Leadership means inspiring others to take on tough challenges. These types of challenges require a new way of thinking and acting to make progress on them. If the challenges simply needed someone in authority to make a decision they are fully capable of doing, then that isn't really leadership, is it?
For example: a VP of sales can fire a director for acting unethically - that is ultimately part of the job description to act upon. However, if the unethical behavior continues within the department, then it becomes an issue of culture: that requires true leadership. That cultural challenge will require a change in thinking and acting by yourself and others within the organization to make progress on - and ultimately - solve.
Tough challenges also involve some form of loss. If we accept that leadership is based on solving tough challenges and that tough challenges involve loss - then it is safe to assume that true leadership involves dealing with loss.
Â
You may already understand this as someone who holds a position of authority. In the previous example, the VP had to fire a director, a loss of personnel. We can agree that is part of the job description and does not involve true leadership. When the actions the Director was fired for - unethical behavior - end up permeating the entire department, then the losses to be addressed look a bit different. Changes in thinking, processes, responsibilities, etc. are likely to occur.
Those changes may involve some form of a loss: for example, supervisors may lose some of their time allocated elsewhere in order to address unethical sales practices on the front line. Employees on the front line all the way up to the C-suite may suffer a loss in pay and revenue to conform to more ethical sales practices. Those changes may go as far as letting employees go. These losses are tough to accept, and it will not be easy to get others to accept them as well.
People struggle with change that involves a loss, perceived and real alike.  True leadership requires addressing those losses with everyone involved.
Asking people to change requires you to think about what their perceived losses might be. Sometimes it is as obvious as having to let employees go for unethical behavior patterns. Other times it might be more subtle, like a loss of revenue as a result of changing how the department sells their products/services. Even more subtle, it might involve the loss of perceived clout and respect the managers have within the company. The overall intention of your push for more ethical sales within the organization might be noble and righteous to many, but sometimes that is not enough to get people to change.
So how do you address losses properly?
Addressing loss is easier said than done. Not many people in positions of authority are well-trained to deal with and address loss. Simply dumping the loss as a matter of fact all at once with no foresight is NOT ideal. Sometimes, true leadership involves acknowledging the losses that others may perceive, rather than trying to convince them of the righteousness of your cause.
Addressing loss requires empathy, good active listening skills, and also when/how to pace the change involving the loss.
Having empathy for another person's loss requires you to see the world their their eyes.  This means taking the time to ask questions, like:
"What does your team see as a potential loss with this change?"
"What do you stand to lose if this change occurs?"
"What has been hard about the changes thus far for you/your team?
Those questions, followed by some form of acknowledgment and validation, can go a long way in addressing the loss that person has. Don't assume you know what they are going through, but do acknowledge their pains and disappointments, while validating the feelings behind it. You can never have enough empathy in these situations.
Sometimes, addressing loss requires you to say less than more.  Don't say "I know how you feel, but here's why we should do this..." or any variation on it. In other words, don't assume you know what they are going through, and don't diminish their loss with your urgency to make the change. Additionally, let the person speak for the loss themselves, and then get out of the way! Sometimes making progress on addressing loss requires space for others to speak on it themselves.
Addressing loss requires conscious awareness of the room's tolerance for it. Dumping the acknowledgment of all the losses on the table at once is probably not a good idea, as you will scare people off from the next steps in the process. Those are situations where people who benefit from the status quo will push back pretty hard.
Instead, pace the losses. Certainly address the losses before they occur, but keep in mind the tolerance of those who may be experiencing the losses for any future difficult work to be done. Address the losses one at a time, if need be. The point is that change takes time, and it is better to bring more allies on board by addressing loss than going out on your own trying to initiate change on a tough challenge.
By addressing losses properly, you stand to make more progress on the changes you seek to make. Â
To quote from When Everyone Leads, "Change happens faster when a critical mass of people connect accepting loss with making progress on their most important challenges. Once people understand that connection, they will be more likely to exercise leadership, in their own way, to help name, understand, and mitigate the loss that comes with change." (pg. 73).
The shared common purpose in the change is what gives people the motivation and tolerance for loss - but it takes empathy, good listening skills, and pacing of the loss(es) to get to that common purpose.