Module 5
Vision and the Direction of Change, Change Communication Strategies, Resistance to
Change
a. Vision: Fundamental or Fad?
There is understandable confusion between the terms “mission” and “vision.”
Mission emphasizes purpose and outcomes. Vision, in contrast, focuses on future
aspirations and can thus be a key driver of organizational change. This helps to explain
why most of the change management perspectives explained in emphasize the importance
of a clear and meaningful vision, without which direction and motivation will be weak or
absent. There is, however, debate over whether vision is truly fundamental to change and
effectiveness, or whether this is just a management consultancy fad.
Highlighting the importance of vision and direction, Paul Victor and Anton
Franckeiss (2002, p. 41) argue, “It is imperative that change is aligned with a clear vision
and business strategy and that subsequent activities and interventions are coordinated and
consistent.” Hans Hinterhuber and Wolfgang Popp (1992, p. 106) argue that vision
underpins successful entrepreneurial activities and corporate change programs, defining
vision as “an orientation point that guides a company’s movement in a specific direction.
If the vision is realistic and appeals both to the emotions and the intelligence of
employees, it can integrate and direct a company.” Effective visions, they add, can be
expressed clearly—and are thus easily communicated—in just a few words (e.g., “Our
vision is to achieve price leadership and good design at the same time”).
Visions are thus linked to strategy and competitive advantage, enhancing
organizational performance and sustaining growth. Clear visions enable boards to
determine how well organizational leaders are performing and to identify gaps in current
practices. Visions help staff identify with the organization, and inspire the motivation to
achieve personal and corporate objectives. Organizations preparing for transformational
change often undertake “revisioning” exercises to guide them into the future. The
visioning process itself can enhance the self-esteem of those who are involved, because
they can see the outcomes of their efforts. Jeffrey Pfeffer (2010, p. 92) argues that vision
is a source of influence: “Make the vision compelling. It’s easier to exercise power when
you are aligned with a compelling, socially valuable objective.” Opponents will struggle
to challenge such an agenda.
A lack of vision, on the other hand, is associated with organizational decline and
failure. Graham Beaver (2000, p. 205) argues, “Unless companies have clear vision about
how they are going to be distinctly different and unique in adding and satisfying their
customers, then they are likely to be the corporate failure statistics of tomorrow.” The
absence of a clear and compelling vision may explain why some companies fail to exploit
their core competencies despite having access to adequate resources. Business strategies
lacking in visionary substance may fail to identify when organizational change is
required. Lack of an adequate process for translating shared vision into collective action
may be associated with the failure to produce transformational organizational change.
The concept of vision is powerful. However, it remains controversial, and invites
cynicism when every organization expresses a bland vision that includes “excellence,”
“corporate responsibility,” “empowered employees,” and “delighted customers.”
However, there has been little research in this area, and there is disagreement on how to
define and measure the term. As with change management in general, there is a lot of
advice on how to develop a vision, with little or no consensus on effective approaches.
Some commentators have argued that the preoccupation with vision has meant that the
term has been overused and trivialized (Beaver, 2000) and is thus in danger of losing any
value.
Debates around appropriate definition and substance do not necessarily invalidate
the value of vision in clarifying an organization’s purpose and direction. The challenge
for the organization in general, and the change manager in particular, is to avoid an
abstract statement of vision accompanied with platitudes and grandiose statements that
provide little detail about what the future should look like. On the other hand, a vision
that is too specific, focusing on short-term targets and goals, and encouraging only
incremental improvement is also of limited value. Visions become useful when they are
midway between these two extremes, setting out an engaging picture of the future, with
sufficient meaningful detail to which those involved can relate (Belgard and Rayner,
2004).
The assertions made regarding the relationship between vision and organizational
change provoke a deeper inquiry into the fundamental question of how various images of
change management shape and influence this crucial linkage. At the heart of this
exploration lies the recognition that the efficacy and dynamics of the connection between
vision and organizational change are inherently contingent upon the predominant image
of change management in play. To unravel this intricate interplay, serves as an illustrative
guide, offering insights into how each of the six distinct images expresses diverse
understandings of the linkage between vision and the management of change.
This table serves as an interactive tool, inviting the reader to discern how each
image accentuates certain facets of the linkage between vision and organizational change
while potentially overlooking others. By navigating through the distinct emphases and
approaches highlighted in the table, readers can gain a deeper appreciation for the
nuanced ways in which different images of change management shape the understanding
and execution of the crucial connection between visionary aspirations and the realities of
organizational transformation.
The exploration of these images unfolds as a dynamic journey, inviting readers to
critically engage with the nuanced perspectives presented. As we delve further into each
image, we will dissect its implications for the linkage between vision and organizational
change, unraveling the practical applications and theoretical underpinnings that guide
change managers in navigating this intricate terrain. Through this exploration, readers are
encouraged to cultivate a comprehensive understanding of the diverse lenses through
which change management can be conceptualized, allowing for informed and adaptive
decision-making in the realm of organizational transformation.
b. The Characteristic of Effective Visions
John Kotter (2006) argues that visions must be focused yet flexible. While this
may sound relatively straightforward, the attributes that make visions “visionary” and
useful have provoked debate. Some commentators focus on the content of vision
statements, while others explore the context in which visions are used. The roles of
leaders in articulating visions and the process by which visions are developed have also
attracted attention. Here, we will consider the content of visions, including their style and
other attributes, and also explain how the concept of vision is distinguished from the
related concepts of organizational mission and values.
We can thus identify the desirable features of vision statements. However, this
does not reveal the criteria on which those features should be assessed. This suggests that
the affective or “feel good” content of vision is important; we know it when we see it, but
this is difficult to define or to measure. Consider the sample of vision statements taken
from leading (Fortune 100) global companies. Which of these vision statements have the
characteristics that we have identified so far? Which do not have these characteristics?
Based on these vision statements, for which of these companies would you find it
attractive to work? Whose vision statements would turn you away? Why? How do you
explain your preferences and dislikes with regard to these visions?
Ira Levin (2000, p. 92) argues that some vision statements have a “bumper
sticker” style, based on jargon and fashionable terms. Their similarities thus mean that
they could be used by several different companies, and they are not inspirational. Hugh
Davidson (2004) calls these “me-too” statements that lack distinctiveness, such as
Ericsson’s vision in the 1990s, “to be the leading company in tomorrow’s converged data
and telecommunications market.” Levin (2000) advocates instead the development of
“vision stories” that portray the future in a manner to which people can relate. Levin cites
Arthur Martinez, chief executive of Sears, as someone adept at using vision stories.
Martinez required his senior managers to write stories about the businesses that they
managed and how customers related to those businesses (Domm, 2001).
Offering a subtly different answer to the question, “What are the characteristics of
effective visions?” Levin (2000, pp. 105–6) concludes: “A well-conceived and articulated
vision offers the promise of serving as both a springboard and a frame of reference for
fuelling such aligned action. Yet, the traditional vision statement with its abstract, lofty,
and generic language fails to fulfil this promise. The vision story, on the other hand, with
its rich imagery and vivid description, is more effective in fulfilling this promise. The
vision story provides people with a lifelike glimpse into the future of possibilities and
directly answers the fundamental question: What will this future mean for me?”
Visions are often confused with other terms such as mission statements, goals,
and organizational values. Visions and missions can be particularly difficult to
disentangle. Most commentators adopt the position set out at the beginning of this, from
Johnson et al. (2011). Mission concerns what an organization is and does. Vision
describes a future scenario, where the mission is advanced, and where goals and strategy
are being effectively achieved. Nutt and Backoff (1997) treat visions as being similar to
missions and goals, in providing direction and identifying necessary changes. However,
although goals may identify desired results, such as improved morale, lower costs, or
bigger market share, they do not necessarily articulate the actions necessary to produce
those outcomes. Nor do they usually address the role of organizational values in
achieving the result. Visions, in contrast, usually paint a picture of the future and are
inspirational. Mission statements tend to be more purposive and instrumental in outlining
what needs to be done.
Some commentators argue that, to create competitive advantage, an
organization’s vision and strategy must be unconventional, perhaps even counterintuitive,
and must also be distinct from those of other companies. Michael Hay and Peter
Williamson (1997), for example, note that visions have an external and an internal
dimension. The external dimension concerns a shared view of the outside world: how
markets work, what drives customers, competitors, industry dynamics, macroeconomic
trends, the impact of geopolitical events. Most car tire manufacturers, they note, such as
Goodyear, Michelin, and Bridgestone/Firestone, have a market vision that sees the large
car manufacturing companies as their main customers, where large market share and high
volumes are the way to drive down costs. In contrast, the comparatively unknown Cooper
Tire and Rubber Company had a different market vision. They decided that, as
Americans were holding onto their cars for longer, the independent replacement tire
outlets were their main market.
Hay and Williamson (1997) contribute to the discourse on organizational vision
by asserting that a well-defined external vision serves as a foundational guide for
delineating the trajectory of a company's growth and competitive positioning. Their
argument posits that an external vision, carefully specified and aligned with the broader
industry landscape, provides a strategic roadmap for organizations to navigate the
complexities of the external environment. Only through a clear understanding of how the
company intends to grow and compete in the marketplace can an internal vision be
meaningfully developed.
The external vision, according to Hay and Williamson, functions as a compass
that directs organizational strategies towards opportunities and challenges in the external
domain. By articulating where the organization aspires to stand in the broader market,
leaders gain clarity on the competitive landscape and the avenues for sustainable growth.
This external orientation helps in identifying market trends, emerging opportunities, and
potential threats, allowing organizations to proactively position themselves for success.
Crucially, Hay and Williamson advocate for a deliberate alignment between the
external and internal dimensions of the vision. Once the external vision is well-specified,
the internal vision can be crafted as a complementary guide that delineates the
capabilities and competencies required to effectively compete in the chosen market space.
The internal vision, in essence, becomes a roadmap for organizational development,
indicating the skills, resources, and capacities that need to be cultivated or acquired to
realize the external vision.
In this interplay between external and internal visions, alignment emerges as a
critical factor. The external vision sets the overarching direction, and the internal vision
outlines the internal transformations necessary to achieve the desired external
positioning. The alignment ensures that organizational efforts, strategies, and resource
allocations are synchronized with the external market dynamics, optimizing the
likelihood of success in a competitive landscape.
This perspective advocated by Hay and Williamson underscores the dynamic and
reciprocal relationship between external and internal visions. The external vision shapes
the strategic direction, guiding the organization's growth and competitive stance, while
the internal vision charts the course for building the requisite capabilities and capacities
to realize the external aspirations.
As organizations grapple with the complexities of a rapidly evolving business
environment, the insights provided by Hay and Williamson offer a strategic framework
for visionary leadership. By methodically crafting and aligning external and internal
visions, organizations can foster a holistic and adaptive approach to growth, ensuring that
their internal landscape is finely tuned to support and bring to fruition their envisioned
external positioning in the competitive marketplace. This dual focus on external and
internal dimensions, as advocated by Hay and Williamson, forms a cornerstone for
strategic visioning and execution in contemporary organizational leadership.
c. How Context Affects Vision
What is the relationship between vision and the organizational context in which it
is articulated and used? Context, for the purposes of this discussion, includes organization
culture. Nutt and Backoff (1997, pp. 316–17) assess four organizational contexts in terms
of their abilities to produce visionary strategic change. These abilities are assessed in
relation to the degree of acceptance of the need for change (change susceptibility) and the
extent to which resources for strategic change are available (resource availability).
When does a vision “take”? This context analysis suggests the need for a “trigger”
that alerts organization members to the need for a new vision, thus strengthening
acceptance of change. The power of the vision, remember, lies with the way in which it
can give meaning to the current situation and promise to solve the organization’s
problems. Triggers can include external turbulence and uncertainty, crises demanding
new strategies or ways of working, poor organizational performance, or transitions such
as entrepreneurial start-up to growth. In addition, change leaders can use their influence
and storytelling capabilities to frame interpretations of the current situation so as to
heighten dissatisfaction with the status quo (Lewin, 1951), thus enhancing the desire for
change. In other words, change leaders can generate a crisis situation through their
visionary and rhetorical skills, rather than waiting for one to appear (Denning, 2004 and
2005).
The national and cultural contexts in which an organization is embedded are also
factors contributing to whether or not visions “take.” For example, Jerry Wind and
Jeremy Main (1999) note that Donald Burr’s vision for the airline People Express was “to
become the leading institution for constructive change in the world.” That, they observe,
was vague and preposterous. In Japan, on the other hand, a past chairman of Canon,
Ryuzaburo Kaku, referred to himself as an evangelist, saying that the organization was
guided by “living and working together for the common good.” While similar in intent to
Burr’s vision, Wind and Main argue that Kaku’s vision “worked” in Japan, where
organizations are more closely aligned with national and social interests than they are in
the United States. Consider again the vision statements, and in particular those that you
assessed as less attractive. Did those come from companies based in another country and
culture?
d. How Visions Are Developed
For some commentators, crafting a vision is a senior management responsibility,
typically discharged by having a small team analyze needs, identify choices, and develop
recommendations (Pendlebury et al., 1998). But some see this as a collaborative effort,
involving both the top team and those who will be affected by the vision. Lynda Gratton
(1996), for example, describes how seven European companies engaged in a democratic
vision process, drawing on a range of cross-functional groups instead of imposing a
topdown approach. Allowing the vision to emerge from debates among those
multifunctional groups, she argues, can potentially lead to more creative visions and
subsequent actions. This democratic approach also ensures that the need for change
(which may be urgent) is transmitted across the organization, and it provides executives
with a better understanding of the risks and trade-offs involved in implementing the
vision.
As we navigate through various approaches to organizational vision development,
it becomes apparent that these approaches primarily revolve around different degrees of
involvement in the formulation process. However, an essential aspect that warrants
exploration is how to shape the substance of the vision itself. Holpp and Kelly (1988)
contribute valuable insights by delineating three distinct approaches, each characterized
by specific sets of questions, through which the substance of a vision can be developed.
These approaches are labeled as intuitive, analytical, and benchmarking, each offering a
unique perspective on the process of vision formulation.
Expanding on the Benchmarking Approach: Benchmarking goes beyond internal
and industry analyses by drawing inspiration from organizations that have successfully
realized similar visions. It involves studying success stories, identifying common
patterns, and adapting proven strategies to fit the unique context of the organization. This
approach leverages external insights to enrich and enhance the substance of the
envisioned future.
In synthesizing these three approaches, organizations can adopt a comprehensive
and integrative vision development strategy. The intuitive approach brings a sense of
inspiration and personal connection, the analytical approach provides a solid foundation
based on data and market realities, and the benchmarking approach infuses external
wisdom and proven strategies. By navigating through these approaches, organizations can
craft a vision that is not only aspirational but is also rooted in a deep understanding of the
internal and external factors shaping their trajectory.
The intuitive approach relies on the use of imagination and imagery to encourage
staff to participate in vision development. Managers are asked to imagine doing their jobs
in such a way that they really achieve what they want from themselves and from the other
people with whom they work: First, they are asked to list up to ten things that they want
to achieve personally and professionally, and then to prioritize these, focusing on the top
two or three. Second, they focus on their current situation as a way to identify the tension
between their current lived experiences and their desired image. Third, they are provided
with support to help identify and implement structured action plans to work toward
achieving their vision. The analytical approach sees visions as defined in relation to
organizational or departmental missions and roles.
Robert Quinn (1996, p. 197) makes an interesting contribution to the process of
identifying change visions. He points out that, in many organizations, people want to
know what the vision is and look to the chief executive to provide it. Paradoxically,
however, where vision statements are available, such as on corporate business cards,
these are likely to be rejected as being in name only; they are not what people are
“willing to die for.” He argues that developing a vision to guide organizational actions
has to go beyond superficial statements and “confront the lack of integrity that exists in
the system,” an exercise for which few managers are well equipped.
To illustrate this view, he tells the story of a speech given by Mahatma Gandhi at
a political convention in India. When he rose to speak, many in the audience also rose,
left their seats, and paid little attention to him. However, as he spoke about what Indians
really cared about—not politics, but bread and salt—the audience sat down again and
listened. His message was unusual: “This small, unassuming man had journeyed through
their heartland and captured the essence of India. He was vocalizing it in a way they
could feel and understand. Such articulation is often at the heart of radical, deep change”
(Quinn, 1996, p. 199). For Quinn, it is this ability to find the organization’s “bread and
salt” that makes a vision appealing, passionate, and beyond the superficial. This search
for the “inner voice” of the organization is necessary in order to develop visions that
resonate and narrow the gap between “talk and walk.” Such “bread-and-salt” visions are
achieved in a circular manner involving a bottom-up and top-down dialogue to reach the
“inner voice” of the organization.
Adopting a similar position, Chris Rogers (2007, p. 229) maintains that “vision is
as much about insight as far sight.” Visions need to connect with people’s desires,
feelings, and ambitions, as well as with the organization’s intentions. Resonating with the
interpreter image of change management, this implies that visions are important in
encouraging the members of an organization to develop and explore “new ways of
seeing,” to gain fresh insights, make new connections, and to be better prepared to work
with the challenges that a new vision is likely to bring.
Todd Jick (2001, p. 36) adds that a vision is likely to fail when leaders spend 90
percent of their time articulating it (but not necessarily in clearly understood terms), and
only 10 percent of their time implementing it. The sidebar “A Lack of Shared Vision?”
tells a short story about the absence of a shared vision. We will now consider two further
reasons for vision failure; inability to adapt over time, and the presence of competing
visions.
Some visions stand the test of time and remain applicable and adaptable to new
situations and environments. Others, however, need to be overhauled in order to remain
relevant. This situation is illustrated by the investigation by Lloyd Harris and Emmanuel
Ogbonna (1999) into two medium-sized UK retail companies and the impact of the
founders’ visions on strategic change. In both cases, the vision was established well over
100 years ago by the company founder and there was evidence of an escalation of
commitment to the vision by subsequent management. In one company, the vision was
paternalistic (commitment toward staff) and focused on prudent growth. This led to a
strong focus on sales and profitability in each new store location. These characteristics
were still present in the current management of the company. The vision itself was seen
as flexible and responsive to the prevailing environmental conditions facing the company.
The researchers label the founder’s vision in this case as providing a “strategic dividend”
for subsequent management.
By contrast, in the other company, the founder’s vision was to have a store in
every town in a particular region. A second aspect of this vision concerned family control
of the company. The researchers argue that this original vision continued to drive senior
management. However, in contrast to the first company, this vision served as a “strategic
hangover.” The closed nature of the vision led successive management teams to make
decisions that were out of step with changes in the environmental conditions facing the
sector, such as the movement of large retail stores into the region, and a shift in focus of
such stores from price to quality and service. As a result, the company almost faced
financial ruin on two separate occasions. In relation to subsequent strategic change
actions taken by management in these two companies, the authors argue that “whether the
original vision of the founder results in a legacy or a hangover is clearly dependent on the
original flexibility of the strategy and the later environmental appropriateness” (Harris
and Ogbonna, 1999, p. 340).
Visions may also fail due to what Rosabeth Moss Kanter et al. (1992) call “vision
collisions,” involving the presence of multiple and conflicting visions. This can happen,
for example, when the vision is crafted by organization strategists who are convinced of
the need for change, but where this sense of urgency is not shared by those who will
implement or be affected by the change (who may still be trying to embed previous
changes). Vision collisions can also occur where there is a gap between the visions of
management and stakeholders. In the mid-1980s, the vision of Nike, the sportswear
company, was to make athletic footwear. However, the company found that a different
market segment was buying their shoes: not athletes, but people who were wearing Nike
trainers instead of casual shoes. Nike responded by introducing its own brand of casual
shoes. This strategy failed because Nike had not understood that customers were buying
expensive “overengineered sneakers” because they appealed to their image. In other
words, the company’s vision was out of step with its customers’ vision of Nike. Multiple
and conflicting visions can also arise with company mergers. Colin Mitchell (2002), for
example, cites the failure in 2000 of the merger between Deutsche Bank and Dresdner
Bank. In this merger, there was a “failure of management to persuade Deutsche’s
investment bankers of the vision for how the newly merged company would compete.
Many key employees left, and the threat of mass walkout forced Deutsche to abandon the
deal after considerable damage to the share price of both companies” (p. 104).
Concluding this exploration of vision development, it is imperative to introduce a
note of caution regarding the limited research available on the concept and process of
vision failure. As Davidson (2004) aptly points out, the landscape of organizational
visioning is characterized by a plethora of anecdotes and narratives surrounding failed
visions. However, a critical caveat emerges—despite the abundance of stories recounting
vision setbacks, there is a conspicuous dearth of comprehensive research on the dynamics
and intricacies of vision failure within organizational contexts.
In navigating the landscape of organizational visioning, this cautionary note
encourages a reflective and nuanced approach. While tales of successful visions often
take center stage, a comprehensive understanding of vision development necessitates a
willingness to explore instances of failure with equal attention and scholarly rigor. By
doing so, organizations can glean valuable insights, refine their approach to visioning,
and cultivate a culture that embraces the iterative and adaptive nature of strategic
foresight.
e. The Change Communication Process
The ways in which changes are presented and discussed are critical to success. All
of the approaches to change management explored give communication a central role in
the process. Understanding and commitment depend largely on how change proposals are
communicated. From their review of the literature on change processes, Karen Whelan-
Berry and Karen Somerville (2010) note that communication is one of the most
frequently identified change drivers, by explaining the need for change and how change
will be achieved. Poor communication is a leading explanation for change failure. The
evidence also suggests that change communication should be two-way—telling and
listening. Communication is thus important throughout the change process, and not just at
the beginning—and it should be resourced accordingly, addressing resistance,
encouraging individual adoption and support, highlighting key issues, and sustaining
momentum.
Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010, p. 181) define change-related
communication as “Regular two-way communication specifically about the change
initiative, its implementation, related successes, challenges and their resolution.” With
regard to taking the corporate vision to groups and individuals, communication
“facilitates employee understanding and engagement” and “addresses employees’
questions and concerns through two-way communication, which allows individuals to
remain committed to the change. It also ensures that any obstacles are properly identified
and removed” (p. 181). To sustain momentum, communication “signals the
organization’s commitment to the change initiative, communicates successes and
challenges, and ongoing change implementation” (p. 181).
Lars Christensen and Joep Cornelissen (2011) offer a novel, counterintuitive
perspective on the significance of change communication. They first note that
communication has attracted increasing attention due to a number of factors: the nature
and consequences of stakeholder communications; the emergence of ideas such as
corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and corporate citizenship; and the growing
numbers of corporate communication professionals, procedures, and systems. They see
communication as “an important force of organizing” and as “the building block of
organizations” (p. 398) because the act of communicating constructs or defines the
change in the understanding of those who are going to be involved. In other words,
change communication is a key part of the process of collective sense-making.
The process of communicating change—what is going to happen and why—can
therefore be more complex than it first appears explore the communication process and
then discuss different communication strategies, before considering the evolving role of
social media in corporate communication. First, however, we will consider how images
of change management influence communication strategies, and the implications for
change managers.
Interpersonal communication typically involves much more than the simple
transmission of information. Pay close attention to the next person who asks you what
time it is. You will often be able to tell how they are feeling, and about why they need to
know—if they are in a hurry, perhaps, or if they are anxious or nervous, or bored with
waiting. In other words, their question has a purpose or a meaning. Although it is not
always stated directly, we can often infer that meaning from the context and from their
behavior. The same considerations apply to your response. Your reply suggests, at least, a
willingness to be helpful, may imply friendship, and may also indicate that you share the
same concern as the person asking the question (“We are going to be late”; “When does
the film start?”). However, your reply can also indicate frustration and annoyance: “Five
minutes since the last time you asked me!” Communication thus involves the
transmission of both information and meaning.
At the heart of this model, we have a transmitter sending a message through an
appropriate channel to a receiver. We will consider the range of change communication
channels later. It is helpful to think of the way in which the transmitter phrases and
expresses the message as a coding process. The success of communication depends on
the accuracy of the receiver’s decoding; did the receiver understand the language used,
and also tone and implications of the message. Feedback is therefore critical, to check
understanding. Communication often fails where transmitters and receivers have different
frames of reference and do not share experience and understanding, even if they share a
common language. We make judgements—which may or may not be accurate—about the
honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and credibility of others, and decode their messages
and act on them accordingly. When communicating details of a major change initiative,
therefore, it cannot be assumed that all of the recipients of the message will have the
same understanding as each other, and as the transmitter.
Perceptual filters also play a role here, particularly affecting our decoding. This
can involve, for example, a readiness or predisposition to hear, or not to hear, particular
kinds of information. Preoccupations that are diverting our attention can also filter
information. Past experience affects the way in which we see things today, and can
influence what we transmit and how, and what we receive. In an organizational setting,
people may have time to reflect, or they may be under time pressure, or experience
“communication overload,” which again means that some content may be filtered out.
The physical, social, and cultural context in which change communication takes
place is also significant. In organizations where staff are widely dispersed across a
number of locations, the ability to share and compare views is more difficult than when
everyone is in the one place. The logistics of communicating with a large number of
dispersed staff can be complex and costly. The casual remark by a colleague across a café
table (“We could all be laid off by the end of the year”) could be dismissed with a laugh.
The same remark made by a manager in a formal planning meeting could be a source of
alarm. If an organization’s culture emphasizes openness and transparency, staff may
become suspicious if communication is less informative than expected. However, staff
may also become suspicious if management (without a good explanation) suddenly start
to share large amounts of information openly in a culture that has in the past been less
transparent.
Context is particularly important when considering change communication, as this
can influence how receivers will decode a message. One aspect of an organization’s
context that is critical in this respect is past history. Change communication is more
likely to be welcome in an organization with a track record of successful changes than in
one where past changes have been seen as ineffective or damaging. Current
circumstances are also a key feature of the communication context. Is change a positive
response to business growth and development, or a defensive approach to problems that
will lead to budget and staffing cuts? If staff feel that they have been misled by
management in the past concerning the goals and consequences of change, that
perception is likely to have an influence on the decoding of further communication
concerning change proposals.
Anything that interferes with a communication signal is called noise by
electronics experts, and this applies to interpersonal and organizational communication,
too. This does not just refer to the sound of equipment, or other people talking. Noise
includes coding and decoding problems and errors, perceptual filters, and any other
distractions that damage the integrity of the communication channel, including issues
arising from the context. Relationships can introduce noise, affecting the style and
content of conversation (formal or informal) and what we are prepared to share. Status
differences can introduce noise; we do not reveal to the boss what we discuss with
colleagues. Motives, emotions, and health can also constitute noise; coding and decoding
are affected by anxiety, pressure, stress, and also by levels of enthusiasm and excitement.
This last point is particularly significant, as change communication itself can, of course,
generate anxiety and stress, or stimulate excitement.
f. Gender, Power, and Emotion
ender differences also affect the communication process. Here are two examples:
Confidence and boasting. Women tend to emphasize their doubts and uncertainty, but
men tend to express greater confidence and play down their doubts. Asking questions.
Women are more likely to ask questions than men; the downside is that male managers
may interpret women as knowing less than their male peers. An assessment by a male
manager of how well a woman is coping with change, compared with male colleagues,
may thus conclude: “She seems very uncertain since she is always asking questions.”
However, this assessment may have more to do with gender differences related to a
willingness to question (about the change) than to real differences in attitude toward the
change itself.
Other gender differences relate to how feedback is given and received, how
compliments are exchanged, and whether the communication is direct or indirect. Kate
Ludeman and Eddie Erlandson (2004) argue that many senior managers are “alpha”
males: fast thinkers who have opinions on every topic, who are analytical, data-driven,
impatient, and think that they are smarter than most other people. As a result, their
communication style can intimidate those around them. Alpha males are not good
listeners, they miss subtleties, and they put others under extreme pressure to perform.
The alpha male communication style can be softened with coaching (see exercise
7.2), but this is not an easy transformation. When a male manager changes to a
communication style that is not direct, competitive, confrontational, and authoritative,
they can be seen as “going soft,” becoming “touchy-feely,” and “losing their grip”
(Linstead et al., 2005, p. 543). The change manager may therefore need to find a balance
between maintaining credibility with colleagues while adopting a communication style
that is appropriate to the change context and to those who are involved.
The use of language can also reflect underlying power and gender relationships—
factors that can also interfere with the change communication process (as with
communications in general). For example, the manner in which change managers seek
staff comments on proposals can reinforce power differentials. Telling staff to provide
input may result in responses different from those obtained when the request conveys
respect for their opinions. Power differences are normally a barrier to communication.
Those who are more powerful may not wish to disclose information that could make
them appear to be less powerful or that could weaken their power base. Those who are
less powerful may not wish to disclose information that could potentially be used against
them.
Communication models have been criticized for ignoring the role of emotions in
organizational change, focusing instead on the rational and cognitive dimensions of
communication. Nevertheless, change managers need to be aware of, to understand, and
where appropriate to respond to emotional responses to change. Emotions can interfere
with the communication process, but emotions can also be a positive resource,
contributing to staff willingness, commitment, and support for change.
Shaul Fox and Yair Amichai-Hamburger (2001) emphasize the need for
congruence between cognitive understanding of change and emotional perceptions.
Emotional appeals communicate vision and urgency and can aid the formation of
powerful change coalitions. Summarizes the range of practical steps that can help
establish the “positive emotions” that generate “excitement and anticipation” around a
change program. Michele Williams (2007) suggests that the anticipation that change will
be personally threatening or harmful can generate negative emotions and a loss of trust in
management, thus making cooperation and engagement difficult to achieve.
Understanding the emotional side of change is important. However, whether
change managers can produce positive emotional responses to change is open to question
for four reasons. First, there is an underlying assumption that emotions are produced and
contained within the organization. The impact of external factors (how friends and family
talk about a change, how change is presented in the media) can be overlooked. Second,
an underlying assumption is that all people respond in the same way to the same
emotional appeals. This view overlooks differences in work motivation, and how these
influence perceptions of change. With increasing workforce diversity, we also have to be
aware of cultural differences in modes of emotional expression and response. Third, not
all change managers have the skills or the credibility to manage the emotional responses
of staff to change, and to achieve positive emotional responses. Finally, it may be easier
to achieve positive emotional responses to some (exciting, developmental, progressive)
changes and not others (routine, tedious, defensive).
g. Language Matters: The Power of Conversation
As we discussed at the beginning of this, communication does not just involve a
transfer of information or ideas. The language that we use to describe reality also helps to
create—or to constitute—that reality for others; communication thus involves the
creation and exchange of meaning. For example, Deborah Tannen (1995) points out that
language reflects and reinforces underlying social relationships.
Language is particularly important in organizational change contexts due to the
sensitivity of the issues (“Will I lose my job?”) and the possibility for confusion (“That is
not what management said last week”). The choice of language that the change manager
uses can therefore affect whether proposals will be seen as exciting or routine, as clear or
muddled, as progressive or mundane, as threatening or developmental. These meanings
can be shared in documentation and through formal meetings. However, for the change
manager, the understanding of change is typically shared in a range of formal and
informal meetings and conversations. Even brief, unplanned, casual conversations can be
powerful channels for exchanges of ideas and understanding between the change
manager and those who are involved in the proposals. Silence during a conversation also
sends signals.
Managing change also involves different conversations at different stages of the
change process. Conversations across those stages, however, must have “linguistic
coherence,” and managers should try to align their use of language with the type of
change that is being implemented. It is also important to create a shared language of
change among the stakeholders who are involved.
Jeffrey and Laurie Ford (1995) do not see communication simply as a tool for
producing intentional change; rather, it is through communication that change happens.
In other words, “the management of change can be understood to be the management of
conversations” (p. 566). Drawing on “speech act theory,” they argue that change takes
place through four types of conversation. Initiative conversations draw attention to the
need for change, whether reactive or proactive, and can take the form of: assertion “We
have to bring the finances under control.” request “Can you restructure your division to
achieve greater operating efficiencies?” declaration “We are going to increase market
share.” Conversations for understanding help others to appreciate the change issues and
the problems that need to be addressed, through three main elements: specifying the
“conditions of satisfaction” that will make the change successful: “We need to make sure
that there are no more than two customer complaints per thousand units produced”
enabling the involvement of those affected by the change confirming interpretations and
enabling shared meaning and understanding.
John Sillince (1999) also emphasizes the role of language in change
conversations, focusing on the coherence of change conversations. An overreliance on
one of these language forms can lead to problems. For example, a focus on deals rather
than ideals may encourage an individualist culture. Sillince (1999, p. 492) argues that
“motivating change during the early stage of organizational change requires the
communication of appeals for support and statements of goals or ideals, and that the later
stage requires the communication of rules and the negotiation of deals.” He illustrates this
with the restructuring at AT&T in the 1970s and 1980s.
In comparing successful changes at AT&T with less successful changes at
Chrysler, Sillince notes that the former had a linguistic coherence that was lacking at
Chrysler. He concludes that linguistic coherence in the use of different forms of language
at different stages is a hallmark of successful change. (See box, “IBM’s Script for
Offshoring Jobs.”) Sillince gives us a macro-level analysis, in which different change
phases unfold over lengthy periods of time. It is therefore interesting that he sees these
phases as underpinned by Lewin’s (1951) model of unfreezing, moving, and refreezing.
As we have discussed in previous, however, change is rarely a tidy, orderly, sequential
process, and it may be difficult to maintain coherence across different chaotic and
nonsequential stages. Nevertheless, this perspective alerts the change manager to the
different linguistic modes that are available when communicating change, and highlights
the option of switching from one linguistic mode to another if appropriate when, for
example, one approach is not having the desired effect.
Robert Marshak (1993) argues that change fails when the imagery and metaphors
used by managers are not aligned with the type of change being implemented. This lack
of alignment confuses those who are involved in the change. He describes a situation
where a large corporation had to reposition fundamentally its business due to a decline in
the government contracts that had been a mainstay of the company. Unfortunately, when
communicating the need for this change to middle management, the chief executive’s
explanation was based on the need to build on the company’s past success, as a way of
developing into the future. Instead of shifting the company in radically new directions,
middle managers continued to develop past practices. The imagery of “developing” was
not aligned with the “transformational” change that was necessary.
These insights concerning the need to align language and change highlight how
change managers can easily communicate mixed signals with regard to what is required.
Change managers are thus advised to reflect on how their metaphors for describing and
communicating about their organizations and changes may be trapped and influenced by
dominant or root metaphors. New insights, actions, and unanticipated directions can be
generated by adopting new language and new metaphors (see “The NASCAR Model”).
We must also recognize that managers may not always be able to introduce metaphors
that will necessarily resonate with staff throughout an organization. New metaphors often
compete with dominant logics, embedded ways of operating, ingrained ways of
perceiving the organizational world, and formal policies and procedures. Change
managers need to focus on redesigning policies, systems, and processes that conflict with
the language of the change. For example, if change concerns “leaving the past behind,”
then transformational metaphors may be weakened if, say, compensation and
performance appraisal systems remain based on past practice.
Choice of terms has a significant impact on the way in which an issue such as
organizational change is understood by others. Problems will thus arise when those who
are responsible for managing a change cannot among themselves adopt a “common
language.” Checking the shared meanings of concepts in use is thus important in order to
avoid confusion and conflict. For example, Loizos Heracleous and Michael Barrett
(2001) attribute the failed implementation of an electronic risk management system in the
London insurance market to the lack of shared language and meaning among the parties
that were involved. Over a period of five years, they studied the language of the main
stakeholders, including market leaders, brokers, and underwriters, and also observed how
the language of those stakeholders changed over time.
Change managers thus need to understand the deep discursive structures that
underpin the surface communication of different stakeholders, in order to support major
organizational and technology changes. Surface agreement may be artificial and tenuous
where there is a lack of understanding of those deeper structures that may explain inertia
or resistance. Although they acknowledge that understanding the interpretive schemes of
different stakeholders will not guarantee success, Heracleous and Barrett (2001, p. 774)
conclude that “Uncovering and appreciating other stakeholders’ deep structures,
however, can be of help in avoiding dead ends and self-defeating compromises in change
implementation.”
h. Change Communication Strategies
In spite of its importance, change communication is an issue that many
organizations overlook. A survey of 100 UK employers (Wolff, 2010) found that only 40
percent had formal communication strategies. However, companies with formal strategies
were four times more likely to agree that this contributed to their success. The main goals
of internal communications were keeping staff informed of changes and strategies, staff
engagement, and providing information about policies and procedures. The most popular
communication methods were department meetings, one-on-one meetings with line
managers, team meetings, letters and memos, and email. Social media were unpopular:
online video, instant messaging, internal blogging, wikis, Skype, and podcasts were used
by very few organizations. There was no one best communication method. Face-to-face
was seen as more effective than print or computer-based methods. Intranet sites were
only used for information on policies, procedures, and legal requirements. Top
management briefings were considered best in terms of employee engagement, opinion
surveys the best way to encourage feedback, and meetings with line managers the best
way to improve individual performance. What are the best ways to communicate change?
The claim that “we need more communication around here” is common. Many
commentators argue that it is not possible to overcommunicate, but this view is not
shared by all change managers and researchers. Geigle and Bailey (2001) describe a
reengineering project that affected 400 employees in a federal agency. The change team
was committed to open, organization-wide communication regarding the project, to a
degree that was unprecedented in the organization’s history. The outcome of this strategy
was change recipient anxiety and cynicism about the change, for two reasons.
First, staff suffered information overload, one saying, “It’s almost like they know
with all this information, we won’t read it.” Information overload can be problematic in
organizations where employees are already in receipt of a high volume of other
information. Second, the agency’s communication strategy did not involve real
participation. The change team had no strategy for incorporating feedback into the
change program: “I feel like they may be informing me of everything that’s going on, but
I have absolutely zero say in what goes on.” Geigle and Bailey (2001) conclude that there
may be symbolic importance in pursuing an open communication strategy, but that this is
not sufficient for success. They argue that a change team is at its best when acting not as
reporters, but as sense-makers, facilitating understanding for change recipients and
helping them to identify (filter and distill) what is important. This distinction is
instructive: from her research, Laurie Lewis (1999) argues that change managers act
more often as reporters, disseminating information, than as sense-makers, seeking and
processing feedback during planned change processes. For a more detailed exploration of
the perspective that sense-making brings to organizational change.
The federal agency example illustrates the difference between “getting the word
out” (providing information about a change) as opposed to “getting staff buy-in” (support
and involvement). Both are important (Guaspari, 1996). We cannot always assume that
management alone has all the good ideas concerning what is required to make a change
successful. We do know, however, that those who are going to be affected by change
need to be informed about what is happening, and that when frontline staff are allowed to
take the initiative to drive change, the success rate is higher (Keller et al., 2010).
Getting “buy-in” depends on what people are being asked to purchase. Do they
see this as having personal value? Have the changes been adequately justified? The
evidence indicates that explaining and justifying the need for change relates positively to
perceived fairness with regard to both the change process and the outcomes. From his
study of 183 employees in companies that had relocated to Chicago, Joseph Daly (1995)
found that management’s justification was particularly important when the move was
viewed unfavorably by staff. However, that justification was not as important where the
move was welcomed. Daly (1995, p. 426) concludes that some managers may thus be
tempted to avoid explaining change decisions to employees if they think that the change
outcomes will be welcome anyway. However, that may not apply to staff judgements
about the change process.
Phillip Clampitt and colleagues (2000) locate communication strategies on the
continuum shown in. At one end of this continuum is “spray and pray,” transmitting lots
of information, to little effect. At the other extreme, “withhold and uphold” offers little
information, and is also ineffective. All five strategies on this continuum are summarized.
The authors argue that “underscore and explore,” which involves dialogue, is more likely
to succeed, by allowing staff concerns to be combined with management initiatives. They
note that some organizations mix these strategies. For example, in one organization,
“spray and pray” (also known as the “communication clutter” approach) was used to
“bombard” staff with information on organizational performance. However, when faced
with downsizing and operational.
A common view is that chief executives should be personally involved in the
communication of change in order to demonstrate their commitment. It could be
damaging to delegate this responsibility to others, signalling a lack of top management
support. However, other commentators argue that first-line supervisors are more
appropriate change communicators, because they are opinion leaders, who are more
likely to be known to and trusted by staff. This is the view adopted by T. J. and Sandar
Larkin (1996). First-line supervisors are in regular personal contact with staff, in small
groups (rather than in large formal assemblies), and are thus better able to communicate
about change.
i. Benefits
Is resistance to change a “natural” human response? If that were true, then we
would never become bored with our jobs or look for promotion and more challenging
work. If that were true, then manufacturers, from Apple to Ford, would have problems
bringing new products to market. Does resistance to change strengthen with age? If that
were true, then we would not see retirees set up new businesses, build “portfolio” or
“encore” careers, and develop other new skills and interests. Florian Kunze et al. (2013)
present evidence showing that resistance to change decreases with age. Resistance is a
topic shrouded in myths. Another of these myths is that resistance is a problem.
Resistance, when it does occur, is not necessarily damaging. Donald Schön (1963)
argued that resistance was not just desirable, but necessary, in order to prevent the
implementation of weak ideas and ineffective proposals. Unity and consensus are often
viewed as desirable, while conflict and disagreement are bad. However, in some settings,
a divergence of opinions can be constructive if this exposes the dimensions of an
argument or the full range of consequences—positive and negative—of a change
proposal. Several other commentators have thus argued for the need to recognize the
utility of resistance (Waddell and Sohal, 1998; Mabin, 2001; Atkinson, 2005). Maurer
(2010, p. 23) says, “Sometimes we need to hear the resistance in order to know that our
plans are doomed to failure.”
Jeffrey and Laurie Ford (2009) argue that resistance to change provides valuable
feedback on what is being proposed. Resistance is a resource, even if it sounds like
complaints and arguments. They suggest that there is no point in blaming resisters.
Treated as a threat, they become defensive and uncommunicative, and the resource is no
longer available. On the contrary, it is important to understand resistance, which can
often be well founded. Resistance is not always irrational or self-serving. Ford and Ford
(2009, p. 100) argue, “Even difficult people can provide valuable input when you treat
their communication with respect and are willing to reconsider some aspects of the
change you’re initiating.” What to you as the change manager is an annoying complaint
may be a genuine expression of concern from the person who raised it. Resisters believe
that they are being helpful and constructive, while you believe that they are being
negative and disruptive.
For some change managers, adopting a “welcoming” approach to resistance to
change may sound unrealistic, and personally challenging. However, Todd Jick and
Maury Peiperl (2010) suggest that change managers should “rethink” the concept of
resistance, recognizing this as a natural part of the process of adapting to change and thus
as a potential source of energy and feedback. Rick Maurer (2010) also argues that the
power of resistance can be used to build support for change. Treating resisters with
respect strengthens relationships and improves the chances of success. He also advises
the change manager to relax, to resist the temptation to “push back” when attacked, to
learn from the resistance, to look for common ground. Although advocating this
perspective, Maurer (2010) also accepts that there are situations where focusing attention
on dissent can be counterproductive. This can occur, for example, where challenges to the
change proposals are not well informed, or where change is necessary for organizational
survival.
For the benefits to be gained, resistance must be active. But resistance can
sometimes be passive, and involve silence, and withholding cooperation and information.
Encouraging complaints and challenges may sound perverse, but by encouraging the
dialogue, active resistance can be stimulated, and the feedback and ideas can then be used
constructively. This section has focused on the positive dimensions of resistance. We also
have to recognize the damage that resistance can cause, to an organization, its members,
and sometimes even to those who are resisting. Job security, for example, may be
jeopardized by a failure to introduce new systems, procedures, practices, and technology.
It is important, therefore, to adopt a balanced perspective on this topic, recognizing the
negative as well as the positive implications.
j. Causes
Some of us just do not like change. It is common to hear the complaint that the
main impediment that managers face in introducing change is that people dislike change
and will resist it. We have already argued, however, that this view is oversimplified and
does not explain why people sometimes welcome and even seek change. It is not wise to
assume that a dislike of change is necessarily an innate human characteristic that we all
share. As individuals, we vary in our approach or “disposition” to change. Some of us
prefer routine, become tense and anxious when confronted with change, do not like to
change our plans, and are more rigid in our thinking. Those who have high dispositional
resistance toward change are therefore less likely to accept change in general and are
more likely to resist when change is imposed. But some of us dislike routine, are
animated by new ideas and plans, and are comfortable with changing our minds when
presented with fresh information.
Do you enjoy being taken by surprise? You look forward to the “mystery tour,”
destination unknown. Or do you need to know precisely what will happen next? You
want to know all the journey details in advance. There are individual differences in our
tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity. If you are not confident that you have the skills
and capabilities that the proposed changes will demand, then the uncertainty will be
magnified. Uncertainty can of course be reduced, and support strengthened, by making
clear the strategic intent of the change, and the actions that are expected of those
involved. The key point here is that lack of support for change may not be due to overt
resistance, or apathy, but to uncertainty and ambiguity, based on lack of information—a
lack that can be remedied.
We noted earlier that resistance can be based on the perception that change will
work against the interests of those who will be affected. The term “interests” can cover a
range of factors: authority, status, rewards (including remuneration), opportunities to
apply expertise, membership of friendship networks, autonomy, security. People find it
easier to support changes when their interests are not threatened, and they may resist
when they perceive that their interests will be damaged. The key term here is
“perception.” Seen from a different standpoint (long-term job security, for example),
proposed changes may support the interests of those involved, whose focus on short-term
implications (loss of currently valued skills, for example) may take priority. It is the
perceptions of those who are involved that determine their responses to change, and not
the perceptions of others. Perceptions are difficult to manage and to change, but the
quality and volume of available information, and the roles of opinion leaders and
networks, can be significant in this regard.
Our understanding of the nature of the reciprocal relationship that we have with
an employer has been called the “psychological contract” (Rousseau, 1995; Coyle-
Shapiro and Shore, 2007). A breach or violation of this contract occurs when employees
believe that the employer is no longer honoring their side of the deal. As the label
suggests, the psychological contract is in part defined by a formal written agreement (job
description, terms and conditions, performance appraisal), and also in part by informal
social and psychological dimensions. The informal aspects are not expressed in writing.
These concern expectations regarding organizational values, trust, loyalty, and
recognition—features that can have just as significant an effect on employee perceptions
as formal written terms. Perceived breaches of the psychological contract can thus lower
performance and reduce adaptability to change (McDermott, Conway, et al., 2013).
Research has explored relationships between psychological contract and
responses to change. From their study in a textiles company in Scotland, Judy Pate and
colleagues (2000) found a link between perceived breaches of psychological contracts
and resistance to strategic and organizational change. They conclude, “When
organizations fail to respect employee interests, the low-trust relationships and levels of
cynicism that invariably result severely constrain the potential for effective strategic
change” (p. 481). Sjoerd van den Heuvel and René Schalk (2009, p. 283), in a study of
Dutch organizations, conclude, “The more the organization had fulfilled its promises in
the employee’s perception, the less the employee resisted organizational change. By
maintaining good psychological contracts with employees, organizations can build trust,
which could prevent resistance to change.”
k. Symptoms
How can resistance to change be detected? The answer to this question is not as
straightforward as it might seem, because the symptoms—the signs and clues—can be
difficult to detect, and to interpret. For example, resistance can be overt and visible, but it
can also be covert and hidden. Open criticism and heated debate are of course easier to
detect than whispered private conversations. Given the potential benefits of challenges to
change proposals, overt resistance may be of more value to the organization, to the
change manager, and ultimately to the change process. Resistance is also three-
dimensional, with emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components (Oreg, 2003). In
short, the change manager has to be sensitive to how people feel about change, how they
think about it, and what they intend to do about it (see the sidebar “Merger in Adland”).
Kenneth Hultman's (1995) insightful distinction between active and passive
resistance provides a valuable framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of
resistance to change. Table 8.2 serves as a practical tool for identifying typical behaviors
associated with both active and passive resistance. While the table offers a glimpse into
the varied manifestations of resistance, it is crucial to acknowledge that these lists are not
exhaustive, and the symptoms may overlap or coexist. For instance, an individual may
engage in both ridiculing and being critical simultaneously.
In essence, Hultman's framework serves as a guidepost, prompting change
managers to adopt a nuanced and attentive approach to resistance. Recognizing the
diverse ways in which resistance can manifest allows for a more comprehensive
understanding, enabling change managers to address the root causes and navigate
resistance with greater effectiveness and empathy.
