"Burning platforms" never really worked to motivate change

Here's a little story I heard from David Rogers the other day. We partially owe the "burning platform" concept to Nokia's former CEO, Stephen Elop, who famously delivered what was meant to be a 'rousing' speech to his employees as the company was grappling with the iPhone threat. Elop went as far as to compare Nokia's situation to that of a man standing on an oil platform in the North Sea and facing a raging fire on multiple fronts – who has no choice but to jump into freezing water to survive.

Given how the Nokia story ended, isn't it astonishing how "burning platforms" have become part of the change vernacular?...

Here are two reasons why we should drop them in today's environment:

🔴 𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐫-𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭-𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 (and can lead to negative consequences in the long run)
🔵 𝐓𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲'𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲

System thinkers caution us to 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐮𝐩 𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 - be that on a team or org level. Today's organisations are over-heated and adrenalised by uncertainty; and burning platforms are only fanning the flames.

Let me also be clear: every good story needs high stakes and an antagonist. I'm not saying we shouldn't use them. I'm saying, let's shift the emphasis to what Rogers calls "positive urgency".

Employees need a change narrative that helps them to:

𝐑𝐞-𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 + 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭.

So, calling all fellow change leaders & enablers: please, let us retire this "burning platform" zombie concept. We can do better!

Stay fierce & curious!

Alina