Future-proofing your company is a team sport
Being ready for recession means asking your teams to think differently.
There’s an entire generation of leaders today who have never led through a recession. Now, faced with raging inflation, tumbling profits and volatile stock prices, they are flummoxed. While this is not another global pandemic, there are whispers in the wind that troubled times are coming. How can you help your teams work together in an agile way to prepare for whatever is next?
There are lessons to draw from winners post-COVID who seemed to nimbly navigate the last crisis, and those that lumbered and bumbled their way through.
Among the losers were those that didn’t just get it a little wrong – they doubled down on a single bet. They kept rolling the dice at the same table despite the odds that their “luck” could run out.
- Peloton produced more bikes than people wanted and were left peddling in the wind with quality issues and a saturated market for their product.
- Bed Bath and Beyond bet on branded goods instead of investing in technology that would have brought loyal shoppers online to buy goods for staying home and feathering their nests.
These companies looked like early winners, and yet the falls were more spectacular than the rise. They had a plan. They were aligned. Where they failed was in imagination. Marching in lock step they went right over the edge.
Why it’s easy to go over the edge
In hindsight we can see mistakes. But how does a smart team keep from outsmarting itself? It comes down to a discipline – avoiding the tendency toward group think and coalescing around one possibility.
Breaking the cycle to think differently together
Breaking this cycle of group think is difficult, but there is too much at stake not to do it. The discipline that saves the smartest, most successful organizations in times of uncertainty is a dedication to scenario planning.
Scenario planning is both a process and a discipline that enables your team to imagine “what happens if…” by reflecting on the variables for your business and speculating with the best of your current data and experience how those might play out.
With this process your team can go deep and long before events occur, playing out how they might respond. They can then agree on the critical factors that they’ll need to consider as events unfold. They put together plausible scenarios – not only Plans A and B, but also plans C, D, E, F, and G.
Scenario Planning
Scenario planning is the practice of creating varying courses of action for a business to implement based on potential events and situations, known as scenarios.
It enables teams to challenge their own thinking, consider possibilities, and later, respond dynamically to an unknown future. There are many ways the future may unfold with scenario planning, guiding teams to be responsive, resilient, and effective.
The process begins when you define your critical uncertainties and develop plausible scenarios.
This requires teams to both apply a sophisticated process and develop the team dynamics and characteristics of agile teams.
Scenario planning is a team sport in that it first requires us to acknowledge no one of us is smarter than all of us. When your team develops this capability, you have the ingredients to become agile. Agility is not so much response to crisis as it is planning to pivot when necessary and knowing what you will do. It may mean changing the metrics by which you’ll measure success so that you can manage through a challenging period.
There may be no industry that suffered during the pandemic more than the airlines. Many tried and tried again to “guess” when air travel would resume. CEO of United, Scott Kirby told analysts “We’re not going to pretend we know what demand will be.” After spending months pouring over data, they concluded it couldn’t be done.
Instead they assembled a “bounce-back” cross-functional team to consider slow, medium, and fast rebound scenarios. Conversations on cutting costs were scuttled for debates on growth. Many had never met each other or worked together. But they set a goal of becoming a “just in time” organization, looking at options, risks, plans. Through that they placed some bets. The result was a different version of success – liquidity – which enabled them to ride out volatility in demand indefinitely.
Why can’t more teams do what United Airlines did? The answer is they can if they know how to get there. There are qualities of leaders and teams that give them the capabilities to work together more effectively and thrive in uncertainty, and tools to support them through the churn. Scenario planning is one of those tools – the most powerful way to ensure your team has the debate before there is a crisis. The difficult conversations have been started, the tradeoffs contemplated, so that when it’s time to act, it feels familiar.
Leading a future-proof team
The role of the team leader is to create space and environment for acknowledging what is unknowable and building a process that moves away from report-outs and political debates to alignment around critical factors and criteria for decision-making.
The team needs to be empowered and expected to debate constructively and bring discipline to its decision process. We know from research and through our work with agile teams that there are three qualities of these teams that make it more likely they’ll be able to plan for various scenarios, stay current on the critical factors, and be ready to pivot.
Seize the power of Both/And thinking
Both/And Thinking is the ability to hold that more than one seemingly conflicting fact or set of facts may be true, or there maybe be more than one scenario, potential outcome, or impact of any decision.
Both/And Thinking in teamwork requires all members to hold for the group the notion that seemingly opposing points of view can both contain truths. For example, it can be true that a recession may be painful, but also positive for your company.
To encourage both/and thinking, enable your team to embrace the plausibility of numerous scenarios, as well as options for the best actions based on emerging data. Helping your team to explicitly understand and analyze both sides of the seemingly contradictory truth is a key step forward.
Unlock the creativity that comes with curiosity
In teamwork, curiosity is ability of a team to display humility by soliciting input and other points of view. Curiosity avoids narrow, myopic thinking. It prevents your team from closing ranks at critical moments and helps open the aperture to see all possibilities.
To encourage curiosity, insist on questions even from those who have “been there and done that.” Seek to understand, model the behavior by asking questions yourself, even if you believe you know the answer. You never know when the “crazy” idea will be the one that makes most sense.
Make the path forward real through Decision Savvy
All the curiosity and flexibility in your approach won’t mean much if your team can’t make good decisions and move forward together. Agility requires a discipline around decision-making that encourages the team to decide on the criteria for decision before advocating for a point of view. When your team does this, it is far easier to build alignment and get to the right decision.
To foster decision savvy requires the leader to insist on taking a step back to ask “what problem are we solving” before the team begins solutioning. This step alone will prevent your team from solving before they get to the heart of the matter. Then, simply ask, “what are the criteria that this decision must meet?” and generate those in writing. Use it as a checklist to consider the various options, and then, tally up how well each potential solution meets the criteria.
Scenario planning is not a cure-all for thriving in a recession. But it will give you and your team a multitude of options and a path forward to take now. Perhaps most important, it will change the crisis mentality and alter the chemistry of the team. You’ll be able to meet each challenge head on, with greater confidence, agility, and resilience.
Related content
Meetings are a universal ritual in organizational life. While managers on average spend more than half their working hours in meetings, many leaders can’t shake the feeling that meetings are falling short of their potential. Are they advancing the work, or quietly draining energy? At BTS, we study teams not as collections of individuals, but as living systems. This perspective reveals dynamics that traditional methods often overlook. Rather than aggregating individual 360° assessments, we assess the team as a whole to examine how the team functions collectively. Applying that lens to one of the most common team activities (meetings) uncovers patterns worth paying attention to. Drawing on thousands of team assessments in our database, we focused on two meeting behaviors:
- Do teams meet regularly?
- Do team members leave meetings with clear accountabilities and next steps?
Our question: How strongly do these behaviors relate to overall team effectiveness?
What the data revealed
Using data from 1,043 respondents (team members and informed stakeholders) we ran a Bayesian analysis to evaluate the predictive power of each behavior. The results were striking:
- Both behaviors were linked to higher team effectiveness.
- But one mattered far more: leaving meetings with clear accountabilities and next steps was 3.9x more predictive of team effectiveness than simply meeting regularly.
- And teams that often or always wrap up meetings with next steps rated 0.66 points higher on a 5-point scale of team effectiveness than teams who sometimes, rarely, or never close with accountabilities - that's almost a full standard deviation higher (0.96 sd)
Meetings aren’t the problem, muddy outcomes are.
Teams often default to frequency, setting cadences of check-ins or standing meetings. Our data suggest that what differentiates effective teams from the rest is not how many meetings they hold, but what comes out of them. A team that meets less often but ends each session with clear accountabilities will outperform a team that meets frequently but leaves outcomes ambiguous. In other words, meetings aren’t inherently wasted time; they become wasted time when they don’t translate into aligned action.
A simple shift that pays dividends
The good news: improving meetings doesn’t require radical redesign. Small changes reinforce accountability and dramatically increase the value extracted:
- Close with clarity. Reserve the last 5–10 minutes of every meeting to confirm: What decisions have been made? Who owns what? By when? This habit shifts meetings from “discussions” to “decisions.”
- Make commitments visible. Use a shared action log, team board, or project tracker so next steps are transparent, and progress is easy to follow. Visibility builds accountability.
- Assign a “Closer.” Rotating this role signals that closing well is everyone’s responsibility. The Closer ensures the team doesn’t drift into vague agreements, but leaves aligned and ready to act.
When teams adopt these habits, the difference is tangible: less rehashing of the same topics, faster progress on priorities, and a stronger sense of shared ownership. These small shifts compound quickly, making meetings not just more efficient, but more energizing and effective. In a world where teams face relentless demands and limited time, focusing on how meetings end may be one of the fastest ways to improve how teams perform.
.webp)
Day 42: A newly hired Group Strategy Director is still at her desk at 9:00 p.m. She was brought in to lead a major transformation - one that’s been discussed for months but never clearly defined. She was hired because she’s capable, and there’s often an unspoken belief that capable leaders should just “get it” and move.
Her inbox is overflowing. Priorities keep shifting. Her peers are polite but distant - unclear on her mandate, protective of their turf, and too busy to engage deeply. Conversations stay surface-level.
She’s been invited in - but not set up to succeed.
It’s a common story: a strong leader, dropped into a high-stakes role without the clarity, structure, or support to land well.
Whether new to the company or stepping into a bigger role, many executives spend their critical first months navigating complexity alone - while being expected to deliver from day one.
Research has held steady for years: around 40% of leadership transitions fail within 18 months when the right support isn’t in place.
Too often, companies focus on choosing the right person - then overlook what it takes to truly integrate them. Without structured, human-centered support, even the most capable leaders struggle to succeed.
Why this matters more now
Transitions have always been high-stakes moments. But in today’s climate, the pressure is rising and the timelines are shrinking.
Leaders are stepping in during disruption - not stability.
Most aren’t inheriting status quo - they’re hired to fix or accelerate something.
Hybrid work delays trust-building and blurs cultural cues.
Visibility is high. Expectations form early and often.
In short: less room for error. More risk when it goes wrong.
Different paths. Same risks.
It’s tempting to think internal promotions are easier. But each path comes with invisible traps:
External hires lack historical context and relationships yet are expected to drive change.
Internal promotions bring familiarity but struggle to reset relationships and lead differently.
In both cases, leaders are often left navigating ambiguity alone once onboarding ends.
What’s missing
Most organizations do onboarding. Few do transitions. And that’s where things break down.
What’s often overlooked:
- A clear and aligned mandate
- Shared definitions of success across key stakeholders
- Insight into unspoken cultural and political dynamics
- Active sponsorship from the manager
- A longer runway to build trust and momentum
- Board-level clarity and engagement for senior roles
The result? Leaders are under pressure to perform - while still finding their footing.
The quiet rejection
Leaders are often hired to shift the system. But once inside, they encounter subtle resistance:
- Their pace feels too fast.
- Their questions challenge norms.
- Their style doesn’t match unspoken rules.
Suddenly, trust is withheld. Expectations shift. Peers disengage - but don’t say why. The very qualities that got them hired now work against them. Confidence erodes. Performance stalls. And promising transitions quietly derail.
This isn’t just an onboarding issue. It’s a readiness issue - on both sides.
The cost of getting it wrong
A failed executive transition doesn’t just impact the individual - it ripples across the organization. It stalls momentum, fractures teams, delays results, and undermines trust in leadership.
It’s also expensive. Between lost productivity, re-recruitment, and missed goals, the cost can easily reach several times the leader’s salary.
When transitions go off course, it’s not just a talent issue - it’s a business one.
What needs to change
Organizations that get transitions right do five things well:
- Treat transitions as enterprise critical. Ask: What’s at stake beyond this one role?
- Define success together. Ask: Are expectations aligned across leader, manager, and stakeholders?
- Equip the manager to lead the transition. Ask: Are they prepared to sponsor - not just evaluate?
- Provide real support - not just warm welcomes. Ask: Have we created space for the leader to reflect, adapt, and build capability?
- Extend support beyond day 90. Ask: What happens after the honeymoon ends?
The gray zone
Most leadership transitions don’t fail during onboarding - they stall in the murky middle. That stretch between onboarding and full performance. Too late for checklists, too early for formal reviews, and too often overlooked.
This is when the leader is highly visible but still gaining footing. The system assumes they’re up and running. But what they actually need is time to reflect, context to navigate, and support to show up differently.
Without that space, small misalignments become big ones. First impressions stick. And promising transitions quietly derail - not because the leader isn’t capable, but because they’re left to navigate complexity alone.
This “gray zone” isn’t anyone’s job to manage - and that’s the problem.
The role of transition coaching
Transition coaching provides a confidential, strategic space to:
- Navigate unspoken dynamics
- Build confidence and clarity
- Reflect and recalibrate in real time
As Greg Smith, CEO of Teradyne, put it:
“We’re investing in executive coaching because we want our senior leaders to lead with confidence from day one—not figure it out by month six.”
And the research backs it up. Coaching accelerates traction, strengthens alignment, and improves long-term performance.
But it only works when paired with system-level readiness: aligned stakeholders, engaged managers, and a clear plan for integration.
Final thought
Transitions aren’t just about setting a leader up to succeed. They’re a mirror for whether your organization is ready to evolve.
Because every new leader brings change - and every transition is a test of how well your system absorbs it.
If you’re hiring or promoting this year, the question isn’t just “is this the right person?”
It’s “are we ready to change with them?”
BTS helps leaders - and the systems around them - thrive through transition. Let’s talk.
Sources
- McKinsey & Company (2023), Leadership Transitions: Making the Move from Operational to Strategic
- Harvard Business Review (Ciampa & Watkins, 1999), Right From the Start
- CEB/Gartner Executive Research (2016), Why Successful Executives Fail
- DDI Global Leadership Forecast (2021), Assessing the Risks in Leadership Transitions
- McGill, P., Clarke, P., & Sheffield, D. (2019). From “blind elation” to “oh my goodness, what have I gotten into”: Exploring the experience of executive coaching during leadership transitions into C-suite roles. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. Oxford Brookes University.
- Greg Smith, CEO of Teradyne, as quoted in BTS webinar (2025)
- International Coaching Federation (ICF, 2021), The Value of Coaching in Leadership Transitions
A large financial services company promoted a key leader into the position of CEO. Two of their peers were also vying for the top job. Almost immediately, the other two executives left the company. This created an unexpected leadership vacuum that cascaded within their respective departments, where no one on either team was able to step up into the suddenly vacant leadership spots. The lack of “ready now” successors required the company to look outside to replace those executive leadership roles, significantly disrupting their critical strategic transformation effort and creating additional chaos at the top of the company at a time when they could ill afford to slow momentum.
Similarly, a global manufacturing company promoted a key leader into the CEO role who lacked sales and marketing experience – an area where his predecessor had deep expertise. This expertise was a critical driver in the company’s success to date, and the gap at the top was stalling revenue growth and impeding the new CEO’s ability to deliver on the Board’s expectations. In order to fill the CEO’s knowledge gap, the company reorganized the head of sales and marketing role so that it was led by two executives instead of one. This unanticipated restructuring created confusion across the C-Suite and the rest of the sales and marketing organization regarding roles and responsibilities, which compounded their challenges in driving growth. The unexpected increased salary costs accompanying the additional executive role further impacted the bottom line, as well.
What these two examples illustrate is the Domino Effect. The Domino Effect occurs when a star performer is promoted, and there is no “ready now” successor to fill the role they are vacating. With so much attention placed on getting a new CEO into the role, the Domino Effect can cascade down through the organization and is an often hidden and unanticipated outcome that can hinder even the most capable chief executive from successfully taking the reins.
Assessing the impact of the Domino Effect
Conventional wisdom and the literature suggest that CEOs sourced internally outperform CEOs that are sourced externally. For example, in Harvard Business Review’s “Best CEOs of the World” top 100 list, 84% came from internal promotions1. The majority of leaders who ascend to the CEO role are COOs, CFOs, divisional CEOs, and some are “leapfrog” leaders identified below the C-Suite2. A question that has not been addressed is: what happens to the performance of the company when there are no internal candidates for the new CEO’s previous role? In other words, what is the impact of the Domino Effect on company performance?
To answer this question, we compared the S&P 500 twenty best performing companies3 with the twenty worst performing companies4 based upon percentage change in stock price.
What happened at the Best Performing companies?
Within the top 20 best performing companies, 75% of the CEOs were internal with 5 of the CEOs being founders of the company and 10 being promoted into the role. For their former positions, from which they were promoted, four were filled by internal candidates, and two were replaced with external candidates. Examining the leadership teams on the company’s websites, it appears that in three incidences, the role that the CEO vacated no longer exists. In one case the role was restructured and split into two different positions.
What happened at the Worst Performing companies?
70% of the CEOs at the worst performing companies came through promotions or being founder led (12 and 2 respectively), which is nearly identical to the best performing companies. All things being equal, one would expect a similar trend regarding the number of internal vs. external replacements for the CEOs’ previous roles from which they were promoted. However, we found that there were differences. Only three of the backfilled positions were placed by internal candidates and four were placed by external hires. In three of the companies, the position no longer exists, and two of the companies restructured the position.
Understanding the impact: disruption and worsening performance
The research shows little difference between the best and worst performing companies in relation to internal promotions and external hires for the CEO position. However, we do see more organizational disruptions in the replacement of the previous roles held by the CEO. A disruption is defined here as either the company was required to hire from the outside, restructure the role, or eliminate the role altogether. All of these create added turmoil and challenge for the new CEO as they try to move quickly to onboard and start delivering impact.
We found that disruptions were present in 60% of the top-performing companies, compared to 75% of the poorest performing companies. While more research is needed to uncover the nuances, our research suggests that companies with a stronger bench for newly promoted CEOs’ previous positions have less organizational disruption and outperform those who do not have a strong bench.
Tackling the Domino Effect before it falls
While CEO succession garners the greatest amount of the spotlight in the press, among board members, and in public sentiment of the health of a company, our research underscores the need for CEOs, CHROs, and Boards to focus on the Domino Effect as part of their C-Suite succession process. That is, creating a bench of potential successors targeted specifically for the CEO’s previous role, and the roles deeper within the organization that could replace those who are being elevated in the company at the time of the new CEO transition.
Consider these best practices to get ahead of the Domino Effect:
- Build the backfill into the identification process. When identifying potential candidates for the CEO, simultaneously consider who may replace that candidate for their current role.
- Focus on the role rather than the person. You may not be able to replace the next CEO’s position with one individual, but you may be able to replicate their skills with people who can excel in the role with complimentary skills.
- Expand the purview of success profiles. Create success profiles for the CEO and those roles that are likely feeder pools for CEO. Ensure that the success profiles are future focused rather than focused on what is important today. Business realities change over time. What makes someone successful today may be different than what is required in the next 3 to 5 years.
- Leverage the power of data for determining future success. As you look at your bench, use structured assessment processes to assess individuals against the success profile, reduce the risk of biases towards individuals, and determine their readiness to address the future business challenges that the organization will face.
- Comprehensively build the right bench. Look broad and deep within the organization when identifying potential successors. You may find those “leapfrog” leaders who would otherwise be overlooked.
- Continually refresh your succession slate. Given the cascading impacts of the Domino Effect, it is more important than ever to ensure your slate is up to date with viable candidates for higher level positions. Consider doing so on at least an annual basis.
- Ensure that succession is seen as a strategic imperative across the leadership of the organization rather than a single event of placing a new CEO. The CEO and the CHRO should own the succession process, the Board should be involved, and the focus should stay equally on the CEO role and the successor leadership roles throughout the organization.
Finding, placing, and ramping up a new CEO is a momentous decision with big outcomes at play – for the CEO’s own success and the viability of the organization. If you embrace the opportunity to turn the Domino Effect into a strategic gameplan, you will be positioned both for accelerated success and impact.
References
1 Harrell, E. Succession Planning: What the Research Says. Harvard Business Review December 2016
2 Harvard Business Review Staff. November 2009. The Best Performing CEOs in the World. Harvard Business Review 41-57.
3 https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/10/10/invest-sp-500-stocks-market-portfolio/
4 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/20-worst-performing-p-500-200036146.html
Related content
¿Se puede cambiar la cultura de una organización?
Hoy en día, hay pocas organizaciones que no se encuentren inmersas en uno (o varios) procesos de transformación cultural. Nuevas formas de trabajar en organizaciones más planas y adaptativas, mejoras en la cultura de seguridad, orientar la organización hacia sus clientes, transformaciones de las áreas comerciales, mejora de la excelencia operativa, por citar algunas.
Y es aquí donde viene una de las grandes preguntas:
¿se puede cambiar la cultura de una organización? Y, si es así, ¿cómo se hace?
Para ayudar a responder a estas preguntas, que a menudo nos hacen nuestros clientes y sobre las que hay mucho escrito, me gustaría compartir lo que en BTS hemos aprendido en los últimos 38 años sobre qué funciona y qué no (hasta ahora, que en esto de los cambios culturales uno nunca deja de aprender).
La buena noticia es que la respuesta a la pregunta de si se puede cambiar la cultura de una organización es sí.
La dificultad viene al responder a la segunda: ¿cómo se hace?
¿Un proyecto? ¿Una iniciativa?
Un punto importante a considerar es que los procesos de cambio o transformación cultural no son un proyecto con un inicio y un fin; es un proceso en constante evolución. Y esto es algo que en ocasiones genera tensión en las organizaciones, a menudo acostumbradas a un enfoque basado en proyectos.
¿Qué es crítico y a menudo se suele ignorar?
Hay una serie de elementos que, si se tienen en cuenta y se utilizan adecuadamente, harán que los esfuerzos de transformación sean mucho más eficaces. Desafortunadamente, muchas veces se ignoran.
Estos elementos críticos son:
- Involucrar a la gente. Cuanto más se hace partícipes de la transformación a las personas (a todos los niveles), más altas son las probabilidades de que implementen los cambios requeridos.
- Para entender el cambio hay que tangibilizarlo y experimentarlo. Consiste en conectar el marco teórico con acciones del día a día. Explicar la foto completa con transparencia es clave.
- Todos los cambios traen consigo cosas positivas, pero también tienen impactos negativos. Explicar la foto completa con transparencia es clave.
- Cambiar la cultura implica tiempo y requiere identificar y cambiar los “mindsets” y las estructuras diarias (símbolos) que definen cómo se hacen las cosas en la organización.
- La cultura debe estar fuertemente conectada con la estrategia.
¿Cómo recomendamos estructurar los procesos de cambio cultural?
Nuestro enfoque se compone de cuatro etapas: establecer resultados, crear líderes de cambio, incrustar cambios clave y sostener las nuevas formas de trabajo.
1. Establecer resultados
El primer paso en cualquier proceso de transformación es establecer resultados claros. Es crucial identificar los impulsores de la transformación y definir los resultados deseados de manera que se logre un verdadero alineamiento a nivel ejecutivo. A medida que se avanza, hay que conectar los puntos entre el propósito y la visión, entendiendo de dónde se viene, dónde se está y hacia dónde se quiere avanzar. Además, es esencial conectar la transformación con los objetivos organizacionales.
Algunas acciones relevantes de esta fase son:
- Recopilación de información (entrevistas, focus groups, visitas a operaciones,…)
- Diagnósticos culturales
- Definición de expectativas (Leadership Profiles
2. Crear líderes de cambio
En BTS creemos que todos los líderes son también líderes de cambio. Adoptar una mentalidad de “líder de cambio” requiere que los líderes experimenten y vean lo que se espera de ellos. Desde el inicio, es vital impulsar a la acción con ‘trabajo real’, como establecer nuevas prioridades y comunicar de forma transparente y eficaz.
Hay que comprometer (emocional y racionalmente) a los líderes con el cambio y hacerles ver cómo pueden impactar en la cultura a través de acciones concretas en el día a día.
Por último, es necesario proporcionar apoyo continuo para los cambios de mentalidad y comportamiento más difíciles y recoger retroalimentación sobre lo que funciona y lo que no en esta etapa.
Algunas acciones relevantes de esta fase son:
- Elaboración de Playbooks para roles críticos
- Despliegue de programas de liderazgo y cambio
- Feedback loops con los niveles ejecutivos
3. Incrustar cambios clave
Para lograr un cambio significativo, es esencial identificar los modelos mentales actuales y ofrecer nuevos que apoyen el estado deseado. Crear rutinas y símbolos que refuercen el cambio, así como identificar procesos, prácticas, eventos o normas ancladas en las viejas formas de trabajar, es crucial.
Cocrear nuevas formas de trabajo para su activación inmediata ayuda a cimentar estos cambios. A medida que se avanza, cambiar los sistemas y procesos que soportan y refuerzan los cambios cruciales es fundamental para el éxito a largo plazo.
Algunas acciones relevantes de esta fase son:
- Coaching a líderes
- Montar Sprints culturales
- Cascadear el cambio al resto de la organización
- Assessments para medir cambios de comportamientos
4. Sostener las nuevas formas de trabajo
El cambio no es solo un esfuerzo individual, sino también un fenómeno social. Por ello hay que proveer de las redes sociales necesarias para apoyar los cambios de mentalidad y comportamiento. Intervenir con apoyo individual para roles críticos y períodos específicos, así como incorporar nuevas formas de trabajo, asegura la continuidad del cambio.
Por último, hay que utilizar datos para analizar lo que funciona y lo que no, permitiendo crear el siguiente conjunto de intervenciones y apoyo necesarios.
Algunas acciones relevantes de esta fase son:
- Integración de los Playbooks en el ciclo de talento de la organización
- Practica de los nuevos comportamientos en el día a día con bots potenciados por IA
- Diseño de una oficina para monitorizar el cambio y definir nuevas acciones
- Diseño y lanzamiento de Comunidades de Práctica (CoP)
La importancia de ser paciente e impaciente a la vez
Los procesos de transformación cultural son uno de los elementos más retadores, ya que nunca existe una receta única.
Ser estratégicamente paciente (teniendo claros esos resultados deseados y evitando dar bandazos), pero tácticamente impaciente (realizando acciones en las fases expuestas anteriormente y viendo qué funciona y qué no, para pivotar y corregir) es clave en los procesos de transformación.
El enfoque de las 4 fases ayuda a ello, posibilitando que estos viajes se conviertan en una experiencia enriquecedora para la organización, y no en un dolor de los que dejan cicatriz en la memoria colectiva.
Este es solo un resumen.
Si quieres profundizar en el enfoque completo, ejemplos y claves prácticas:
Descarga el PDF completo y accede a todo el contenido.
En todos los sectores, la seguridad está experimentando un cambio estructural. Lo que antes se gestionaba principalmente como una función de cumplimiento o una métrica de desempeño se entiende cada vez más como un reflejo de cómo las organizaciones están diseñadas, lideradas y mejoradas de forma continua.
En entornos complejos y de alto riesgo, la seguridad no se logra únicamente mediante un mayor control o programas adicionales. Surge de la interacción entre el comportamiento del liderazgo, el diseño operativo, los entornos de decisión y la capacidad de la organización para aprender y adaptarse.
Basándonos en la ciencia global de la seguridad, el enfoque de Human & Organizational Performance (HOP), la investigación sobre seguridad psicológica y nuestra experiencia en transformación en múltiples industrias, identificamos ocho cambios clave que están definiendo la próxima evolución de la cultura de seguridad.
1. La seguridad como valor organizacional central
La seguridad está dejando de tratarse como una prioridad cambiante. Las prioridades compiten. Los valores guían.
Cuando la seguridad se convierte en un valor central, influye en la toma de decisiones, en los compromisos bajo presión, en la planificación operativa y en la asignación de recursos. La seguridad pasa a ser una consecuencia natural de cómo funciona el sistema, en lugar de una iniciativa añadida a la producción.
Este cambio también redefine el rol de las funciones de seguridad: de supervisar el cumplimiento a habilitar un desempeño seguro y sostenible.
2. El aprendizaje como disciplina operativa
Las organizaciones están integrando el aprendizaje continuo en las operaciones diarias. En lugar de centrarse solo en lo que falló, exploran señales débiles, casi accidentes, fricciones operativas y adaptaciones exitosas.
El aprendizaje se convierte en una capacidad clave que acelera la generación de insights, fortalece la resiliencia y mejora la calidad de las decisiones.
3. Responsabilidad del liderazgo en todos los niveles
La cultura de seguridad se reconoce cada vez más como una capacidad de liderazgo, no solo como responsabilidad del área de HSE.
- Los directivos marcan la dirección y el tono.
- Los mandos intermedios traducen las expectativas en decisiones operativas.
- Los supervisores configuran el entorno de decisiones del día a día.
Las organizaciones exitosas convierten las expectativas de seguridad en comportamientos concretos de liderazgo y rutinas diarias, generando claridad y alineación entre niveles.
4. La seguridad psicológica como infraestructura
Una cultura de seguridad sólida depende de entornos donde las personas se sientan seguras para hablar.
Cuando los empleados perciben seguridad psicológica, las señales débiles emergen antes, los riesgos se discuten abiertamente y el aprendizaje se acelera.
La seguridad psicológica es una infraestructura operativa, no un tema “blando”.
5. Amplificar lo que funciona
Existe un reconocimiento creciente de que la mayor parte del trabajo se realiza de forma segura, a menudo en condiciones variables.
Estudiar el éxito revela la capacidad adaptativa y fortalece la resiliencia. Esto complementa el análisis tradicional de incidentes al reforzar la experiencia y la confianza.
6. Alinear el trabajo “imaginado” con el trabajo “real”
Los procedimientos y planes rara vez capturan perfectamente la complejidad operativa.
Las organizaciones líderes reducen la brecha entre políticas y realidad operativa incorporando la perspectiva del personal de primera línea y empoderando la autoridad para detener el trabajo.
El objetivo es una mejor alineación entre diseño y ejecución.
7. Diseñar para la toma de decisiones humana
Los incidentes suelen derivarse de sesgos cognitivos predecibles como la normalización de la desviación, el sesgo hacia la producción, el exceso de confianza y el sesgo retrospectivo.
Reconocer estas trampas en la toma de decisiones desplaza el enfoque de culpar a las personas hacia fortalecer los entornos de decisión.
8. La evolución cultural como capacidad a largo plazo
Una cultura de seguridad sostenible requiere integración en lugar de reinvención, desarrollo estructurado de capacidades en lugar de programas puntuales y medición del impacto conductual en lugar de métricas de actividad.
Las organizaciones que tienen éxito:
- Integran la seguridad en los sistemas existentes de liderazgo y operación
- Diseñan itinerarios de aprendizaje que apoyan la aplicación en el día a día
- Miden el cambio de comportamiento y los resultados operativos
- Refuerzan el progreso de manera consistente en el tiempo
La evolución cultural es un compromiso sostenido con la alineación del sistema y el desarrollo de capacidades.
Conclusión
La evolución de la cultura de seguridad trata menos de añadir controles y más de fortalecer sistemas.
La seguridad es algo que las organizaciones producen: a través de la claridad del liderazgo, el diseño operativo, la seguridad psicológica y el aprendizaje continuo.
Quienes integren estas capacidades de forma consistente no solo reducirán riesgos. Construirán organizaciones más resilientes, sostenibles y de alto desempeño.
Sources & references:
- WorldSteel Association. Safety Culture & Leadership Fundamentals.
- Norsk Industri (2025). Safety Leadership and Learning: A Practical Guide to HOP.
- D. Parker et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006). Development of Organisational Safety Culture
- Hollnagel, E. (2014). Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management.
- Hollnagel, E. (2018). Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials.
- Conklin, T. (2012). Pre-Accident Investigations: An Introduction to Organizational Safety.
- Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organizations
- Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents.
- Resilience Engineering research (Hollnagel,Woods, Leveson and others).
Across industries, safety is undergoing a structural shift. What was once managed primarily as a compliance function or performance metricis increasingly understood as a reflection of how organizations are designed, led and continuously improved.
In complex and high-risk environments, safety is notachieved through stronger enforcement or additional programs alone. It emerges from the interaction between leadership behavior, operational design, decision environments and the organization’s capacity to learn and adapt.
Drawing on global safety science, Human & Organizational Performance (HOP), research on psychological safety, and our cross-industry transformation experience, eight key shifts are shaping the next evolution of safety culture.
1. Safety as a Core Organizational Value
Safety is moving beyond being treated as a shifting priority. Priorities compete. Values guide.
When safety becomes a core organizational value, it shapes decision-making, trade-offs under pressure, operational planning and resourceallocation. Safety becomes the natural consequence of how the system operates,rather than a campaign layered on top of production.
This shift also redefines the role of safety functions, from compliance policing to enabling safe and sustainable performance.
2. Learning as an Operating Discipline
Organizations are embedding continuous learning into everyday operations. Rather than focusing only on what failed, they exploreweak signals, near misses, operational friction and successful adaptations.
Learning becomes a core capability, accelerating insight, strengthening resilience and improving decision quality.
3. Leadership Ownership at All Levels
Safety culture is increasingly recognized as a leadership capability, not solely an HSE responsibility.
Executives define direction and tone.
Middle managers translate expectations into operational decisions.
Supervisors shape the daily decision environment.
Successful organizations translate safety expectations into concrete leadership behaviors and daily routines, creating clarity and alignment across levels.
4. Psychological Safety as Infrastructure
A strong safety culture depends on speaking-up environments.
When employees feel psychologically safe, weak signals surface earlier, risk trade-offs are openly discussed and learning accelerates.
Psychological safety is operational infrastructure , not a soft topic.
5. Amplifying What Works
There is growing recognition that most work is completed safely, often under variable conditions.
Studying success reveals adaptive capacity and strengthens resilience. This complements traditional incident analysis by reinforcing expertise and confidence.
6. Aligning Work-as-Imagined and Work-as-Done
Procedures and plans rarely capture operational complexity perfectly.
Leading organizations reduce the gap between policies and operational reality by inviting front line input and empowering stop-work authority.
The goal is better alignment between design and execution.
7. Designing for Human Decision-Making
Incidents often stem from predictable cognitive biases such as normalization of deviance, production bias, overconfidence and hindsight bias.
Recognizing these decision traps shifts focus from blaming individuals to strengthening decision environments.
8. Cultural Evolution as a Long-Term Capability
Sustainable safety culture requires integration rather than reinvention, structured capability journeys rather than one-off programs, and measurable behavioral impact rather than activity metrics.
Organizations that succeed:
- Integrate safety into existing leadership and operational systems
- Design earning journeys that support day-to-day application
- Measure behavioral change and operational outcomes
- Reinforce progress consistently over time
Cultural evolution is a sustained commitment to system alignment and capability building.
Conclusion
The evolution of safety culture is less about adding controls and more about strengthening systems.
Safety is something organizations produce — through leadership clarity, operational design, psychological safety and continuous learning.
Those who embed these capabilities consistently will not only reduce risk. They will build more resilient, sustainable and high-performing organizations.
Sources & references:
- WorldSteel Association. Safety Culture & Leadership Fundamentals.
- Norsk Industri (2025). Safety Leadership and Learning: A Practical Guide to HOP.
- D. Parker et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006). Development of Organisational Safety Culture
- Hollnagel, E. (2014). Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management.
- Hollnagel, E. (2018). Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials.
- Conklin, T. (2012). Pre-Accident Investigations: An Introduction to Organizational Safety.
- Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organizations
- Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents.
- Resilience Engineering research (Hollnagel,Woods, Leveson and others).