Leaders drive change, or at least they should if they want to ensure the continued success of their firms. Yet, many leaders misfire when it comes to changing their businesses. Here are examples of three leaders whose change efforts didn't work.

Erica knew she was on the right track when she suggested a corporate-wide sales program to consolidate the various sales programs currently in use across the five business units. Having worked in all of the five business units, she had first-hand knowledge of how the varied sales methodologies were just one more example of the firm not operating as one company.

Many of the leaders she had talked to over the years had made the same observation, saying that it was an indication that the strategy of growing by acquisition was only partially successful - they'd added companies, but hadn't integrated them well.

She spent nearly a year preparing for the change, assessing the pros and cons of each of the five sales approaches, developing a consolidated sales approach that reflected best practices, and putting on workshops to explain it to the key implementers. Nonetheless, her change effort failed.

Erica hadn't anticipated the CEO's unwillingness to support her when the business unit leaders refused to use the new approach, arguing that their sales approach was working perfectly well and they didn't need to spend the time and money to fix something that wasn't broken.

Despite the benefits the program would provide to the business overall, Erica misread the political landscape, assuming she would have executive support when, in the end, it wasn't there.

Dane was asked by the CEO to oversee the integration of a recently acquired company. It was the first opportunity for him to lead a strategic initiative and, despite his relative youth, he felt prepared. His Harvard MBA and his previous work for a strategy consulting firm were solid foundations.

And yet, the integration was failing for two reasons. Firstly, he was unable to manage the level of complexity inherent in the project. He had worked on similar projects while at the consulting firm, but in those cases he was responsible for only partial aspects of the project and did not have to anticipate the full range and variety of issues that ended up on his desk. He had neither the experience nor the judgment to sort through, prioritize, and organize the diverse challenges he faced.

Secondly, the politics were beyond his capability, too. He tended to irritate senior executives due to his overly brash manner, which they believed demonstrated a lack of respect for their knowledge and experience. Furthermore, he was unable to hear and understand their concerns, missing important factors that should have been addressed in the integration efforts.

It was only when the CEO intervened and assumed overall responsibility for the project and had Dane work for him analyzing and organizing the project details was the company able to put the initiative back on track.

Dane was in well over his head because he did not have the knowledge and skills needed to deal with and manage the complexity and politics.

Nathan was not the only person who knew that the company's performance management system was outdated and no longer served the purposes for which it was intended, namely to ensure that employees were performing appropriately, developing new skills, advancing their careers, and becoming part of a robust pipeline of well-prepared prospective supervisors, managers, and executives to lead the firm into the future.

Despite the near-consensus on the need to improve it, the performance management revision never had a chance. The company's recent acquisition of a large competitor and a downturn in the economy led the firm's critical players to focus their attention on other more pressing issues. As a result, his efforts were pushed to the back burner where they lingered, with no band-width available in the organization to pursue them.

The timing was not right for Nathan's efforts to remake the performance management system.

Each of these cases demonstrates a different factor that has to be considered when you want to drive change as a leader.

Have you evaluated the political landscape and level of executive support? Do you have the requisite knowledge and skills needed to get the job done? Is the timing right?

How successful have your change efforts been in the past? How did you manage these three factors? What might you do the next time to better assess the situation?

Rosabeth Moss Kanter writes in Harvard Business Review, "Remember that performance under pressure - the ability to stay calm, learn, adapt, and keep on going - separates winners from losers."

To what extent have you been tested under fire? How did you do? How can you do better the next time?

Psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo found that character is not carved in stone, saying: "What we argue is that it's a much more dynamic process. Character isn't set. There is inherent tension in the mind at both the unconscious and conscious levels between these desires for short-term goals and long-term goals."

The examples of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, and Eliot Spitzer highlight the difficulty of making sound decisions pertaining to questions of character.

How has your character been tested? How did you do?

Email archie@archietinelli.com