Leading Change

“Complacency” and “urgency” are used as inversely proportional terms in the text, meaning that when one value increases, the other decreases. If a company has high complacency, then it has low urgency. High urgency, in turn, indicates low complacency. Complacency is a willingness to remain in one location, role, or position without the feeling of a need for change, while urgency is the feeling that change is both necessary and imminent. In Kotter’s work, building urgency is the first step of the change process, and it needs to be maintained throughout the change effort. Because the terms are inversely proportional, Kotter discusses both how to build urgency and break down complacency, such as by creating an artificial disaster to shock employees out of complacency and into urgency. Connotatively, complacency is generally regarded as a negative trait, often describing an individual in a less-than-ideal scenario who is unwilling to change their circumstances. This connotation makes it a fitting term for Kotter’s view of firms reluctant to change.

“Culture” is used in Leading Change to refer to the specific sets of norms and values embraced within a company. Kotter notes how this type of culture, like culture more broadly, is difficult to define and address yet nonetheless influences all aspects of how a company functions. Kotter uses the example of a group of executives who are all under 5’8”, which indicates that height plays a role in their hiring and promoting value system. Such a factor is not likely to be openly acknowledged, as culture is more of a subconscious set of ideals that becomes ingrained in employees over time. Culture includes core values of operation. Kotter notes, for example, a company that implicitly values technology, which then becomes a limitation based on the perception of technological advances. In the process of change, culture is arguably the most challenging element to change. Cementing a new company culture is thus the final stage of the eight-stage process because doing so relies on the work done in all the previous stages.

“Ego,” or “big ego,” is a term Kotter uses to refer to people within a company who value themselves and their ideas more than the company or the thoughts and perspectives of their coworkers. Along with “snakes,” big egos are people who Kotter suggests avoiding when possible. Big egos should not be placed on a guiding coalition because they will be likely to reject everyone’s ideas while pushing intensely for their own. Big egos are not skilled in teamwork, and they tend to obstruct others from working as a team. Kotter notes that some key managers and executives may be big egos, in which case they need to be addressed either through remedial conversations and training or through removal from the company.

“Snakes” are people who, like big egos, cannot operate in a team, albeit in this case because they tend to build distrust among the other team members. Snakes are people who engage in gossip or spread rumors, which cumulatively reduces the effectiveness of a team. While snakes may not enter conflicts directly with other team members, their presence undermines the total confidence and effectiveness of the team. Like big egos, snakes often put their own interests ahead of those of the team or the company, and they are a dangerous addition to a coalition. Snakes outside the change process can also be harmful, as they may spread misinformation or exaggerate failures in the change process to undermine the company’s confidence in the guiding coalition and the vision for change.