How to lead when it all goes horribly wrong

Mark Aikman • July 8, 2021

Last week I looked at early-stage setbacks transformation which tend to centre on failure to engage buy-in – and cash – from the Executive.

Mid-stage setbacks tend to centre on lots-of-little-things-not-working – and plain old fatigue. You know how it is, when everything you thought was going to work… just doesn’t. I’d say this is when the Transformation Lead needs positive resilience the most; along with the ability to front-up to disasters and setbacks. Kipling and all that (Rudyard, I mean: I’m not advising getting a lot of cakes in).

You will need to develop a three-way personality split: the ability to move between three different leadership styles. You’ll need to assume the right personality for the task in hand throughout the programme – depending on what type of thing has gone wrong.

First up is:

The relationship manager

This is the approach you’ll need to use with the project sponsor, usually the Board and/or the senior management team. It’s a tricky one to get right because, in a crisis, the sponsor needs to be told at once that there is a crisis. And that sponsor sure ain’t gonna like it. So in relationship-manager mode, it’s your job to make sure the sponsor first really understands the problem. What precisely is wrong, and what are the implications of that? Then, once everyone has stopped running around the room screaming, you need to make sure the senior team members all believe that the problem can be solved. As the shouting stops, and the emotional temperature begins to steady, you then need to get their permission to solve the problem; and to give reassurance that this can be made to happen. That’s quite a journey to take people on: only relationship-managing gets a result with the sponsor, I’ve found.

Then:

Command-and-control

On the walk back down the stairs from the top floor to the Transformation Team office, you’ll need to morph into command-and-control mode. This does not mean you need to take a deep breath, ready to start shouting. It means you need to accept and own the problem. And want to direct the solution. And develop a coherent plan to fix it.

I believe that a crisis is not a problem that you should swiftly and neatly give away to a giant multinational provider, assuring everyone that it’s best if the Big Boys come in with all their bells and whistles. For me, you need to keep ownership in-house, with the solution being developed where you can keep an eye on it, under your control. That said, this is not a time to save a few quid, either.

If your crisis is large, you need to throw your best resources at it. That means hand-picking the most able, innovative and collaborative team you can get your paws on (and by the way, that usually includes the best lawyers). And you’ll need decent capacity levels, too. By being decisive and confident at this stage, everyone around you will feel reassured we’ve got this.

Once you’ve got the team lined up, swap back into relationship-manager gear. Your role is now to make this team believe the problem can be solved; and that they can solve it. You’ll need to create a positive atmosphere; you know, the one which has been slipping away from the team in the last few weeks of increasing gloom or frustration. You need them enthusiastic and energised if you want them to be creative and innovative. These people need to know that they can do the impossible. By next Tuesday.

Then, you will then need a final quick-change into a third type of leader:

The trendy Richard Branson-ish one

This is the “empowerer”: the one that devolves decision-making and accountability. Yes, sure, you OWN the problem, but David Brent-style my-way-or-the-highway is no way to get the best out of talented team members. So tell everyone they can make any decisions that fit with their remit and their recognised skill and judgement. Encourage solutions that don’t follow well-trodden paths, if these will fix the job. And give credit for those lightbulb ideas that really move the project on. The team members will all then do their bit to solve the problem for you…

This is based on an extract from Mark Aikman’s book Uncommon Sense: Alternative Thinking on Digital Transformation

Amazon location: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Uncommon-Sense-Alternative-Thinking-Transformation-ebook/dp/B08KSG513Q

Apple location: https://books.apple.com/gb/book/uncommon-sense/id1536877985

May 9, 2025
Many companies initially believe they can handle complex ERP implementations internally. After all, who knows their business better? Grant du Preez of Ignition Transformation looks at what to consider before deciding to go it alone: and he’s a guy who’s seen all the elephant-traps. He advises:  Don’t underestimate how complicated it will be Enterprise Resource Planning implementations are challenging under normal circumstances. When layered onto major business transformations like carve-outs or mergers, they become exponentially more complex. These scenarios introduce unique challenges, such as: · Multiple legacy systems that must be harmonised · Interdependent business processes needing careful redesign · Data migration requiring deep technical expertise · Compressed timelines driven by business imperatives · Organisational resistance amid broader change And all that is needed simultaneously… At best you might see missed business opportunities if you can’t make the speed: at worst, you’ll spend too much or possibly even see a failed implementation. Remember Transition Service Agreements (TSAs) are real rules TSAs present some of the most significant challenges during carve-outs and acquisitions. These agreements typically impose strict and legally-binding deadlines for transitioning from parent company systems. There are substantial financial penalties for delays. Hard cash. To work within TSAs, you will need: · Proven strategies for meeting TSA deadlines · Templates for identifying and prioritising critical path items · Tactics for negotiating more favourable terms when necessary · Experience balancing short-term TSA requirements with long-term system needs It’s a Matterhorn-steep learning curve if you haven’t done it before. Make sure you have just one source of truth During business transformations, competing narratives inevitably emerge. Typically, there are strands on requirements, data structures, and implementation approaches. It soon becomes 3D chess. You will need to establish what we call a "single source of truth" – authoritative references for decisions that prevent revisiting settled issues. This includes: · Documented design decisions with clear ownership · Master data governance frameworks · Process models validated by business owners · Requirements traceability matrices Without this discipline, projects often circle Heathrow, cycling through the same decisions repeatedly, wasting valuable time and resources. You need to know what’s going on You will need complete transparency across all aspects of an ERP programme. Every day, you have to be in a position to give your stakeholders an unvarnished view of: · Project status against critical milestones · Resource allocation and utilisation · Emerging risks and mitigation strategies · Budget consumption and projections This transparency creates accountability and enables early intervention when issues arise. But it can’t be a hefty administrative burden that slows progress. Get the top corridor on board You will need to secure the right level of commitment from organisational leadership and key stakeholders. You will have to be clear about the specific involvement needed at different stages. Most importantly, you will need to be listened-to when you communicate these needs to busy executives. Executive steering committees, dedicated business process owners and carefully structured sign-off procedures will help ensure decisions are made by the right people at the right time. Without this orchestration, ERP implementations often stall waiting for critical decisions or proceed with insufficient business input. Remember DIY may only LOOK like the cheaper option Whilst engaging experienced consultants requires investment, the return is substantial. Looking at dozens of implementations we've led or observed, those with experienced consultants consistently: · Complete on time or with minimal delays · Stay closer to budgeted costs · Deliver more of the promised business benefits · Create less disruption to ongoing operations Organisations embarking on ERP transformations during carve-outs, mergers, or other significant business changes face a choice: invest in experienced guidance upfront or pay far more in delays, overruns, and missed opportunities later. DIY-er, beware!
May 7, 2025
Five questions to ask providers of business transformation programmes
By Mark Aikman November 7, 2022
How to write reports that busy people will read
By Mark Aikman March 7, 2022
Thanks to our good friends at Future Processing for inviting us to make a guest appearance! On their blog, I've shared some ideas about what to consider in order to get best-fit suppliers: https://www.future-processing.com/blog/selecting-a-supplier-natural-selection/
By Mark Aikman October 19, 2021
IT's supplier relationship need to stop using the master-servant model. Partnership gets more done - and to a much higher standard.
By Sharon Gregory September 7, 2021
Ideas for analysing and dealing with resistance to change in transformation programmes
By Mark Aikman August 10, 2021
Considerations when transitioning from development to BAU
By Mark Aikman July 20, 2021
Support for surviving and thriving after the pandemic from Ignition Transformation
By Mark Aikman July 1, 2021
How to have better and/or fewer meetings
By Mark Aikman June 28, 2021
What to do when a wheel comes off #1
Show More