When can good practices undermine a leader’s capacity to see a change through?

As part of my series on facilitating organisational change, I am focusing on the leader as an instrument of change within a system. I define a leader as anyone who has the authority to enact change across an organisation. That person need not sit in the C‑suite; leaders can initiate and drive change from any level. That said, the more senior someone is, the more the system will respond to their engagement (or lack of it). For the purposes of clarity and impact, I will refer to leaders both as an approach and as a title.

Data describes the past; leadership demands a courage to choose the future

In my last blog I looked at how the “executive function” influences change—whether within a person (their decisions) or an organisation (the SLT/CEO). For change to overcome the inertia of the status quo and then be sustained, a measure of will and resilience is required. Willpower alone is not an effective long‑term strategy for breaking habits, but it is essential for setting a new course and putting the resources and processes in place that enable change—especially once willpower wanes. A wise leader builds supports so that willpower is not the only prop. However, willpower matters, and a few seemingly valuable leadership practices can also, unwittingly, undermine a leader’s ability to take a stand.

When a leader embarks on a change journey, many obstacles will appear. These obstacels are not only inevitable, they can be taken as a sign that you are leading! Now I want to highlight three deceptive traps—each masquerading as “good leadership”—that can prevent a leader from moving forward, particularly as they respond to these obstacles. These attributes have their place, but in certain forms they can stall momentum. It is critical to recognise them so you can avoid being hijacked by them. WARNING: some of these observations may appear to contradict common “leadership best practice.”

According to some leadership consultants, these common approaches can get in a leader’s way:

  1. Data‑gathering
  2. Empathy
  3. Group harmony

Some may call that a bold claim; others may disagree entirely. Let’s explore each—and I’d love to hear your view afterwards.

Data‑gathering

Data will be gathered; it is useful, and often essential. But it can go too far. Data‑gathering can become an invitation to procrastinate. Any dataset is incomplete, and in the age of AI there will always be more to collect. The problem isn’t using data; it’s when data‑collection promotes hesitation.

Data describes what we already know, not what is yet to happen. Leaders must orient toward the future if they are to lead. We can use data to assess how a decision performs, but we cannot depend on data alone to predict the future. Over-reliance on data directs the leader backward—toward the known past—rather than forward into the unknown future, which is ultimately where a leader is heading.

On top of that, the decisions leaders take are entwined with the people, culture and society surrounding them. It is very difficult account to use data to inform decisions that have such broad influences. A company might find through data that hiring 14‑year‑olds would be an efficient and effective cost-saving, but society and law would reject it. Many impacts of an intervention live inside complex systems and cannot be fully quantified. Even if we had endless data, few leaders could take an objective, comprehensive view of all of it. (Although the draw to AI’s appearance of omniscience is great.) When thinking about the future we must make choices from an incomplete picture. That can feel risky, so some avoid it. But leaning into that fear and acting is what distinguishes true leadership.

When you hide behind metrics you hand your authority to the numbers.

Another risk of excessive data‑gathering is that it outsources a leader’s sense of self to external metrics. This undermines the internal compass required to take a stand amid opposition. A leader might justify a decision with “the data said so,” but what happens when a challenge lies outside measurable metrics—when the issue is ethical or cultural? Data can erode authority if it replaces judgment.

The question you should ask is: Is data‑gathering serving progress, or is it holding me back?

Empathy

I have written about cultivating empathy and trained people to practice it, I think it is often missing – so this is a thorny point. Empathy is not bad. But when it becomes the leader’s primary value, action can be stifled. Why?

Some people will not like change. If you try to account for every feeling and upset, you cannot act. It is impossible to move forward and also take care of everyone simultaneously. Empathy can be the glue that helps people stay the course, but it can also be weaponised by those who benefit from the status quo. Parts of a system—and parts of ourselves—gain from staying the same, and for these parts, any change can look like a threat. Someone who resists and appeals to empathy can induce guilt in leaders and change agents and slow progress. This need not be conscious manipulation; resistance often arises because the part of the organisation (or the leader) that dislikes change jumps to the fore and demands attention.

“Empathy is essential—but not everyone’s feelings get to steer the ship.”

Additionally, inconsiderate actors can exploit a leader’s empathy to hijack a process. Process disruption sometimes serves a purpose, but other times it merely reinstates the status quo. At some point a leader must accept that some people will be upset—perhaps angry—and must continue regardless. Disgruntled resisters can use empathy to derail change that would otherwise serve the organisation.

In practice, ask: Have I understood my own and others’ challenges with this change? If you have—and you still believe the change is right—then it may be time to place empathy on the back burner and refocus on the organisation’s mission and purpose.

Group Harmony

A focus on maintaining positive group sentiment can also shackle a leader. What looks like good team dynamics can become a lack of focus on results. To borrow from Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team, chasing harmony can stifle performance. People become reluctant to speak up, to challenge poor practice, or to share innovations for fear of “rocking the boat” or being labelled “selfish” or “disruptive.”

Unity feels good—but comfort rarely drives change.

Leaders rightly want to keep their teams together through change, but that may not serve the organisation’s future. Prioritising togetherness can suppress necessary dissent and limit engagement from people who might otherwise contribute meaningfully. This desire to avoid discomfort may actually support an unhealthy status quo. Amazon’s principle “Disagree and Commit” recognises this tension.

Ask yourself: am I placing team togetherness ahead of where the organisation needs to go? Teams that do promote harmony often stagnate—ironically demotivating members. Conversely, an inspiring stretch goal can surface differences and help teams perform better over the long term.

Conclusion

These are three seductive traps that can paralyse a leader during change. Each attribute—data, empathy, group harmony —has a place in supporting teams through transitions, but each can also hold you back when over used. If you find yourself doing so, congratulations: awareness is the first step to moving forward!

Below is a quick recap and a couple of diagnostic questions to help you act:

  • Data‑gathering: Is data helping me move forward or enabling hesitation? Am I using data to justify decisions rather than to guide judgment?
  • Empathy: Have I acknowledged people’s concerns fully? If so, does the change still align with the organisation’s mission?
  • Group harmony: Am I prioritising harmony over outcomes? Would a clear stretch goal surface productive dissent and energy?

Which of these might have held you back recently?