AUA: How Honest Should Leaders Be During a Transformation?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: At Work with The Ready

Episode: AUA: How Honest Should Leaders Be During a Transformation?
Hosts: Rodney Evans & Sam Spurlin
Date: May 25, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this mini-episode, Rodney Evans and Sam Spurlin tackle a listener’s question about navigating transparency, honesty, and trust during organizational transformation—especially when the transformation feels more like a cost-cutting exercise than a genuine evolution of ways of working. The hosts break down the challenge of official vs. unofficial narratives, the role of consultants, the tension of communication around layoffs, and how leaders might balance honesty with practical concerns.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Defining “Transformation” and Its Reality (01:10 – 04:23)

• Rodney distinguishes between types of transformation:
  Many so-called "transformations" led by traditional consultancies are often cost-cutting measures rebranded as transformative change.

  "Even though it makes me grumpy that cost cutting is labeled as transformation. I also recognize that, like, I am not the final word on what constitutes a transformation effort." — Rodney (03:52)

• Consultant-led vs. Company-led:
  There is often a mismatch between what employees think a transformation should be (modernizing, empowering, changing ways of working) and what company leaders have actually bought into (often, restructuring and cost-saving measures).

• Advice to the question-asker:
  Rodney suggests dissecting the issue, recognizing that different stakeholders may have valid—but divergent—assumptions about what "transformation" means.

---

2. Multiple Narratives and Their Impact (05:11 – 07:46)

• Employees vs. Executives:
  Layoffs (“riffs,” or Reductions in Force) are almost always negative for those losing jobs, but may be necessary or even positive from an organizational or strategic standpoint.

• Hold space for both sides:
  Rodney notes the importance of seeing both the personal and the organizational narratives as true:

  "We all have to understand that it is going to be two narratives because the people who might lose their jobs are invariably going to have a pretty negative opinion of that. And the people who can see that the organization has to change... might not." — Rodney (05:27)

• When and how much to say:
  Leaders often fear destabilizing the company by announcing layoffs in advance, but Rodney’s instinct is to "rip the band-aid off." Still, she acknowledges the real risks.

  "My default is just like rip the band aid off and let the chips fall. I don't know where do you come out on this?" — Rodney (07:29)

---

3. Transparency vs. “Spin” (07:46 – 10:55)

• Sam’s take:
  Employees are perceptive; lack of honest communication doesn’t preserve trust—it erodes it.

  "I think people are smart and people see through things and we're talking about reading between the lines here. So I don't know how much you're really gaining from kind of talking this game..." — Sam (07:46)

• Mismatch of Narrative and Reality:
  Ultimately, trying to maintain a veneer of positivity or control only drags out distrust.

• The pragmatic approach to retention:
  Rodney shares her practice:

  • Be more transparent, earlier.
  • Informally reassure key people about their futures.

  "I've always done broad transparent telegraphing, private, informal retention of the small handful that's like, if I have anything to say about it, it's not going to be you." — Rodney (09:45)

---

4. Move Fast, Don’t Drag It Out (10:27 – 10:56)

• Quick resolution reduces pain:
  Sam advises moving quickly rather than dragging employees through a protracted, unclear process.

  "We're getting the worst of both worlds. We're taking a long time to do the top down thing. So let's just call a spade a spade and do what we all know is happening here." — Sam (10:47)

• The consensus: Be clear, be quick, and treat people like adults.

---

Notable Quotes and Moments

• On being grumpy about “transformation”:
  "Even though it makes me grumpy that cost cutting is labeled as transformation... I am not the final word..." — Rodney (03:52)

• On the necessity of layoffs:
  "While [riffs] are probably bad for a certain number of employees, they're not always bad for the company." — Rodney (05:15)

• On transparency and trust:
  "I think people are smart and people see through things... kind of think you're shady for not actually... saying the truth." — Sam (07:46)

• On reassuring key employees:
  "Go put your arm around the people that you want to stay. So I have always done broad transparent telegraphing, private, informal retention..." — Rodney (09:45)

• On moving quickly:
  "Let's just call a spade a spade and do what we all know is happening here." — Sam (10:47)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:20: Listener question and context
• 01:10 – 04:23: Rodney unpacks what transformation often means in practice
• 05:11 – 07:46: On the dual narratives and communicating hard truths
• 07:46 – 10:27: Transparency tactics and honest retention efforts
• 10:27 – 10:56: Why speed in decision-making is crucial

---

Conclusion

In this episode, Rodney and Sam advocate for early, honest communication in times of transformation—recognizing the tough balance between operational necessity and human impact. They underscore the futility of maintaining an empty narrative and recommend treating employees as savvy, capable adults. Clarity, speed, and selective reassurance (done ethically) are the key moves they suggest for leaders navigating change.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey y'.

[B]

All.

[A]

Welcome back to Outwork with the Ready. I'm Rodney Evans and that guy is Sam Sperlin.

[B]

Hello everyone. And hello to you, Rodney Evans.

[A]

Hi, Sam. Every other week we tackle one tough, thought provoking listener question and share a few ideas that might help. So let's dive on in. Sam, what do you have for us today?

[B]

We are going through an internal transformation that was announced as a company led consultant supported transformation. But in the weeks since, it has felt very consultant led and cost cutting and people are worried speaking up will put a target on them for a future riff. It's like there is an official narrative around the transformation, but to understand what's really going on, you have to read between the lines, hear from folks in the know. And it's pretty exhausting and not doing much for trust or morale. As part of my role, I'm in this strange place where I'm having to work with several of these consultants directly, our senior leaders directly, and also managing an already existing employee feedback process where I'm hearing from our employee base around how they're feeling about everything. I'm wondering how to navigate these tension points successfully and I'd love your perspective into all of it. What do you think, Rodney?

[A]

This person wins for the longest question. And I only sort of joke about that because I actually think there are like a few different things going on inside of this question, which is fine. And I would encourage the person who asked it to also parse it because it feels like it's one big tangled thing, which is basically, why are we being lied to? And I actually think there's like more nuance in here if you start to pull it apart. So the first thing I want to talk about, and this is just like my personal ax to grind in all fairness, is that there are a lot of traditional consulting firms that label themselves as transformation and what they do is what this person is describing. So they analyze the workforce, they bring in benchmarking data, they really dive deeply into the metrics of the business and they essentially make suggestions about what the shape of the new business should be. And that often looks like part of it. That's like spans and layers or span of control and like a riff exercise part of it. That's like maybe a new strategy or like different work streams to spin up to, you know, increase growth or revenue and then like some other efficiency plays sometimes in the mix like outsourcing or automation or something. I've seen this dozens of times. Like everybody kind of does this. Now on the one hand, I get prickly about it because I'm like, that's not transformation. On the other hand, I don't have, like, authority over saying what transformation is. It's just not transformation the way that I think of it. But technically speaking, hiring someone to deep dive in your business in a way that no executive probably has or is going to, or maybe even can, and come back with a holistic recommendation about the top line, the bottom line, and moves in between, and then set up some sort of like, PMO or transformation office or centralized service or whatever to make that shift like it is technically transformation. It's just not what you and I talk about as transformation. So I'd say that to say that even though it makes me grumpy that cost cutting is labeled as transformation. I also recognize that, like, I am not the final word on what constitutes a transformation effort. And I say that as preamble because the beginning of your sentence says, we're going through this, and it was announced as a transformation, and now it feels like cost cutting and maybe a riff. And I'm like, you, dear listener, have the same assumption I do, which is about what transformation is and that it's not this. And actually, I would question whether that's really accurate as a starting point, because your CEO might have bought exactly this, labeled and sold to them as transformation. And this might be exactly what everybody thought that they were getting except you and employees who wanted a different version.

[B]

When I was thinking about this question, I was actually coming at it from the angle of. I'm sure I've kind of been in the position of these consultants in the sense that people who don't really necessarily know why we're there or have the whole story can immediately just kind of make up stories about what we're going to do when, when we're there. And I've. I've had conversations with fol, like the question asker, where they are kind of the voice of the people, voice of the employees. And if the consultants are open to doing the type of work that we were obviously doing, that is a really productive and useful conversation. You get a lot of, you know, useful information about the resistance, quote, unquote, inside an organization. But that is only if we're in a scenario. That's not what you just described in,

[A]

in your answer, where, like, there is an appetite for a, a transformation that is about fundamentally changing the way the company executes versus changing the shape of the company. Yeah, I think the other part of this that I wanted to dig into and I, I'm really curious your take, Sam, because I don't think I have one right way here, but I do feel like the narrative question is a really interesting one. Like first of all, there is a presumption in this question and in the popular narrative that riffs are bad. And while they are probably bad for a certain number of employees, they're not always bad for the company. Like we've talked about it on this show before, there are situations in which companies become bloated in certain ways or are well staffed to do something they don't do anymore or whatever need to free up resources to pursue something new, where actually changing the workforce is 100% the right move. So it's like first of all, I think we all have to understand that it is going to be two narratives because the people who might lose their jobs are invariably going to have a pretty negative opinion of that. And the people who can see that the organization has to change in order to pursue its future might not. And like those things can both be true. Actually we can hold both of those truths in our mind. The question that I have, and this came up actually recently in a room that I was in is like, how much do you say and at what point? Because if the consultants that have been brought in to do this cost cutting exercise, as this listener is describing it, they know what their marching orders are and an executive hired them to do that work. I am taking from this question that like, that is not, that's a secret still and is not being communicated. I don't know what's actually being communicated. And I really go back and forth on this because leaders usually say to me like, you can't telegraph these things before they happen and we need to be able to retain the best people. And like, if people think that there's going to be a rift, they're going to get distracted and they're not going to be engaged and we're going to start losing people and blah blah, blah. And I, it's hard to argue with that. And my default is just like rip the band aid off and let the chips fall. I don't know where do you come out on this?

[B]

I guess I think I'm far more skeptical. I think people are smart and people see through things and we're talking about reading between the lines here. So I don't know how much you're really gaining from kind of talking this game about it being company led and consultant supported when pretty quickly actions are showing otherwise. So I think I'm much, I'm more in Your camp with, with what you just said there. Like, I think the, the whole premise of this question is the mismatch between stated goals and what is actually happening. And it's the same result of just being honest up front with, with it just what, it took a couple more weeks and people are, are more skeptical and kind of think you're shady for not actually talk saying the truth. Like I don't know that you are actually ending up in any better position.

[A]

I think that's true. And the one other thing I would add to this, this has always been my default. So to the extent that it's helpful, probably not for the person who asked the question, but for leaders who are going through this and trying to figure out managing these narratives and like HR people don't at me because I know, I know what you're going to say. And I did this when I was an hrbp. This is what I told my internal clients to do. And I've done this myself when I have been letting people go. If there is an exercise underfoot and it's public, I have always taken the position of like more transparency early on. Don't like bury the fact that this is a likely outcome. And unofficially, informally, not in writing, go put your arm around the people that you want to stay. So I have always done broad transparent telegraphing, private, informal retention of the small handful that's like, if I have anything to say about it, it's not going to be you. Right. And so far, and I can think of several examples where either I have done this or a leader that I've been working with has done this. The people that they or we wanted to keep stayed.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Like they got the nod before and it was like, please don't share this because you're just gonna make people feel like shit. But know that I see you as part of the future. Those people stayed. And so obviously that's not like an, that's not an official channel, but it's the way that I've found to be able to do what I think is right, which is heavy transparency. Treat people like adults. Give the, give them the information as you have it. Balancing that with keeping the 10% that you really want to stay.

[B]

Yeah, I think that makes sense. And pairing that with like some, some quickness, like let's move through this quickly. I think what you're more often totally if you're trying, if you're trying to do this like bottom up or like you know, company led thing. I think often there's an assumption this will take longer, but really we're doing the other thing, the kind of top down thing behind the scenes. We're getting the worst of both worlds. We're taking a long time to do the top down thing. So let's just call a spade a spade and do what we all know is happening here.

[A]

I love that.

[B]

All right, that is it for this mini. If you've got a question of your own, hit us [e-mail] we will see

[A]

you back next week for a full episode of At Work with the Ready. Thank you for being a listener.