QUALITY PAPER FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS TO THE MAX!!!!!!!

Chapter10Communication.docx

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >QUALITY PAPER FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS TO THE MAX!!!!!!!

· Reference: Reference #1 - Hodges, J. & Gill, R. (2015). Sustaining Change in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

Communication and Change

Overview

• Communication is integral to sustaining change. Research shows that those who have information about change are more committed to a change effort (Herold et al., 2008; Wanberg and Banas, 2000).

• Communication enables leaders and managers to create a shared sense of direction, purpose and values, establish strategies, plans and priorities, reduce uncertainty, build trust, and empower and engage people in doing what needs to be done.

• Communication is an ongoing activity and should be adapted to the nature and stage of the change. The methods, messages, audiences and feedback are all vital parts of the communication process during change.

• Management by storytelling is a technique for inspiring and motivating staff by telling them fascinating stories (DuBrin, 2012). Storytelling helps to bring out the need for change. Stories engage people’s interest and can help to communicate the vision, purpose and values behind change and transformation in a meaningful way that others can relate to.

Imagine this. It is time for the big announcement. The employees have filled the staff restaurant. The CEO approaches and delivers a rousing speech about a proposed change, building up to a conclusion and asking for everyone’s support. Following the speech, the communications campaign begins. A pre-recorded version of the speech is sent to all company locations across the globe via the company’s intranet site. An online site goes live for handling employee questions. An email is sent to every employee. Leaders visit all locations carrying a personalized message about the importance of the change and how it will affect employees. Adding a little razzmatazz, posters with change slogans are hung in the company lifts.

The unwritten assumption of this communication campaign is that employees are most likely to change if the same message is scattered across the company in different ways first by the CEO, then by various leaders, followed by the company intranet site, e-mails and so on. Yet is this approach really effective? It certainly provides quantity but not necessarily quality communications.

The quality of communication has a substantial impact on the sustainability of change. Aristotle told us, in 350BC, that if communication is to change behaviour, it must be grounded in the desires and interests of the receivers. In the more than 2,000 years since then, there has been no major change in this idea. To be effective, communication must contain something that interests and engages individuals to change their behaviour. The quality of change can also affect whether the need for change is recognized in good time and can have a significant impact on the quality of organizational learning.

This chapter considers the role of communication during organizational change. It begins with a discussion of the importance of communication. The value of a communications strategy is discussed and some of the issues that need to be considered when formulating a coherent approach to communicating change are examined, including the content, message, medium, audience and feedback. The chapter then explores the impact of communication on uncertainty and trust, and how communication can be used to affect both of these factors positively. The chapter concludes with some practical implications about developing and planning a communications strategy.

Learning objectives

By the end of this you will be able to:

• Identify the factors that enable quality communications during change

• Appreciate how uncertainty and trust during change are affected by communications

• Develop and implement a communications plan for a change initiative

The importance of communication

Communication can be defined as the messages, stories, information, ideas and emotions transmitted through various verbal and non-verbal methods. It may be intentional, such as a carefully phrased email, or unintentional, such as inferences another person may make, correctly or incorrectly, about an individual’s body language. Communication is integral to implementing and sustaining change. As Barrett (2002: 19) points out, ‘without effective employee communication, change is impossible and change management fails’. This is supported by Covin and Kilmann (1990), who emphasize that failure to share information or to inform people adequately of what changes are necessary and why they are necessary can have a negative impact on how people react to change. Communication is therefore vital to the effective sustainability of organizational change.

Several studies have shown the importance of the impact of communication during change in organizations (such as Lewis and Seibold, 1998; Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991; Smeltzer and Zener, 1992). For example, a study conducted by Nelissen and van Selm (2008) explored the correlation between responses of survivors of a restructure and the role of communication. The study found that employees who were dissatisfied with the communication provided by management had negative attitudes towards the organizational change, including a lack of confidence about its successful implementation. Another study, conducted by Frahm and Brown (2007), investigated whether communication during organizational change was linked to employees’ receptivity to change. This study showed that frustrated employees typically felt this was owing to a lack of involvement in the change process and a lack of information regarding the change. The failure to provide employees with adequate information about change can affect whether or not the change is a success or failure.

In order to avoid the failure of change, CEOs need to provide open and honest communication. This is what Hewlett–Packard’s CEO, Meg Whitman, did when she sent a video announcing job cuts of 27,000 employees and other changes she was making to her 350,000 staff. In her message she laid the bad news on the line:

At the end of 2009 we reported a workforce of about 304,000. At the end of 2010 we had almost 325,000 employees, and at the end of 2011 that number had ballooned to nearly 350,000. Over that same period we saw year-on-year revenue growth of 10% in 2010, of 1% in 2011, and so far in 2012, revenues have been declining. We are struggling under our own weight. And we’ve got to restore our healthy balance in order to return HP to its position as a growing, thriving, innovating industry leader. That’s what this is all about. And the workforce reduction is only one piece of a comprehensive effort. We see a lot of opportunity to remove complexity, streamline and reduce costs in a number of areas across HP.1

Meg Whitman’s message is an example of how to tell employees the truth in order to remove uncertainty about what is happening and build trust. We will examine uncertainty and trust in relation to communicating about change next.

The Notion of Uncertainty

Within the context of organizational change, research has demonstrated that uncertainty is often a major consequence for employees (Ashford, 1988; Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). Uncertainty is the individual’s felt inability to predict something accurately (Milliken, 1987). Research has identified that this inability to predict events can be attributed to ambiguous or contradictory information or to a simple lack of information (Putnam and Sorenson, 1982). Uncertainty has traditionally been considered to be a non-preferred state that motivates people to engage in coping strategiesaimed at reducing their uncertainty (Berger and Bradac, 1982).

Geert Hofstede (2001) identified ‘uncertainty avoidance’ as one of the cultural dimensions in relation to perceptions, feelings and attitudes across different cultures. Hofstede defined uncertainty avoidance as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations. In some cultures people tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty quite readily. If things are not clear they will improvise or use their initiative. In other cultures people tend to be more reluctant to act or make decisions without clear instructions and communications.

During organizational change, employees are likely to experience uncertainty in relation to a range of different organizational issues, including the rationale behind the change, the process of implementation and the expected outcomes of the change (Buono and Bowditch, 1989; Jackson et al., 1987). Research has also indicated that employees may experience uncertainty regarding the security of their position and their future roles and responsibilities (Bordia et al., 2004a). Consequently, organizational change can be a major stressor during which employees seek to gain some understanding about events and situations in order to minimize their uncertainty (Sutton and Kahn, 1986). Researchers generally agree that communication or the provision of information constitutes a vital component of any successful change initiative (Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). Yet, despite the general acceptance that communication is important during organizational change, strategies implemented by managers often fail to fulfil their purpose of providing quality information to employees.

Organizations will encounter difficulties in reducing employee uncertainty during change if the nature of their communication strategies is one-way (top-down) and predominately focuses on providing employees with information regarding strategic issues. While this approach may be effective during the initial stages of the change process, it is unlikely that it will remain successful as employees’ concerns shift to more job-related issues. A continued focus on strategic issues surrounding a change may serve only to heighten employee uncertainty. Employees are then often left seeking additional job-relevant information through alternative sources, such their line managers or co-workers (Allen et al., 2007; Brown and Cregan, 2008).

It is important that how the change impacts on the role, responsibilities, tasks and career opportunities of individual employees is communicated. Changes in the organization therefore need to be translated into the implications for each job and employee. Young and Post (1993: 41) say that this is ‘the only way you can get support’. While information about the individual impact of the change will increase understanding and acceptance, a lack of understanding of the individual impact of the change may trigger uncertainty and anxiety and cause low acceptance of the change. Information that directly affects an individual’s job is likely to be listened to and retained, whereas information about the organization in general may be forgotten more easily or not even listened to at the outset (Klein, 1996).

Two important aspects of the impact of the change that need to be communicated are the benefit of the change and any potential risks (see Chapter 13 for a discussion on benefits and risks). The benefit of the change should be communicated because recipients are unlikely to support a change that they do not perceive as beneficial. Quirke (1996) points out that without explicitly addressing the benefit of the change, recipients will view the change as an unfair violation of their actual or implicit contract with the organization. Potential difficulties or risks of the change should also not be played down because communicating challenges and negative aspects increases the believability of the message. Larkin and Larkin (1996) argue that uncertainty is even more painful than bad news and Young and Post (1993: 39) found that ‘when bad news is candidly reported, an environment is created in which good news is more believable’.

The sharing of information about change helps employees understand the reason for management decisions and to see things from management’s perspective (Wanous et al., 2000). When leaders and managers share information in a timely manner, employees are less likely to be surprised by organizational changes. A lack of knowledge about current and future events undermines an individual’s ability to influence or control those events, which ultimately results in lower performance and reduced commitment and professionalism (Bordia et al., 2004b). Employees who possess information feel more prepared and able to cope with change and are more likely to commit to the change (Gagnon et al., 2008).

The mere provision of quantity of information is unlikely to be sufficient to reduce employee uncertainty, because employees’ attitudes towards change are also influenced by the perceived quality of the information they receive about the change (Bordia et al., 2004b). High-quality communication can facilitate openness and positive attitudes towards change and help to address uncertainty, as well as to develop trust (Allen et al., 2007; Bordia et al., 2004a). The direction of communication will also have an impact on uncertainty in an organization.

The direction of communication

Change is often experienced as a top-down process, with those responsible for managing the change informing others lower down the organizational hierarchy about the need for change, what is going to happen and what is required of them. Allen et al. (2007) say that the reason why many organizations encounter difficulties in reducing employee uncertainty during change is because of this one-way, top-down pattern of communication. Effective change communication is up, down and laterally across the organization. Upward communication is essential because it provides leaders and managers with valuable information that can help them clarify the need for change and help them develop and implement plans for change. Beer (2001) identifies poor quality upward communication as one of his six ‘silent killers’ that block change and learning.

Lateral communication is vital. The quality of lateral communications can have a powerful impact on an organization’s level of performance and its ability to innovate and change. Brown and Eisehardt (1997) argue that intense and open lateral communication is an essential requirement for continuous improvement. This information-sharing contributes to the identification of issues and the development of new possibilities. Hargie and Tourish argue that ‘when groups work in isolation, with people sharing minimal information …. the locomotive of change slows to a crawl’ (2000: 7). They report that poor interdepartmental communication is linked to feelings of isolation and dissatisfaction and low levels of involvement in the decision-making process. In their opinion, ‘poor information exchange exacerbates uncertainty, increases alienation and produces a segmented attitude to work that is inimical to the spirit of innovation’ (Hargie and Tourish, 2000: 7). So communication needs to be up, down and across the organization in order to build commitment, reduce uncertainty and also to develop trust.

Communication and trust

Employees need to trust the communication which they receive. The believability of the information is a necessary condition for its use but ensuring believability is a big challenge because recipients may not trust the communicator, they may not believe the message content or they may consider the communication activity as inappropriate (Quirke, 1996). Several authors (such as Kotter, 1995) argue that, with growing frequency, employees interpret change messages for hidden meaning because, having gone through change before where the truth was not fully told, they are ‘less likely than ever to accept information from their companies at face value’ (Lippitt, 1997: 20). Recipients ask themselves why management should tell the truth this time.

A study by Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1999) of a restructure in a hospital examined how employees perceived the information presented by management regarding the reasons behind the change. The results demonstrated unsurprisingly that the relationship between reasons used to justify the change and employee perceptions of the legitimacy of the reasons were weaker under conditions of low trust. When employees have experienced a lack of communication in previous change projects, trying to gain their trust through improved communication can be difficult. Shontelle Bryan shares her experience of how an attempt to improve trust failed in an organization despite an improvement in communication, in her case study.

CASE STUDY

Communication during a restructuring in a manufacturing company

A manufacturing company in Barbados, where I worked in the early 2000s, went through a massive restructuring exercise in which a third of employees were made redundant. As a result, workload was significantly increased and feelings of resentment and anger were felt towards management who were thought to be at the helm of the upheaval. The restructure was seen by management as the solution for bringing the company back to profitability and making it more competitive in the marketplace.

A year after the exercise, when the books were examined, the CEO realized that profitability had not significantly increased. He therefore contacted an external consultant to review the situation. After meetings with the CEO and executive management, the consultant issued a survey to employees which asked for feedback about areas such as communication, job satisfaction and trust. The survey revealed that communication and trust were the two main issues employees had with management. The consultant decided to explore this avenue further to ascertain if these areas impacted on profitability. Interviews with employees confirmed this and also showed that these areas were linked to the restructuring exercise a year previously. Hence the change initiative was born to improve communication, bridge the gap between management and employees, and create an environment that was focused on employees.

In the change initiative, managers and supervisors were trained in skills to help them deal with employee issues and to enhance communication. An ‘open-door’ policy was also strongly emphasized for managers to encourage employees to discuss feelings and issues. Many employees still harboured resentment towards senior management as they felt the restructuring was unfair and targeted only the employees at the bottom of the organizational structure and that management’s expectation from staff was ‘move on and get on with business as usual’. The past restructuring exercise therefore was discussed in open forums where employees were able to air their views and management could rectify any misconceptions. Committees were formed to deal with conflict and to organize activities with the aim of fostering cohesiveness and bridging the gap between management and staff. Some employees felt that that they would be victimized if they were to openly speak their mind, so a suggestion box was also was put in place where employees could submit their views anonymously.

The CEO drove the change across the organization and expected to be kept informed of any initiatives and issues. The organization had been through several change programmes in the past, but changes did not stick. Hence the CEO was adamant that this programme would be successful. Many of the employees, however, thought the attempts to change were a waste of time because of past experience. The consultant tried to change mindsets and create change agents who could push the initiatives forward, but this proved to be difficult.

It was now three years since the change programme started and the general consensus among employees was that nothing had significantly changed. There was still the gap between management and employees, and communication had not improved. Trust and confidence in management are still a major problem. And to make things worse, employee turnover created new posts with many of the people recruited to them lacking proper management skills. The change agents also lost their drive over time, and many reverted to their old way of thinking, which was that the change effort was useless.

Making change stick in the organization, where there was a history of failed change programmes, was difficult. Extra effort was therefore needed from senior management, and they needed to be willing to change their behaviour to see results. In addition, new managers should have been carefully chosen and brought up to speed with what needed to be achieved from the programme, and it should have been stressed that their buy-in was essential in order to make the initiative successful. The consultant should have continued to play an active role throughout the change process and mentor the managers so they could remain enthusiastic and drive the initiative forward.

Discussion Questions

1 Why do you think that this change failed?

2 How could the issue of employees feeling victimized about speaking out have been resolved?

3 What could have been done differently with the communications strategy?

Communication strategies

Communication plays a vital role in the change process. It is a prerequisite for recognizing the need for change. And communication enables leaders and managers of change to create a shared sense of direction, purpose and values; establish strategies, plans and priorities; reduce uncertainty and build trust; empower and engage people in doing what needs to be done; and facilitate learning.

Leaders and managers, however, often give insufficient attention to the role of communications (Hayes, 2010). Philip Clampitt and colleagues (2000) suggest that communication strategies often emerge from existing practices with little hard thinking about communication objectives or processes. Managers make choices about the content of communications. They also make decisions or unconsciously act in ways that impact on the shape of the communications network. For example, they may communicate with some organizational members but not with others, and they may authorize or encourage certain others to communicate with one another. They may also influence, if only by example, preferred channels for passing on particular kinds of information.

On the basis of their experience in several organizations Clampitt et al. (2000) define the following communication strategies.

Spray-and-pray. This is a communication strategy that involves showering employees with all kinds of information in the hope that they will feel informed and have access to all the information they require. The communications strategy is based on the assumption that more information means better communication, which in turn contributes to improved decision-making. It is also based on the implicit assumption that all employees will be able to sort out the significant information from the insignificant. In practice, some employees may attend only to the information that is related to their own personal agenda, while others may be overwhelmed by the amount of information with which they are confronted.

Tell-and-sell. With this strategy, leaders and managers communicate a more limited set of messages that they believe address core organizational issues. First, they tell employees about the key issues, and then they sell to them the wisdom of their approach. Leaders and managers who adopt this approach often spend the majority of their time planning sophisticated presentations, but they devote little energy to fostering meaningful dialogue with employees about concerns related to their proposals. Assuming that employees are passive information receivers, these managers rarely think that feedback is necessary. They may also believe that they are in the position to know all the key organizational issues and they place little value on input from others.

Underscore-and-explore. Like the tell-and-sell approach, this strategy involves managers focusing on a few core messages. But unlike the tell-and-sell approach, leaders and managers give others the creative freedom they need to explore the implications of the issues. Those who adopt this approach are concerned not only with developing a few core messages but also with listening attentively for potential misunderstandings and unrecognized obstacles.

Identify-and-reply. This strategy is different from the first three in that the primary focus is the concerns of organizational members. It is a reactive approach that involves a lot of listening to employees to identify and then respond to their concerns. It is concerned with helping employees make sense of the change. But it is also mindful of their concerns because it assumes that organizational members are in the best position to know what the critical issues are. However, this may not always be the case. Clampitt and colleagues (2000) suggest that often organizational members may not know enough even to ask the right questions.

Withhold-and-uphold. Leaders and managers following this strategy withhold information until it is necessary to disclose it and, when confronted by rumours, they uphold the party line. Secrecy and control are often the implicit values of those who embrace this strategy. Those who adopt this approach often assume that information is power, and they do not want to share power with anyone else. Others assume that employees are not sophisticated enough to grasp the vision.

The spray-and-pray strategy provides employees with a great deal of information, while the withhold-and-uphold strategy provides very little information. Both strategies make it difficult for employees to understand and make sense of the intended change and its consequences. The strategies such as tell-and-sell, and identify-and-reply tend to offer employees more guidance by prioritizing communications and providing specific and relevant information. These strategies also tend to be the most sensitive to employee needs, although they make different assumptions about the nature of those needs. Clampitt and colleagues (2000) argue that the most effective strategy is underscore-and-explore. This is because it includes elements of the tell-and-sell strategy and allows leaders and managers to shape the change agenda. It also incorporates aspects of the identify-and-reply strategy that responds to the concerns of employees.

To ensure that the relevant communication strategy is implemented, managers need to develop a communications plan .

Developing a communications plan

Communication plans need to be developed for a number of reasons, including: to ensure the need for change is understood throughout the organization; to enable individuals to understand the impact of the change on themselves; to communicate any structural and job changes that will influence how things are done; and to build trust and reduce uncertainty about change.

The critical components of a communications plan are illustrated in Figure 10.1, which shows the key quadrants of the framework: message, methods, audience and feedback. These are the four aspects of communication where managers and leaders must make active decisions about the best approach to adopt. The four elements need to be considered holistically.

Methods of communication

The choice of the most appropriate method of communication is important because different methods can differ markedly in their capacity to convey information. The method of communication can enhance or distort the intended message. The method must therefore fit the content and complexity of the message that needs to be communicated (Kitchen and Daly, 2002).

Figure 10.1 Communications framework

Face-to-face is the richest method of communication because it has the capacity for direct experience, multiple information cues, immediate feedback and personal focus. Smeltzer (1991) even argues that it would be ideal if all big changes were communicated by means of one-to-one communication that was face-to-face. According to Klein (1996), one of the advantages of face-to-face communication is it influence on recipients’ emotions. Emotions can be conveyed more easily via personal communication because non-verbal cues can be used whereas too much information can get lost in e-mails. Quirke (1996) argues that direct contact between the implementers and the recipients of change creates familiarity, and familiarity creates good relationships and trust.

The importance of face-to-face communication, however, does not obviate the need for other communication efforts. A benefit of e-mail communication is its reach. It is possible to convey information to many employees at different locations. Another benefit is that the information is available any time. Quirke (1996) found that employees want information on demand, not when it suits the deliverer to send it, and that employees want to know that they can find certain information, even if they do not need it immediately. An additional benefit of electronic communication is the speed at which topical information can be conveyed to large audiences. Clampitt et al. (2000) say that, during times of uncertainty, speed is sometimes more important than complete two-way communication. A key limitation of e-mail communication, however, is that it rarely provides an opportunity for ensuring the feedback and debate that is necessary for increasing understanding and acceptance of changes. It also tends to be designed for consumption by a broad audience and, therefore, not tailored to specific groups.

An important issue regarding the choice of the method of communications is the relation between the method and the message. A communicationprogramme is more likely to be successful when communication activities and message content fit together compared to when there is a random approach to distributing information. Smeltzer (1991) found that messages about change that would have serious implications on people in the organization could be alienating when delivered via electronic communication and perceived as impersonal and distant. It may therefore be better to communicate the need for change and the vision face-to-face, whenever feasible.

A newer method of communication – social media – has been identified as a way to facilitate faster and better change. This can provide the opportunity for real-time communication and feedback from and to an audience. Inevitably there are concerns about this form of communication. Typically, concerns include: How will we ‘police’ the postings? And should we really be sharing this information? As we discuss later in this chapter social media does provide the opportunity for a more innovative communication approach.

A number of methods of communication are therefore available to managers and leaders. The choice of method should fit the significance and complexity of the message being communicated as well as the stage in the change process. Using various methods can be of benefit. Evidence of this comes from a study by Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) that investigated two groups of employees involved in a merger. One group was informed of the merger through a newsletter, access to a telephone hotline, group meetings with management, and individual meetings with other employees affected by the change. A second group received information about the merger only through a letter sent by the CEO of the organization. The results of this study found that both groups experienced increases in stress and decreases in satisfaction as a result of the merger. However, the group that was given information from multiple sources coped better with the change.

The methods of communication used can influence the thinking and feelings of individuals. Fox and Amichai-Hamburger (2001) say that, while leaders seem to perceive employees’ emotional reactions to change as one of the burdens that they must endure, emotions are in fact a potential tool for securing the willingness and commitment of employees in the change process. This idea is supported in a study conducted by Huy (2002), which found that middle managers’ efforts to pay attention to employees’ emotions contributed to successful change efforts. Fox and Amichai-Hamburger (2001) suggest that, if change leaders are to influence both feelings (emotions or affect) and thinking (thoughts and beliefs) they need to use various forms of communication and influence. For example, when seeking to influence thinking and beliefs, the main forms of communication that should be used include words, arguments, rationales, analyses and numbers. In contrast, when seeking to influence individuals’ emotional responses, leaders need to consider using different means of communication, such as pictures, colours and music.

Remember Martin Luther King, who did not stand up in front of the Lincoln Memorial and say ‘I have a great strategy’ and illustrate it with 10 good reasons why it was a good strategy. He said those immortal words ‘I have a dream’, and then he proceeded to show the people what his dream was. He illustrated his picture of the future and did so in a way that had high emotional impact. Leaders and managers need to recognize that different forms of communication need to be used to influence the beliefs and emotions of individuals prior to and during change. This is evident in the case of how communication was used in the merger between PostBank and ING Bank.

When PostBank and ING Bank, two subsidiaries of the Dutch ING group, merged they used internal and external communications to gain understanding, acceptance and support of the merger:

1. Internal communication. The first phase of the internal communications strategy was to explain the merger to employees. To do this communication took place through meetings, informal get-togethers and through the Chief Executive’s blog. Next was the integration communication phase: the aim of this phase was to unify employees from both banks around the consolidated organization. The core message was to appreciate the combination of the banks’ strengths. The communications team also introduced a new internal name that staff at both banks could identify with – NWE Bank (the New Bank) – and installed a countdown clock. In the final phase of communication – living the brand – the focus was on creating momentum. The team devised 10 countdown episodes before the merger in January 2009. In each one, staff were given items such as a video or pencils bearing the new logo.

2. External communication. The aim of the external communication was ensure that customers were aware of what was happening. As different customers had different questions, communications were used to reach them in different ways, such as using surveys to understand their needs, sending welcome packages and personalized letters, and calling them in person, as well as through television and print adverts.

ING’s communications strategy worked because it understood the situation from the customers’ and employees’ viewpoints; it took time over the implementation; and it found ways such as the informal discussion meetings and the CEO blog to capture the attention of internal and external stakeholders.

Audiences

The change plan should also take into account the audiences who will receive the communications. Target groups critical to the change must be identified. A stakeholder analysis is a useful tool to use here (see Chapter 11).

Knowledge about the audience is an important prerequisite for effective communication. Palmer and Fenner (1999: 54) say that ‘a key feature of dissemination activities is to tailor the message and the choice of media to the target groups’ needs and interests’. Hutchison (2001) elaborates that knowledge about the audience includes general tolerance for change, degree of agreement with the change initiative, need for information and preferred communication activities for receiving the information. Knowledge about the audience becomes even more important when the change is of major importance to the organization and/or when the change is controversial (Lewis et al., 2001). The challenge in addressing recipients’ needs is that different groups of employees are likely to have different needs, partly because they are affected by the change in different ways at different times (Hutchison, 2001). Without knowledge about the target groups, it is difficult to provide the information that individuals need to fully understand the change and to provide the meaning and justification individuals are seeking.

Individuals who are affected by change, but not personally involved in planning and conceiving it, are seekers of meaning. They try to make sense of the change by trying to guess the true motives behind the change and how it will affect their own personal values and goals (Lines et al., 2005). They are looking for justification for the change. If such a justification is perceived as adequate, and it is provided at the right time, several positive outcomes may result, including perceptions of procedural fairness, organizational citizenship behaviours, preservation of organizational commitment, trust in leadership and, more specifically, positive attitudes and behaviours towards change (Lines, 2004). Unfortunately many leaders and managers fail to provide explanations for change, or they provide explanations that are so general that they lack real information content. This often means that, when leaders and managers do write and talk, recipients do not always listen (Folger and Skarlicki, 2001).

Communicating involves paying attention to the differing needs and interests of different audiences to persuade them of the appropriateness of the change or, if necessary, to modify the change to produce the best outcome in the given situation. Critical listening skills, including evaluating feedback, are needed to be receptive to issues that may impact on the proposed change and to make informed judgements about the issues. Providing persuasive accounts of the need for change, along with enhanced negotiation skills, is required to win over key audiences. This may involve persuasion through deals, including selling change upwards and downwards throughout the organization (Dutton et al., 2001).

Leaders and managers should be aware that people differ in their ability to understand written and spoken communications. To address this there is a need for repetition, which can help in messages being listened to and remembered and in building a commitment among key audience members. Repetition increases the odds that everyone will at least hear the core messages. Individuals’ memories can be increased by diffusion and repetition of the message through several media, leading to message retention. Kotter (1996) emphasizes that the change message needs to be repeatable as ideas sink in deeply only after they have been heard many times. A degree of fortitude is necessary to recognize that, even though the message has been delivered a hundred times before, it may well be the first time some employees have heard it.

Messages

Messages must be clear and consistent. Individuals need to understand the context as to why certain priorities are important and an explanation of not only how the organization will benefit but also how they personally will benefit. This will help create readiness for change. Armenakis and Harris (2002) identified three message strategies that can be used to convey change messages and create readiness for change:

1. Persuasive communication (direct communication efforts)

2. Active participation (involving people in activities designed to have them learn directly)

3. Managing internal and external information (making the views of others available)

In persuasive communication, the manager or leader is directly communicating the change message through primarily verbal means. For example, a CEO who travels to various corporate locations in order to discuss the need for change is demonstrating persuasive communication. This allows not only the message itself to be communicated but also the importance of the issues to be symbolically magnified by the fact that time, effort and resources are used to communicate the changes directly.

Active participation includes three forms:

1. Enactive mastery – gradually building skills, knowledge and efficacy through successive involvement and practice

2. Vicarious learning – observing and learning from others

3. Participation in decision-making

The active participation strategy is perhaps the most effective one in communicating messages because it capitalizes on what Fishbein and Azjen (1975) define as ‘self-discovery’. Self-discovery, when combined with the symbolic meaning of organizational leaders demonstrating their confidence in employees through participation, can produce a genuine feeling of employees working in partnership with management on the development and implementation of change.

The management of information refers to using internal and external sources to provide information about change. A message generated by more than one source is considered to be more believable, especially if the source is external to the organization. Sources may include sharing press articles about industry trends or competitor successes and failures, sharing the organization’s financial records to demonstrate a cost-management problem, or bringing in speakers to inform people about external drivers for change that affect the operations of the organization.

Armenakis and Harris (2002) say that a successful change message must address five key areas: discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support and personal valence. First, the discrepancy component involves explaining the gap between the current state of the organization and the desired state. Management may choose to point out that the organization will not survive in the long term if the current state of operations continues. The appropriateness component is more specific and conveys the idea that the proposed change (i.e. its content) is appropriate in bridging the gap between the current state and the desired state. Communications should focus on the factors guiding the choice of a given change effort in comparison with other possible courses of action. Efficacy, the third component, entails expressing confidence in the organization’s ability to successfully implement the change. Employees need to have confidence in the ability of both themselves and others to successfully implement the change and in knowing that the leaders of the organization are behind the change. The principal support component supports the latter point in emphasizing that it is important for managers to demonstrate that they are serious about the change and that this attempt is not just another ‘programme of the month’. Finally, personal valence helps to clarify the benefits of the change to the employees. Employees should clearly see the personal benefits of successfully implementing the change. For example, they may be able to perform their job better, pay might increase, or long-term job security may increase. The ability of the management team to address these five message components is influential in the ultimate commitment of individuals to the change.

Messages must resonate with the key audiences on three levels: strategic, tactical and personal:

• Strategically, communication is the means of aligning action with strategy. Words and ideas enable audiences to understand and commit to the change. It is through this commitment that an organization can realize the benefits derived from the change.

• Tactically, communication carries the specific messages of what actions are desired for whom, when, why, where and how. Targeted audiences must receive effective communications in order to understand what they need to do to implement the change.

• Personally, communication motivates individuals when the message carries a credible ‘what’s in it for me’.

The content of the message needs to focus on what information is conveyed to employees before, during and after the change initiative as well as what information is sought from employees. Kitchen and Daly (2002) identified three types of information that affect employees during change:

• What employees must know, including job-specific information.

• What employees should know, including desirable information about the organization.

• What employees could know, including relatively unimportant office gossip. Employees will want to know as much information as possible in order to minimize uncertainty.

The purpose of the content of the message has been described in various ways, such as spreading a vision, involving employees by seeking their input to the process and content of the change, minimizing uncertainty, overcoming barriers to change, gaining employee commitment and challenging the status quo (Kitchen and Daly, 2002; Kotter, 1996). Different changes are likely to produce different reactions and, therefore, the content of change communication activities depends on the change at hand (Carnall, 2007; Dunphy and Stace, 1993). Lundberg (1990: 10) states that ‘each type of change has implications both for communication content and communication process’.

Consider the film industry. Movie trailers last only about two minutes for a reason. They convey the broad concepts to a wide audience while still providing a meaningful plot and the opportunity to engage people in the story. Movie trailers do not waste time explaining the intricacies of cast selection, the fine print of pay structures or the legalities of foreign rights. They also do not present the details of film crew’s break schedules or of the lighting procedures. This is important information that would be contained in an overall communication plan. But for a general audience, this would be meaningless ‘noise’, drowning out the core message. It is important to provide people with the right information at the right time so that they can make an informed decision. Whether the change being crafted could be described as a drama (system change), an adventure (acquisition/new product line), or even a horror show (downsizing), an organization will be best served by clarity and brevity of message. This will help employees decide whether this movie is worth staying for – whether the message is worth listening to and accepting.

Feedback

As part of a communications plan, managers should seek feedback on the effectiveness of the communication in order to measure its impact. As Barrett says:

The effectiveness of the company’s communication needs to be measured company-wide formally and frequently against defined goals on an ongoing basis and throughout the key stages of any major change (2002: 222).

Regular feedback provides real-time data about individuals’ understanding and acceptance of the change. Toterhi, and Recardo (2012) suggest that the effectiveness and impact of communications can be measured by gauging:

• Timeliness: were the communications completed in a timely manner?

• Usefulness: did the communications address questions or issues that were meaningful to the stakeholder group?

• Understandability: did the audiences understand the intended message?

• Believability: did the audiences believe what was communicated?

Such feedback can provide leaders and managers with information about which messages have been delivered most clearly, which methods are most effective and whether the appropriate target audiences have been identified. Changes can then be incorporated into the existing communications plan. It is critical that an organization does something with the feedback it requests and receives from individuals, as this shows that the views of individuals are valued and that management are willing to listen to them. Proactively eliciting feedback can also help to eradicate silence about how employees feel about the change (see section below on ‘Silence as a killer of change’) and prevent individuals seeking information through informal channels.

Activity

Consider a change intervention with which you are familiar and consider the following questions:

1 How was the need for the change communicated?

2 Was it communicated to all those affected by the change? If not, who was left out?

3 How might communication have been improved?

The role of informal communication

In addition to the available formal methods, research has also highlighted the importance of informal communication networks during change (Kitchen and Daly, 2002). Formal communication is ‘concerned with the flow of information through the authorized channels in the organization, including supervisory relationships, work groups, permanent and ad hoc committees and management information systems’ (Poole, 1997). Informal communication is ‘concerned with the flow of information outside the authorized channels in the organization’ (Gallagher et al., 1997: 584). The informal communication system is often referred to as the ‘grapevine’ or ‘the rumour mill’. A rumour can be defined as ‘an unverified statement about an issue of current interest to people’ (Bordia et al., 2000: 2309). The role of informal communication such as rumours can be significant during change. Authors such as Crampton et al. (1998) and Quirke (1996) estimate that recipients may receive up to 70% of their information through informal networking. While respondents in a study by Glover (2001) ranked the grapevine on the same level of effectiveness as events and group meetings. As a result, formal communication activities were often supplemented and, in some cases, usurped by the grapevine. Richardson and Denton (1996: 203) found that ‘the most commonly cited reason for failure of a change effort was the presence of inaccurate and negative rumors’.

Informal communication can fill the information vacuum when formal communication fails to reduce the uncertainty and anxiety that typically accompanies organizational change (Kitchen and Daly, 2002). It provides explanatory control – why something may be happening – and predictive control – what may be happening in the future. Crampton and colleagues (1998) found that individuals are likely to use informal communicationeven if formal communication activities provide the desired information because informal networks are a natural consequence of people interacting.

There are, however, several limitations to informal communication. One is that it may not reach all employees within an organization. Distribution through the grapevine is uneven and certain individuals may be left out of the circuit. Another limitation is that rumours are not an effective means of reducing uncertainty and anxiety because they tend to focus on negative and often inaccurate information (Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). Furthermore, even if informal information is accurate, individuals do not know whether the information is accurate. Therefore, they may be cynical about the ability of the informal communication system to relay reliable information and prefer receiving information from formal sources (Glover, 2001).

Informal networks can be developed face-to-face or through online social media networks. While social media networks are increasingly used as communication channels, they may meet with mixed success due to the informal and spontaneous nature of such groupings (Cross and Prusak,2002). However, leaders and managers should not ignore them as they are becoming more prolific both in and outside organizations as a method of communication that reaches a wide array of audiences.

Silence as a killer of change

Silence can kill employee commitment and energy for change. A climate of silence exists when employees believe that speaking up about issues is not worth the effort or that voicing their problems and concerns is risky, even dangerous. Organizational silence is described by Morrison and Milliken (2000) as the withholding of opinions and concerns about organizational problems by employees. This highlights a challenge for change in that employees may choose not to change, yet remain silent. According to Morrison and Milliken (2000), a climate of silence in organizations will develop, firstly, when leaders and managers fear negative feedback from subordinates and try to avoid it or, if this is not possible, dismiss it as inaccurate or attack the credibility of the source. Secondly, when leaders and managers hold a particular set of implicit beliefs about employees and the nature of management that make it easy for them to ignore or dismiss feedback. Such beliefs are that employees are self-interested, untrustworthy and effort-averse; management knows best and therefore subordinates should be unquestioning followers, especially because they are self-interested and effort-averse and therefore unlikely to know or care about what is best for the organization; and dissent is unhealthy and should be avoided, and unity, agreement and consensus are indicators of organizational health.

Such beliefs can give rise to structures, policies and managerial behaviours that not only create an environment that discourages upward communication but also foster a climate of organizational silence. Organizational silence can have destructive outcomes for employees, with knock-on effects for the organization. Employees may feel undervalued and this may affect their commitment to the organization and engagement with the change, leading to lower motivation, satisfaction, psychological withdrawal or the decision to quit. When discouraged from speaking up, employees may feel that they lack sufficient control over their working environment. This lack of empowerment can also lead to low motivation, low satisfaction and possibly attempts to regain some control through acting in ways that are destructive to organizational change, such as engaging in sabotage. Employees may also experience cognitive dissonance because of the discrepancy between their beliefs and behaviour, leading to anxiety and stress (Hayes, 2010).

One constructive response to organizational silence is to involve employees in the communications. Upwards as well as downwards and across the organization, communication can generate a dialogue throughout the company, fostering a sense of participation that can make even the largest companies feel smaller in the hearts and minds of employees. To make this happen leaders need to actively encourage daily dialogue with all audiences about the change process. They need to constantly reinforce the case for change. It is imperative that leaders make time to talk with their staff about their experience of the change process. And this needs to be an organized effort that is formally coordinated, thereby raising the profile of the change efforts throughout the organization.

Another way of addressing organizational silence is to encourage purposeful conversations – conversations for action rather than idle talk (Dervitsiotis, 2002). Purposeful conversations allow the sharing of meaning and ideas, are driven by the vision, deepen mutual understanding and create purposeful action. They can be facilitated in meetings, workshops and online discussion forums.

For instance, a purposeful conversation can begin by asking people to imagine what the change will look like in the workplace after implementation. This gives them the opportunity to express any confusion or ambiguity, ask for clarification and articulate possible stumbling blocks they may think of, as well as moving into accountability and solution mode. Such conversations leave little room for ambiguity or misunderstanding and at the same time create real thinking space for individuals and teams. The more the change is a topic of conversation, the greater its implied urgency (Kotter, 1995). Purposeful conversations create new opportunities and generate action, leading to what Lloyd and Maguire (2002) describe as a quickening of the ‘corporate pulse’ – information flow increases and individuals become more able and willing to share information and feelings and to engage in the change process.

Storytelling

Management by storytelling is the technique of inspiring and motivating staff by telling fascinating stories (DuBrin, 2012). Storytelling helps to bring out the need for change. Stephen Denning, a former manager at the World Bank, explains how storytelling helped him persuade leaders at the bank to adapt knowledge sharing as a key strategy:

In June of 1995, a health worker in a tiny town in Zambia went to the website of the Centers for Disease Control and got the answer to a question about the treatment of malaria. Zambia is one of the poorest countries in the world – and this town is 375 miles from the capital city. But the most striking element in this picture, at least for us, was that the World Bank wasn’t in it, despite its know-how on poverty. Imagine if it were. Think what an organization it could become. (2008: 130–1)

This simple story prompted World Bank staff to envision a different future and become a world leader in knowledge management (DuBrin, 2012). Such a story can elicit a future scenario in the minds of the listeners: the listeners start to imagine what the future could be like if they implemented the relevant change idea embodied in the story in their own contexts.

Leaders and managers should consider alternative ways of communicating such as storytelling. Stories can engage people’s interest. They can communicate the vision, purpose and values behind the change in a meaningful way that others can relate to. If leaders keep their strategy locked behind the boardroom door and do not effectively communicate to people in a way that can help turn that strategy into reality, then their strategy may remain a mystery.

Not everyone will grasp statistics, data immersed in reports or bullet points in complex often tedious presentations. But stories can be cross-cultural and capture the imagination. So when leaders tell their strategy as a story, it can give it meaning across the organization (Gill, 2011: 121, 283–4). For example, think about how teachers struggle to control young children all day long but, come story time at the end of the day, the children all sit quietly of their own free will and listen with great curiosity and enthusiasm as the storyteller evokes their imaginations.

Studies have shown the benefits of storytelling. Roberto and Levesque (2005) studied six strategic initiatives undertaken over several years at Apparelizm Corporation. They demonstrated the importance of vivid communication, finding that a verbal picture is ‘worth a thousand words’, and emphasized the benefits of using metaphors, analogies and examples. By engaging in storytelling and symbolic action, the managers at Apparelizm created a compelling case for the initiative. They were also able to explain the specific changes that would be made. The use of metaphors served a number of purposes, such as relaying the details of the programme and creating excitement and support for it. The core team used an auto-racing metaphor. It compared a National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) race crew to the store staff. A video was even created to solidify the metaphor. Roberto and Levesque concluded that the metaphor was effective. Employees understood the link between the need to be fast, responsive and highly knowledgeable, much like a NASCAR team. They also understood the importance of communication and teamwork within a NASCAR team, and they were then able to make the correlation with their role in the initiative. Links were drawn carefully for the connection to be easily made by the employees.

In his book The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling, Stephen Denning (2010) highlights eight different story patterns that leaders and managers can use:

1. Sparking action – describes how a successful change was implemented in the past, but allows listeners to imagine how it might work in their situation. It involves posing questions such as ‘What if …?’ or ‘Just imagine …’.

2. Communicating who you are – this involves providing some details about yourself ensuring the audience has time and the inclination to hear the story. Responses to it might be, ‘I didn’t know that about him!’, ‘Now I see what she’s driving at.’

3. Transmitting values – this should feel familiar to the audience and will prompt discussion about the issues raised by the value being promoted. Believable characters and situations should be used and storytellers should ensure that the story is consistent with their actions. Responses might include, ‘That’s so right!’ ‘Why don’t we do that all the time?’

4. Communicating your brand – this is usually about the product or service itself by customer word of mouth or by a credible third party. It might create a response such as, ‘Wow! I’ve got to tell someone about that.’

5. Fostering collaboration – this involves recounting a situation that listeners have also experienced and prompts them to share their own stories about the topic. Storytellers should ensure that a set agenda does not limit the swapping of stories and that there is an action plan ready to tap the energy unleashed by this narrative chain reaction. Responses might include, ‘That reminds me of the time …’ ‘I’ve got a story like that.’

6. Taming the grapevine – this highlights through gentle humour some aspect of a rumour that reveals it to be untrue or unreasonable.

7. Sharing knowledge – this focuses on problems and shows, in some detail, how they were corrected, with an explanation of why the solution worked. Storytellers should solicit an alternative and possibly a better solution.

8. Leading people into the future – this evokes the future that the storyteller wants to create without providing excessive detail that will prove to be wrong.

Storytelling is a collective way to translate strategy into something more tangible that sticks in people’s minds and creates a common expectation and retention of what it is all about. Different combinations of story can be woven together as an integrative narrative tapestry. Stories can inspire and evoke purpose, meaning and emotion – they can be both empowering and engaging. In her case study below, Karen Geary describes a global transformation at Sage, the business software company, and how stories were used as part of the communications strategy.

Communication plays a critical role in the change process. It is an essential prerequisite for recognizing the need for change. It enables managers to create a shared sense of direction. And it establishes priorities and can reduce uncertainty.

CASE STUDY

Business transformation at the Sage Group plc

The Sage Group plc is the global leader in business software for small and medium-sized businesses, operating in 23 countries worldwide. During 2010, the CEO of Sage retired, having successfully led the business for 15 years. During his time the business entered and maintained a position in the FTSE100, making him one of the most highly regarded CEOs based on shareholder return during his tenure. His successor, an internal candidate, took up the reins in September of that year.

After first establishing his new leadership team, a new vision, brand and strategy were devised. These were designed to propel the company to fully embrace the technology disruption taking place in the market with the advent of cloud computing and a more digitally connected world. Crucially, the plan was to double the rate of current growth in a deep recession in the Eurozone countries.

The drivers for change were not readily evident as Sage was seen largely as a highly successful business. However, the rate of growth was lagging behind the competition and there were new and more agile competitors coming into the market, driven by lower barriers to entry. Establishing basic accounting solutions in the cloud and establishing presence were becoming easier. The vision, brand and strategy did not dictate a wholesale move into new products and markets and therefore the change involved was limited to an internal transformation, albeit on a global scale. The principal deliverables were:

1 A new suite of cloud-based products and services available globally. Historically, Sage products were largely developed locally to serve local needs. The development of the cloud meant that common platforms could be developed once and made available for localization.

2 A reduction in the product portfolio and, where appropriate, to include the disposal of businesses, products and services that were no longer seen to be core to the future success of the business.

3 A re-allocation of resources according to strategic need, which required prioritizing according to size of opportunity. This was a transformation that had to be self-funded, with margins maintained, if not improved.

4 A change to the pricing models the company operated, to offer customers greater flexibility in the way the products and services were used and, from a business point of view, to increase the lifetime value of the customer.

In order to achieve what was required, a fundamental change in the way the business was organized was necessary. The business had achieved great success historically over and above its competitors as it was highly decentralized in order to be close to the customer in the country. This meant that decisions were devolved as far as possible, and local leaders were free to run their ‘kingdoms’. The proviso was that they operated within the principles and governance model set down by the company and that financial goals were met. This was a model that engendered a very strong culture – its fiercely decentralized way of working was much admired by its competitors. It was something the company was extremely proud of.

The underlying mindset of the local leader and the local executive team could be best described as entrepreneurial, with freedom and autonomy given in return for results. In order to build ownership, a new guiding coalition was formed comprising the most senior executives of the company – some 35 people from around the globe. This community was called the ‘Global Leadership Team’ (GLT) and was charged with executing the plan.

At its inaugural meeting, the CEO made a declaration that the business was to be less decentralized if it were to achieve its goal. He made it clear that he would not advocate moving to a fully centralized organization but that there were components of the strategy which meant that working differently would affect all of the leadership. The Group Human Resources Director, who doubled as the Transformation Executive, elaborated further on how the top initiatives would unfold and what leaders could expect in the short to medium term. One explanation that resonated particularly with the leadership team was through the use of Charles Handy’s ‘doughnut principle’, which was used to explain that core responsibilities would remain largely unchanged, (the centre of the doughnut) but there was now a requirement to expand the leadership role outside of the core, which would bring each other into contact with other ways of working and with other people (the next ring of the doughnut).

Lessons learnt

Top-executive alignment. The key lesson was in getting the top team aligned. It was a ‘team of champions’, with executives running their own areas. But the team was now required to become a ‘championship team’, working together for a common cause, breaking down barriers and fostering more collaboration and innovation. Inevitably when there are ‘rock stars’ in teams, this process takes time, patience and strong leadership.

Identifying the right set of initiatives and avoiding initiative overload. Sage has a highly intelligent leadership team and, once the business planning cycle had commenced, the implications of what was needed became readily apparent. Well-intended enthusiasm created acute ‘initiative overload’. This initially created a drag on the business as leaders struggled to make careful choices as to what should be tackled first and over what time. Global initiatives (a new phenomenon) were meant to replace local initiatives, but the reality was that local initiatives at the start of the change were not being discontinued, putting key people under considerable strain. Over time, executives became smarter and more discerning about what they were prepared to commit to. Each project required clear terms of reference in order to avoid scope creep and clear KPIs and milestones.

Getting rapid alignment. Executives were required to balance running of the business and developing the business simultaneously. This was something that proved to be challenging across all markets, principally because the resource allocation required in order to align the organization took far longer than anyone originally anticipated. Where initiatives stalled, it was usually due to lack of resources or skills or where resources were required to cover too much ground. Behaviourally, alignment meant a ‘re-wiring’ of Sage’s much-prized ‘Leadership Standard’ because different behaviours were required to drive the change. A project was undertaken to determine what was required, using external expertise, and ‘The Confident Leader’ emerged as the new leadership standard, aligned to the new brand and the requirements of the strategy.

Doing something symbolic. There were a number of symbolic actions taken to provide the organization with proof that Sage was serious about change:

• A change in key leadership. This was restricted to small changes, but nonetheless signalled the intent of change. Those with the desired mindset were asked to play a part in the key initiatives.

• A new Global Programme Management Office was created, designed to drive the transformation.

• The introduction of a commercial matrix structure on a pan-European basis to include a pan-European structure to address one specific market segment. This broke the country-led model.

• The introduction of a global brand and visual identity, designed to propel the strategy commercially, while creating consistency in the way the company behaved.

• Communicating the strategic intent to financial institutions to include disclosing of targets. This was a ‘first time’ for Sage.

Making it meaningful. Significant investment was made in communications to both leadership and employees. A communication ‘burning platform’ toolkit and road show were created that could be used globally. To accompany this, managers were trained in storytelling techniques so that they could personalize what they were communicating and better deliver the ‘So what?’, and ‘What it means to me’ with greater authenticity.

Building ownership. There were a number of global commercial initiatives and enablers, such as brand. Each one of these initiatives was sponsored by a member of the executive team and teams of key talent who were required to operate globally rather than locally in order to fast-track some initiatives and to build global consistency.

At the time of writing, the change is still under way. The markets will ultimately judge if Sage has been successful in its attempt to transform its business and ultimately demonstrate higher growth than in previous years. However, the change required of local leadership to play the role of an executive on a more global stage, where there is more sharing, collaboration and co-ownership, is a long road and, while many are already thriving, for some it may be a change too far from the days of local autonomy.

Discussion Questions

1 How might you apply the lessons learnt to change within your organization?

2 What will the leaders need to do to share and collaborate across the globe?

3 Do you think this is a change too far for the company? Justify the reason for your answer.

Implications of communicating during change and transformation for leaders and managers

From this chapter there are some key practical implications for managers and leaders for communication during times of change.

The importance of communication

Most leaders and managers are familiar with the popular assertion that you cannot over-communicate during a change. This is true in theory, but the intricacies of a well-fashioned communication plan merit more than just a philosophical ‘one-liner’. To build support and maintain the perception of transparency, leaders and managers often overwhelm employees with unnecessary details of a change initiative without properly segmenting their audience(s) affected by the change and the type of media and communications they will need. People want information. Understanding exactly what to say and to whom is the key to a successful communications strategy.

Develop a stakeholder communications plan

Figure 10.2 Stakeholder communications plan

Effective communication for stakeholders needs to be a four-way process – up, down and across the organization (left to right and vice versa). It is always more powerful than one-way communication. This approach allows for involvement, resolves ambiguities and increases the chances of the communicators connecting adequately with individuals. It also enables individuals to feedback to management their thoughts, feelings and ideas about the change.

The stakeholder communications plan shown in Figure 10.2 can be used to ensure that managers identify what communications activities are required to build and maintain the support of stakeholders. It should be completed after the stakeholder analysis and mapping exercises (outlined in Chapter 12) and reviewed regularly as part of the project management for the change. It might also be helpful to use the checklist in Appendix 10.1 to review any intended communications.

Keeping people informed

People need to be fully informed and educated about the necessity for change, the progress and challenges associated with change processes, and the outcomes of change. Information minimizes misinformation, where employees fill in the blanks of missing information for themselves, often resulting in the misperception that change has been a failure when it has not. The need to blame somebody is lessened, pessimism is reduced and cynicism about organizational change is minimized. People need information most whenever they are likely to be surprised by events. A sudden announcement of a new change programme to improve customer service, for example, would catch most employees by surprise. Among their questions might be:

• Why is the change programme necessary?

• Why this particular programme?

• Why now?

• Why here and not some other location?

• Whatever happened to the last programme that was supposed to improve quality?

If these questions are not thoroughly answered at the time the change programme is announced, people will begin to fill in their own answers either independently or through interaction with co-workers, most of whom may be equally uninformed. People who feel more informed and involved are less likely to possess cynical attitudes. Routine notice about what is happening, and especially why it is happening, prevents anyone being caught off-guard. If done correctly communication can help provide clarity, facilitate the development of trust and assist the sustainability of change. Communication is not just about providing timely information. It is about creating a participative dialogue and feedback, up, down and across the organization.

Use social media

Social media platforms (such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook sites) are ideal mechanisms to facilitate change because much of change is about ongoing dialogue and conversations in an organization. Leaders and manages should consider starting a blog as a way to reach people in the organizations. It can provide an opportunity to engage and collaborate by asking and answering questions on the blog. Polls can also be taken on the blog. The blog can be used to capture the reasons why change is needed. It can also be used to capture what people think about the change. Employees who support the change could be asked to be a guest blogger and asked to write about the change.

Torben Rick on his website www.Torbenrick.eu provides a number of suggestions for how social medial can be used to communicate about change. His suggestions include the following:

• Improving employee involvement and engagement. Social media allows information to flow in multiple directions, rather than just from the top down. For example, using microblogs applications for sharing short bursts of information, leaders and managers can ‘crowd-source’ ideas and involve employees more directly in change initiatives. Organizations can actively build greater trust and loyalty by actively soliciting continuous feedback on issues related to the change.

• Building collaboration. Acceptance of change can be accelerated across the organization through real-time sharing of experiences. Social networking is an effective way of bringing employees together to perform new ways of working and to share experiences. People can form communities to learn from and support one another

• Idea generation. Social technologies or simple suggestion boxes in the form of blogs or message boards with comments can provide opportunities to share, generate and build on ideas in collaborative, open format that has visibility across the organization.

• Establishing effective two-way communication. By monitoring and participating in online discussions mangers can see where any issues are and take steps to address them.

• Storytelling. Social media tools provide an effective medium to tell a story.

• Creating learning experiences. Social media can be used to deliver personalized learning experiences related to the change initiative, for example live web meetings can bring together employees for a learning experience; user-generated content platforms, such as YouTube, allow staff to provide short videos or audio training segments relevant to a change programme.

• Sharing current practice through a knowledge network. Knowledge networks can be formed using Twitter, Yammer and Facebook. These networks can be used to share innovative practices and receive answers in a timely manner.

• Assessing progress and receiving feedback. Social media can provide real-time feedback by providing a platform for immediate survey-based feedback, or by conducting facilitated online feedback sessions.