08/06/2021
Exit Impact on Non-Exiters
There are few more unsettling changes to the ones left behind in an organization than a change in leadership, particularly if that change involves the sale of a business. Leaders set the tone and direction of the company and if their tenure is long enough, employees may have a level of comfort in knowing what to expect in the day-to-day operations. These expectations are often classified as “culture”. It’s a common understanding that culture is instrumental to the success (or failure) of a business, therefore, it should be expected that a change of leadership will be accompanied by a shift in culture.
No business is immune to the impact a leadership change can have on their culture. In fact, this culture shift happens whether you are a mega company like Apple, as happened after the passing of Steve Jobs, or a small business owner turning over your legacy to the next generation. Change is almost always difficult, but, because of the broader implications, the change associated with a turnover of leadership can be particularly terrifying for employees. Factors that drive the discomfort include lack of trust toward the new leader and a perceived loss of control by the employees. Furthermore, this impact to the employees can often be overlooked in the early-day frenzy of keeping the business moving forward while transplanting it’s most vital organ.
The Unknown
When a small business is sold to an outside entity, the transition from a known and trusted owner to an unknown leader can cause exceptional disruption to the remaining employees. Whether the new owner is a competitor, an investment group, or just someone looking to get into business for themselves, this path has a particularly high degree of uncertainty. For some employees, the looming unknown shakes them free of a passive slumber and serves to re-energize them. Others will be more trepidatious. If the stream of communication about how the business will be run is unclear, infrequent, and inconsistent, then miscommunication can quickly become the norm. In the absence of information, people begin to treat suppositions as facts and for the fearful, the outlook is almost always grim.
I witnessed the impact of this type of transition with a company that had written decades of success stories. When the owner approached retirement age with no family to whom he could transition his legacy and no internal employees interested in, or capable of, taking over, he had to go outside to sell. It wasn’t difficult to find a willing buyer for a business with their track record of success and from all accounts the new owner was committed to providing the tools to grow the company at a faster rate. Even so, the next six months were a rollercoaster ride for all involved.
Some employees thrived in the new environment and garnered favor with the new leader. Others found themselves oscillating between a desire to flee the strange new circumstances and a determination to decipher the key to survival in this new normal. Managers reported that long tenured employees were planning to leave despite the fact that there were no indications that their jobs were in jeopardy. The managers themselves were soliciting job offers with the competition.
What made these employees believe, even if only sometimes, that moving to a completely different company would be less disruptive than transitioning to new ownership within their existing company, where they would be surrounded by a core group of co-workers they knew well? Control. I’m sorry, I meant to say “perceived control.”
The Untested
Acknowledging that the unknown, new owner can be overwhelming for some employees, it stands to reason that the leadership transfer across generations within a family might cause less of a shock to an organization. Of course this approach carries its own challenges. First and foremost is perceived (or real?) nepotism, which can lead to assumed lack of skills or ability of the new leader. Even when the necessary skills are present, the new, untested leader is then faced with the task of finding a way to respectfully transition the organization from the direction set by their family member to their own vision for the future. Given these constraints, we might expect that the transition to the semi-familiar leader will have less impact on the employees.
I’ve witnessed this type of transition in small businesses and have observed very different reactions. On one end of the spectrum was a young leader who inherited a young workforce and on the other, a young leader whose inherited workforce was ageing out. In both cases the employees reacted to the change in culture, but in the first scenario the younger workforce welcomed the new leader and embraced the changes. This was likely because the employees didn’t have enough time-in-role to feel deep ownership or loss of control from the change.
The ageing-out workforce under the new generation leader exhibited a very different response. While some employees were energized by the new direction, others resented the push for growth and change and felt a sense of loss of control. In some cases, employees even flat out ignored the directives of the new leader. In both examples, the new leader wanted to improve and grow their company and each introduced a new culture. Yet the response to the young leader by the older workforce was quite similar to the response described above to a complete outsider. The familial ties were insufficient to automatically create the trust needed to change the overall employee sentiments, resulting in the same fear of the unknown, driven by the same perceived lack of control.
The “Bait and Switch”
The transition that often carries the lowest expected impact on the company culture is when the owner or CEO leaves and is replaced by a known member of the senior management team. In this situation, the new leader has likely already influenced the organizational culture by virtue of their previous role. Their past behaviors should clearly indicate whether they can be trusted by the employees to maintain a level of consistency. But what happens when the new leader’s past behavior is primarily a reflection of the limits placed upon them by the outgoing leader? What happens when, given freedom and control, the new leader institutes changes that they had wanted to make in the past and now are in a position to implement? This can be perceived as a “bait and switch” by employees, a seeming breach of trust causing some to resist the changes.
As the persistent possibility of employee pushback and resentment across all of these scenarios indicates, any leadership change that accompanies the exit of a long term business leader can be very difficult for employees. A new leader should expect that there will be a transition period where trust needs to be established (or re-established) and even the most stable employees may experience negative reactions to the change. Most negative reactions can be traced back to the perceived loss of control. It’s important for new ownership to be aware that trust and control will always be two critical forces in the mix of a business transition and that these forces cannot be mitigated in the short term by words, but rather in the long term by actions.
A change in leadership will inevitably impact the culture and the employees in any organization regardless of size or level of sophistication. The key to a successful ownership transition is to plan for the impact of the cultural shift prior to the transition and to monitor the results from the earliest stages of change. Earning the trust of the employees will go a long way towards moderating the early disruption. Including employees early and often during the transition can serve to soften the perceived loss of control and can even create a re-energized workforce. And in the process, don’t forget to address the impact of the change to the new leader, too.