When explaining and justifying the need for a major change or shake-up, leaders are faced with a dilemma.
Do they tell people how bad the situation is to create urgency and buy-in, or do they offer hope that change can lead to a brighter future?
This is a choice between a negatively or positively framed message.
Let’s examine what the research says.
Positively framed justifications focus on gain, opportunity, and benefit. They appeal to people because they inspire hope and instill a sense of potential progress.
For example, “This change will increase innovation and growth,” “By making this change, we can improve quality and customer satisfaction,” “This change will position us ahead of our competitors.”
Negatively framed justifications focus on loss, risk, and threats of inaction.
Examples include, “If we don’t change, we will lose market share,” “Our current model is unsustainable and will lead to collapse,” “We risk falling behind our competitors and will never catch up.”
Because people are generally more sensitive to potential loss than potential gain (known as loss aversion), negatively framed messages create a stronger and more immediate motivation to act, while positive gain-based messages tend to build longer-term commitment and enthusiasm.
Negatively framed messages can trigger fear, stress, and cynicism, whereas positively framed messages can be dismissed or not taken seriously.
So, what should leaders do when explaining and justifying the need for a major shift or change?
The most effective choice is to do both. By combining both a positive and a negative frame, leaders can create urgency without stoking fear.
Consider this message: “If we don’t adapt, we risk losing relevance (negative). But if we act now, we can lead the industry and shape the future (positive).
Sustainable major change usually requires both urgency and vision to drive action and to maintain commitment. When leaders combine both frames, they help to build collective commitment and confidence while creating a constructive sense of urgency.
Here’s a smart formula supported by the research: State the problem and then pivot to the need for autonomy.
Here’s what that sounds like in practice:
- “Market conditions are shifting against us, and waiting will only narrow our options. We are in control of our destiny if we act now.”
- “Our competitors are pulling ahead while we stand still. Yet we are not powerless. We can take control and shape the outcome through decisive action.”
- “If we don’t adapt, we risk becoming irrelevant in our industry. But the future isn’t predetermined. We have the power to redefine our own path forward.”
When justifying a major change, combining negative and positive framing gives leaders the best chance to grab attention without dampening enthusiasm.
The best leaders name the risk and then claim the future.
