To balance the need for inclusion with the threat of “too many cooks,” engage leaders early in very specific ways (i.e., “At this stage, we want to pre-mortem the plan and hear your concerns in the open”). So many change programs get started covertly to avoid dissenting opinions, but these fail to build trust, and struggle to gather the necessary political support when they need to scale.
![nobl collective nobl collective](https://www.oregonwinepress.com/pub/photo/thumb/Assemblage_CWK_7891_fitbox_1000x600.jpg)
![nobl collective nobl collective](https://secondhome.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/1123LuFgq8eGyzJUnK.jpg)
They simply don’t understand their role in the change.When leaders act as if change is for other people-when they think they don’t need to modify their behavior-they exhibit Leader Entitlement, believing their titles literally grant them special privileges to ignore the change. They’re still demanding changes without going through the new process, for instance, or dictating next steps despite the intention to empower teams.
![nobl collective nobl collective](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6xzeQ6nO1xk/maxresdefault.jpg)
But soon, reports start coming back that while teams are trying to operate in the new way, the leaders are refusing to get with the program. And at first, the change is well-received: all the leaders nod vigorously, and promise to implement it with their teams. You’re on the “road show” portion of change making, going around to different functions within the organization to convince them to adopt new systems and new ways of working.