vision statement

Reorgs, layoffs, RIFs, corporate restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, business transformation. 

These terms have become the vernacular of business today - but what do they really mean? What are the implications of making these changes? And most importantly, how can we do them right?

At its core, corporate change stems from a realization: the current path isn’t working. A new direction is needed. This applies to both big businesses and small businesses - no organization is immune.

Companies pursue change for many reasons:

These are all valid reasons for making a change. If these changes aren’t made, companies run the risk of going out of business or becoming obsolete.

There is also the human side of change. This includes people getting moved around into different departments, people learning new technologies and adjusting the way they work, people getting fired, and those who are left having to pick up the slack for those who vacated.

Without clarity, the natural result of this is fear. Employees fear:

Fear creates disengagement and reduced productivity. Instead of people focusing on their jobs, they begin to focus on beefing up their resumes. They’ll start wondering if they are going to be fired next, and making personal/life/family plans in a stressed-out manner because they are uncertain of their livelihoods.

To implement change successfully - where the team can innovate, profits rise, and confidence can grow - organizations need to build a CLEAR vision that drives execution.

Clear is the most critical word in this statement because that is where most companies drop the ball.

Clear means that people:

A litmus test for knowing whether or not your organization did a good job of implementing change is if every employee at the company can go home to their family and say “The company has made some positive changes to the organization and I am excited about my role in this organization moving forward.”

Not just say it to their boss. Say it—and mean it—to their family.

What are common pitfalls companies pursue when trying to create a clear vision that drives execution?

So how do we build a clear vision that drives execution?

If upper managers, middle managers, and individual contributors can all communicate why a change decision was made, the company is much more likely to pass the litmus test of every employee going back to their families and saying “The company has made some positive changes to the organization and I am excited about my role in this organization moving forward.” If an organization does these 4 things, they will be well on their way to building a clear vision that drives execution.

Managers are often encouraged to listen and collaborate during decision-making, but sometimes, this democratic leadership style isn’t the most effective approach. While inclusivity and participation can empower employees, certain decisions require managers to be more direct. Understanding the balance between executive authority and team involvement can transform a slow, confused organization into an efficient and motivated one. 

A company’s vision is the purpose and direction of a company, which should largely be shaped by executive leadership. Long-term goals set the path for the organization and require a high-level understanding of the environment in which the organization operates, including markets, competitors, and brand identity. While gathering input from various department heads may provide valuable insights, the ultimate decision should fall within the scope of executives. 

Vision setting and other large-scale corporate decisions are not situations well suited for a democratic process. Working to incorporate too many opinions can dilute focus and prevent decisive action. It is the responsibility of leadership to guide the organization toward a strong, cohesive future, even if decisions aren’t popular in the short term. 

With all this being said, managers should still gather feedback. Successful leaders consistently gather data from employees, not to vote on strategies, but to inform them. Surveys, one-on-one conversations, and management insight tools can support leaders in gathering information from their workforce. 

While strategic decisions may require top-down leadership, day-to-day decisions often benefit from a democratic approach. Processes that affect how employees do their work, such as communication channels or workflow tools, are great opportunities for collaborative decision-making. 

When employees are involved in decisions that directly impact them, they are more likely to feel empowered and valued within the organization. Consequently, this can improve retention, morale, and overall productivity. Conversely, top-down decisions about operations can lead to frustration and inefficiency if they don’t reflect the needs of the workers these decisions are impacting. 

Consider a team that is told to adopt a new communication software. An executive decision might prioritize cost without considering the ways in which workers actually utilize their communication channels. However, if the team is involved in a trial period or able to provide their input to select a communication software, there will be better adoption and reinforcement of a culture of trust. 

To decide if a decision should involve democratic input, weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of involving employees in each scenario. Here are some things for managers to consider when weighing the pros and cons: 

Using some of these points of consideration, managers can weigh the stakes and evaluate the context to better inform their decision-making approach. When making decisions, managers may struggle to communicate with their employees about how and why a decision was made. These are some tips that managers can use when implementing a decision-making process. 

Utilizing democratic decision-making styles is not suitable for every situation. Managers should consider the context of a decision and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of leveraging a more collaborative approach. The key for managers is to find a balance that allows for efficient and aligned with the company’s larger mission. 

A well-functioning organization uses more directive leadership when supporting the company’s vision, but gives a voice to employees when decisions relate to day-to-day operations. Managers who understand the difference between leadership and collaboration create more effective organizations. 

It’s almost halfway through 2025, and the ripple effects of last year’s economic distress is still felt across America. Countless companies—big and small—were forced to restructure, tighten budgets, and let go of team members. While layoffs might have been necessary to stay afloat, they’ve left behind a quieter, more cautious workforce. And the result… employees are hesitant to take risks, propose bold new ideas, or challenge the status quo.

Why? Because employees are unsure if anyone is listening—or if speaking up might put them at risk of being laid off. 

But here's the critical truth: if your company isn't innovating, it's falling behind. As leaders, it’s time to move beyond the triage of layoffs and begin cultivating a resilient, forward-looking, and innovative culture once again.

In the aftermath of layoffs, companies often experience a psychological freeze. Talented employees begin to question their value. Communication gaps grow wider. New ideas are seen as risks instead of opportunities. And leaders, scrambling to stabilize, often neglect a key ingredient of success: psychological safety.

Bob manages a cross-functional team at a mid-size tech company in Chicago. In Q4 of 2024, his company cut 20% of its workforce. While Bob retained all his team members, the atmosphere shifted drastically.

Where once his team ideated freely in brainstorming sessions, now meetings were filled with silence. People stopped volunteering for stretch projects. Even casual Slack messages became more formal and distant.

When Bob reached out to HR and upper leadership, they were just as unsure. The company still hadn’t solidified its 2025 goals. Some departments were moving in different directions, and communication was fragmented. Leadership was nervous about clashing visions—so they avoided committing publicly to any strategy.

Bob realized two things:

2. His company was drifting, lacking clarity and cohesion.

So he decided to lead from where he stood.

One of the biggest mistakes post-layoff organizations make is failing to reset the vision. Employees are left wondering: “Why am I here? What are we even trying to accomplish?”

This is especially frustrating for employees still waiting to hear what the company’s goals are—even though we’re halfway through 2025.

Bob decided to take initiative. He sat down with his leadership team and asked:

Once he had clarity (even partial), he shared it with his team in a direct, transparent way.

After layoffs, employees often feel “lucky” to still have a job—but that sentiment quickly shifts to anxiety. Why wasn’t I laid off? Am I next? This leads to disengagement, not gratitude.

Bob took a personal approach. He scheduled 1-on-1 goal-setting meetings with each team member and shared:

This wasn’t empty praise. It was rooted in truth. By reinforcing their purpose, Bob helped rebuild his team’s confidence.

Telling people they’re safe to speak up isn’t enough. You have to prove it—with your reactions, your language, and your culture.

Bob noticed that in meetings, people rarely spoke first. So he started modeling vulnerability. He admitted when he wasn’t sure about a decision. He actively solicited pushback. And most importantly, when people did share ideas—even ones that wouldn’t work—he thanked them and asked follow-up questions.

Soon, others followed suit.

Another innovation killer? Stagnation. After layoffs, promotions and lateral moves often freeze. But people need momentum to feel hopeful and motivated.

Bob worked with HR to reopen some cross-functional project opportunities and mentorship pairings. In addition, he encouraged members of the leadership team to join executive mastermind groups to be paired with executives in other companies and departments to gain fresh perspectives, share best practices, and rebuild their strategic confidence by learning how peers were navigating similar post-layoff challenges. 

He encouraged employees to:

Bob also recognized a broader issue: employees were afraid to share new ideas because they weren’t sure what leadership actually wanted.

So, he escalated this concern. He advocated for the C-suite to host a company-wide Town Hall where they could:

This meeting was a turning point. It didn’t answer everything, but it showed employees that leadership wasn’t hiding in silence. That alone helped shift the culture from fear to openness.

By Q3 2025, Bob’s team was not only more confident—they were creating again. They launched a pilot product feature based on employee input. They beat sprint deadlines. And they had the highest employee engagement scores in the company.

All of this came from clarity, connection, and a culture of safety.

Bob didn’t wait for top-down permission. He led from where he stood, and in doing so, re-ignited a team that was once paralyzed by fear.