. If Luis decides to create custom communications training for his function, even though there is a company-wide communications course, the model loses some of its value.

These three models are common examples of many possible variations. Organization structures are sometimes more fluid in practice than in design. Think about which L&D organization structure you have, whether it’s functioning as designed – to take advantage of the model – and whether it’s aligned with your company’s overall objectives.

How to manage your own transition to your new job

There are plenty of articles, including our own, on how organizations can improve employee onboarding. But how can you create a great transition for yourself?

Prepare

You’re ready to start that new job in a new organization. How can you set yourself up for success?

Reflect on the behaviors and habits in your old role.

What served you well? What mistakes did you make? In other words, what advice would you give yourself about starting a new job?

Find your info gaps.

Consider that you don’t know what you don’t know. Where might you have knowledge gaps?

Identify your early support network.

As you onboard, you’ll see org charts and meet people. Who are the people you hope to rely on? Choose people based on their role (new resources) or your initial connection (new friends or mentors).

Envision your best transition.

If, six months from now, you tell a friend, “I love my new job. I’m exactly where I need to be and I’m crushing it.” What does that look like? Who do you need to be to create that? What do you need to keep/stop/start doing? Which people, information, or resources do you need to get there?

Ask

During onboarding and your first days on the job, ask these questions. You might find answers baked into your onboarding experience. If not, ask!

How do I fit in?

You’ve just jumped aboard a moving train, metaphorically. So it’s important to understand where it’s going and why you’re on board. What is the goal of your department or team? How does success depend on the person in your role? What is your boss trying to achieve and how can you help? How do your efforts fit into the big picture of the organization’s vision?

What do others need from me?

The answer will depend on who the “other” is. If you’re onboarding as a group. Your peers are transitioning too. How can you help each other succeed? Those early connections can become important relationships you’ll rely on for a long time to come.

If you’re onboarding solo, what does your new team need from you? Are they behind, because your position was unfilled? Do they hope you’ll deliver a certain skill or function to help them succeed? Again, don’t just wonder or rely on observation. Ask!

What are the unwritten rules I need to know?

Organizational culture is the set of unspoken norms that guide behavior. They are the ways people make decisions in the absence of direction. The sooner you figure those out, the easier your life will be. You’ll figure out some of it instinctively; you’ll pick up on the energy, language, and little behaviors of people around you.

But it never hurts to ask. As you make friends and mentors, get them to share the likes and dislikes of the culture. How do people like to communicate? What really pisses people off? Is it better to be right or to be supportive? Decisive or thoughtful? Do people “fail fast” or work meticulously to the right product? Do you work and succeed as a team or as individuals? How do successful people in the organization balance work and life?

The more you learn and observe, the better you’ll understand how to smooth the way forward.

Learn

You might feel overwhelmed, but think of it as growing, because it is.

Let go of the past.

Transitions – even good ones – are hard. Acknowledge that and give yourself a little grace. At the same time, develop a new vision for yourself based on what’s around you.

Ask for feedback.

Seek input from peers, supervisors, and anyone else you trust. The faster you correct course, the happier you’ll be. And remember, no one expects the new person to be perfect! If you ask for input, you’ll scramble up the learning curve as quickly as possible and look good doing it.

However you recharge your batteries off work, do that, especially now.

Transitions are draining, and you need all the mental, emotional, and physical strength you can get.

And take care of yourself at work, too.

That means setting boundaries and maintaining the habits that make you happy. Is there an 8:00 am meeting you dread? Build in time to grab your favorite drink beforehand. Do all your new extraverted teammates love group lunches? If you need that alone time at lunch, keep it. Join the group once or twice a week. Do you hate the interruption of calls or instant messages? Reply on email. That will teach people to contact you in the way you prefer.

At the end of each day, think for a few minutes.

What worked well? What didn’t go well? What can you do to make tomorrow better? If you’re a journal person, level up by keeping a log of your lessons learned.

There’s no one way to onboard perfectly, but there is a right way for you. Figure out how to prepare, what to ask, and how to learn and you might love your new work home.

How to Win Back Trust and Stay Engaged With the Remaining Employees

If you’ve had to lay off employees, it’s been a rough time. If the layoff was significant, you literally have a new organization to run. That’s a big transition. How do you start?.

How does an organization rebuild trust, maintain morale, foster engagement, and ensure the productivity you need to survive?

Here are some of your first steps.

1. Don’t pretend. The layoffs happened and that impacts everyone. Employees and management will have to deal with survivor guilt, anxiety about the future, disengagement from leadership, and a host of other emotions.

What should the next days look like? As they say, the fastest way out is through. Standford neuroscientist Andrew Huberman recommends finding ways to get over emotional obstacles faster. “By front-loading emotions, you effectively discharge them.” The first step is acknowledging that something painful has happened. Then, find the right ways to provide time, space, and support.

2. Over-engage. Tell them why. Share the problem facing the organization, the alternatives, and why the solution included layoffs. In many cases, an employee would reach the same conclusion.

Then, describe the experience for remaining employees. How will workflow and responsibilities change? Answer the question on each employee’s mind: “What about me?” Get tactical, specific, and local.

Finally, ask employees for help in planning the next phase. This activates a sense of control. There’s nothing like a layoff to make people feel powerless and afraid; fear doesn’t bring out the best. But including employees in plans that affect them gives them a sense of control. Control feels safe. It frees up people’s energy for what you want – doing their jobs and moving the organization forward.

3. Help them connect. Many employees will feel the loss of these splintered relationships. For some, their friends just got fired. For employees who didn’t lose friends, their teams and support structures are broken. Help them create new connections within the new organization.

For example, you might start communities of interest or “book clubs” on development topics. These groups work across functions and allow people to discover connections in unlikely places. This promotes an informal cross-functional network that can pay off for the organization. And your efforts don’t have to be work-related. Simply creating spaces for social interaction can foster new friendships.

4. Revive enthusiasm. What comes next? If you’ve done the work to dissipate negative emotions and engage, the next step is giving people a focus for their energy.

So be sure you have a clear vision and you share it. But, beyond that, make sure your message lands. What future is in store for the organization? How can everyone help get there? What’s your rallying cry? Create a shared purpose on which everyone can focus.

Layoffs are never a good thing, but they can ensure the survival of your organization. If you do it right, employees can emerge stronger and more engaged than before.

Consider these pitfalls before you redesign or streamline.

When you hear your organization wants to simplify, focus on efficiency, or increase speed, the first thing that undoubtedly comes to mind is process…process…process.

But it’s not always that simple.

Here are three myths to consider before you dive into the deep end of the process pool.

Myth #1: Process negatively impacts culture.

Employees often think that adding processes will dampen their unique culture — especially in small businesses, nonprofits, or creative environments. People think a focus on efficiency will stifle creativity and turn them “corporate cogs” – the exact thing they likely ran from.

But, if done correctly, the opposite is true. When processes exist, employees can spend less time hunting for breadcrumbs of past processes or recreating processes. Efficient processes actually free up time to spend on employees’ areas of expertise and time to innovate and create.

Truth: Processes set you free so the culture can thrive.

Myth #2: Processes are locked in.

Sometimes, we get stuck on a hamster wheel and forget to pause, reflect, and fine-tune our processes. This happens for several reasons:

1. This is how it’s always been done.
2. There is great comfort in the familiar.
3. We have too much on our plates and little time, especially time to spend on updating processes.

But in an era where innovation is king, organizations must constantly stretch, innovate, and grow. This means processes need to adapt and change to reflect the current and future states of the organization.

The amount of time spent on updating processes will easily be less than time spent fumbling through outdated processes.

The idea is to get to the finish line faster, cleaner, and more efficiently.

Set recurring dates to review and update processes. You’ll make molehills out of mountains, fostering an environment that celebrates agility and innovation.

Truth: Processes are never set in stone. Focus constantly on doing better.

Myth #3: A new process always wins.

Here’s the scenario: Work is a slog. There are too many activities all over the place and a general lack of clarity. A well-meaning group of employees attempts to fix it ALL with one 52-step process full of clicks and ticks, dips and dives, and giant U-turns.

While their intentions are admirable, the new process is exhausting and confusing; employees are now spending more time on administrative tasks and less on what matters.

So, what happened? There are a few possibilities:

1. Key people were not at the table. Every team that owns part of the process, and everyone downstream of the process, should be involved. It’s also important to have people who think differently review the process before rolling it out. They might catch something; maybe the process doesn’t reflect the organization’s “customer first” value because it adds unnecessary tasks to the customer experience. Or, they might realize that the “52” in the 52-step process is a red flag – it will crush your people’s souls.
2. The new process starts downstream, not at the source of the problem. If I need to drive my car to the store but the car is out of gas, painting the car red and filling the tires won’t get me to the store. You can try your best to shine your part of a broken system, but it will still be broken if you don’t start where the breakdown begins. If the problem is a lack of clarity and consistency from the top, start there.
3. A formal process wasn’t the right solution. Could it instead be solved with a simple document that provides employees with “if this, then that” steps to guide them through their work? Or is this not really a process issue? Is it a training or engagement problem?

Truth: It’s best to look at the problem from all angles. Take a breath and ensure you’re addressing the right thing, at the right time, with the right people.

Your Silence Speaks Volumes

Let’s say you’re a C-suite executive and a new CEO is on the way. You’re a strong performer, and the numbers support it. Still, you might feel really nervous—does this upcoming change affect your position within the company? Are you in danger? In our opinion, yes, you are.

You might be thinking of horror stories like Bed, Bath, and Beyond. After only weeks on the job, new CEO Mark Tritton fired all but one of his C-suite.

While this scenario is far from the norm, it is common for a new CEO to take a hard look at the team she inherits. She needs to prove her worth, quickly, or she’ll be the one on the way out. Studies show that this is especially true when CEOs come from outside the company, which can double involuntary departures.

So if you’re a top exec with a new CEO – or, for that matter, anyone with a new boss — what can you do to survive?

Harvard Business Review studied CEO changes of over 1,000 companies and interviewed a number of new CEOs. Their accounts support something we tell our clients:

Not communicating IS communicating.

There are many reasons people fail to communicate.

• You don’t yet have what you think you need – the information, or a firm decision to convey.
• You feel like the evidence speaks for itself, and you don’t need to add anything.
• You’re not ready for questions, because you don’t have firm plans. Maybe you feel like so much is going to change in the near future that your plans might be moot.
• You think someone else is better suited to deliver the message. It’s not your strength, or it’s not your place.

Whatever your reason, it’s not good enough. Because people will hear something, even if you’re not speaking. When they have gaps in their understanding, they WILL fill those gaps in some way. All you’re doing, through your silence, is giving up control over what they will think.

So what does this mean for you, if you have a new leader? Say something.

Communicate, even if you feel it’s unnecessary.

The HBR interviews revealed what you’re really saying when you stay silent:

• Early impressions are important, but they aren’t based on the information you might think. New CEOs won’t ask their predecessor about you. And even when they get input from valid sources, they don’t place much stock in it. They want to make up their own minds. One big mistake: not enough face time, to help them form the impression. CEOs told HBR of a variety of ways their executives missed opportunities to fill in the blanks, from ill-timed vacations to over-focus on customer relationships. Face time is critical when the new boss is forming impressions.

What you’re saying with your silence: “I won’t be there for you when you need me.”

• One CEO told HBR, “Virtually no one came to see me to ask how they could help.” CEOs are in a naturally hostile environment. They’re in survival mode, trying to quickly figure out who’s with them and who’s against them. CEOs told HBR that they did not equate lack of disagreement with support. In fact, without strong, clear agreement, the CEOs draw their own conclusions: you’re not on the same page. CEOs reported firing executives because of misaligned priorities, even though those executives had never once announced their opposition.

What you’re saying with your silence:  “I don’t agree with you and I won’t support you.”

• New CEOs who deliver positive outcomes for their organizations in the first year tend to keep their jobs; CEOs who don’t tend to get fired. So it’s essential that the new CEO delivers on their first-year agenda. They say executives should actively confirm that they understand and support the plans of the new boss. And, beyond simple agreement, it makes sense to clarify what the CEO is doing and what you, specifically, can do to support those outcomes.

What you’re saying with your silence:  “I won’t help you succeed.”

• It’s hard to fault an executive for painting a bright picture of their function or division to the new CEO. But resist that temptation; it will backfire. As one CEO said “I don’t have time to sort out trust issues. If you don’t show me the negatives, I suspect that either you don’t know them or that you will try to hide things from me.”

What you’re saying with your silence: “You can’t trust me.”

• CEOs have enough challenges without trying to twist their style to fit their new team. So, of course, they want executives to match their style. You can do that the hard way – many months of observation, trial, and error – or you can do it the easy way. Ask them. One new CEO had a direct-report who others assumed would be fired, but “He…asked how I wanted him to disagree with me. What kind of facts cause me to change my mind — stories from the front line or statistics? Could he disagree in public or only in private? Once he had made his case and failed to convince me, should he try again or just accept that the decision was made? How did I feel about his subordinates or peers knowing he disagreed with something?” His direct and thoughtful conversation literally saved his job and set him up for long-term success with his new boss.

What you’re saying with your silence:  “I won’t make this any easier.”

We often tell our clients that saying nothing tells employees, ”We don’t know” or “We don’t care.” Or both. That’s the very last thing you want your new boss to think. Our advice – say something.

Why training teachers to actively resist won’t work.

“Houston, we have a problem.” That single line, paraphrased and popularized in the 1995 blockbuster Apollo 13, revealed much more than the harrowing events of a near-fatal NASA mission. It hinted at the power of effective learning.

Without a realistic simulated environment on the ground, drilling astronauts on worst-case scenarios, the entire crew would have been lost. It is powerful proof that good training drives real results.

Talk of arming teachers, to save the lives of their students and themselves, has us thinking about the Apollo 13’s training triumph.

Could teachers be effectively trained to defend against an active shooter?

Emerson develops learning programs our clients use to teach people to follow new processes or systems, up their performance, or deliver excellence for customers. What does that have to do with training astronauts or teachers to save lives? It all comes down to creating new behaviors. We know how to do that.

Let’s examine the training principles we recommend to effect new behaviors, and how those principles would work if we trained teachers to resist a violent intruder.

Match competencies to the role.

This is something our clients do outside of training. Every role has a competency profile – the skills and capabilities a person needs to be right for the job.

This is a common-sense but critical element of great performance. Yes, training helps people perform, but there are certain gaps that are hard to bridge with training. That’s why recruiters and managers take such pains to pair people and positions.

Needless to say, we hire teachers for their excellence in instructing our kids. They need teaching certificates, along with intelligence, communication skills, perception, compassion… If we were hiring people to neutralize violent intruders, the list would be different. So, before we even approach training, we have a potential performance problem.

Make it realistic.

The closer training is to reality, the better. Why? In order for people to perform, they need to transfer what they learned in training to on-the-job performance. The further the learning environment is from the performance environment, the less likely it is that the learner will transfer those new behaviors to real life.

Part of it is the setting. “State-dependent learning” says people perform better in the physical environment in which they learned to perform. That includes all the sights, sounds, smells, tools, and people. So, ideally, the learner would receive training in his or her performance environment—the real workspace.

Part of it is the scenario. We try to present learners with exactly the inputs and stimuli they will face on the job, and give them exactly the resources they will have at hand to solve the problem.

Could we apply that to teacher response training? They could certainly train in their own school buildings. That would be critical, as—aside from state-dependent learning—each building is physically different; those differences would require a custom response. But what about the scenario? That’s more of a problem.

It’s hard to anticipate exactly what would happen when someone is literally trying to take people by surprise.

Which brings us to our next principle…

Train on the exceptional.

We build training to include both the default and likely exceptions. Let’s say we’re designing training for department store employees. We might include scenarios on accepting purchase returns. In the common situation, it’s relatively simple: (1) Scan receipt. (2) Enter return reason code when prompted. (3) Press the Return button. Great. But then we ask, “What if…?” What if the customer doesn’t have a receipt? What if it’s past the time window to accept the return? What if this makes the customer mad? What if there’s a technical issue like an error message or a system outage? We must train employees on each of these scenarios.

But what if the default situation is already chaotic? If an active shooter going from classroom to classroom trying doors is your baseline, what other scenarios would we train? Imagine teachers learning to respond to one grave possibility after another.

Create unconscious habit.

We tell our clients that knowing what to do is not enough, especially in high-pressure situations. New behaviors must convert to habits, through repetitive practice cycles made up of a trigger, the right action, and some kind of reinforcement. Consider this comment on the police response to the Uvalde school shooting:

In the past two years, the Uvalde school district has hosted at least two active shooter trainings, according to reporting by The Times. One of them was two months ago. …Law enforcement officers need to be mentally prepared before they arrive on the scene, so they can respond immediately.

Repetitive training builds practice and confidence. Big gatherings for training every few years are more expensive and less effective for muscle memory. Instead, departments should consider more virtual tabletop exercises they can run through in an afternoon. Have officers walk through schools and talk with one another about how they would respond. Require officers to check all their gear before they begin a shift.

Opinion | After Uvalde, We Must Ask: Is Active Shooter Training Working? – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Learning experts know that, even if you drill during training, you can’t let new behaviors go stale and expect performance. We recommend our clients train only what is needed or will be used immediately on the job, providing natural repetition. Then we extend the learning experience through check-ins, on-the-job challenges, or learning networks, giving learners as many opportunities as possible to apply new skills after training.

So how would that work, if we were training teachers to forcibly resist?

They can’t actually use those new skills on the job until the unthinkable happens. Are we prepared to invest the time, effort, and emotional energy to effectively drill teachers, over and over, on their worst nightmare? Because that’s what it would take to create the right behaviors to make any difference.

Effective learning experiences are realistic and repetitive, preparing well-chosen people to create the new habits they need to perform. We have trouble imagining that training teachers to use guns will meet those criteria.

Behavior science can overcome resistance.

By Paul Mastrangelo, Emerson ReadyStaff

May you live in interesting times. Although the phrase is NOT really a Chinese curse, it remains an appropriate quip for the decade so far. Organizations faced with constant external pressures need to enlist employees to change, so the organization survives and thrives.

Change models show us that individuals change their behavior when the perceived cons of changing are less than perceived cons of staying the same. The Gleicher Formula (D x V x F > R), says that Dissatisfaction with the status quo, Vision of an alternative, and First steps toward that end will overcome Resistance to change.

Similarly, Edgar Schein explains change as spurred by the imbalance between Learning Anxiety and Survival Anxiety – the fear and personal cost of learning something new versus the fear and personal costs of staying the same. Schein, however, observed that tipping the scales by increasing fear of staying the same is NOT effective.

Instead, the key to influencing individuals is to decrease the fear of the new.

Note how many recent behaviors bear this out.

• 25% of the US population resist getting vaccinated for COVID 19. Why? They are being told that remaining unvaccinated is a threat to survival, but they rationalize that the vast majority of COVID cases are like a bad case of the flu, which is far less scary than a brand-new vaccine. The anxiety around the new vaccine is too high, so getting vaccinated is a hard change to make.
• Currently, one out of six posted jobs is remote, compared to one out of 67 jobs in 2020. Why? Before 2020 remote work options were uncommon because most leaders feared reduced performance, less innovation, and weakened culture. Once the pandemic forced the issue, remote work became the status quo, which now feels safe. Leaders’ anxiety diminished greatly (and reducing overhead costs certainly sweetened the pot). Allowing remote work as the default has become an easier change to make.
• Recent data show that people now value flexibility as much as a 10% pay raise. Why? Employees feared that removing themselves from the office, out of sight from their boss, would be detrimental to promotions, raises, and developmental opportunities. After nearly two years of partial or full remote staffing, it’s the new normal. The fear is gone, along with hours of commute time. Demanding flexibility is now an easier change to make.
• There is a sudden labor shortage, largely due to older employees retiring early. Why? The idea of spending more time at home and with family was always counter-balanced by the uncertainty of life without work. But the pandemic gave seniors a glimpse of that lifestyle. It now feels safe, especially compared to the potentially covid-ridden workplace. So of course early retirement is an easier change to make.

Once you recognize that behavioral change results from reducing the fear and cost of trying something new, you might reconsider using statements like “We must change if we’re going to survive” or “Change is inevitable.” Those messages attempt to increase fear of staying the same, but that’s the wrong pressure point.

The right pressure point is to make the change feel safe. Through this lens, overcoming resistance to organizational change is a challenge we can meet.