Marsha Consultant

decades

Get Personal to Communicate Coming Change by Marsha Frady

ow many companies really know how to communicate H change effectively? What kind

Frady is a Performance for IBM with over two

experience working with Corn-

Panics on a variety o f organizational respond to best? Every book or article change and training projects. She may you pick up discussing change in be reached at mfrady @ vnet.ibm.com. today’s business world stresses the

importance of communications in overcoming resistance. Why doesn’t it always work?

of communications do employees

Analysis of receptivity to change with- in a large global company doing major re-engineering has shown several con- sistent findings. Stakeholder inter- views and end-user focus groups were conducted, with a total of over 400 individual respondents from all over the world. Most respondents recalled that communications about the re- engineering came from their immedi- ate, or first-line, managers and most people preferred to receive informa- tion in small meetings with their man- agement where the communication could be two-way. They were frustrat- ed by conflicting communication and, even more so, by lack of communica- tion, which they blamed on those above their immediate management. Their vision of what the changes should bring was expressed in terms of specific results rather than the general values or business goals that those responsible for the re-engineering thought they were communicating.

What was perhaps surprising is that this study was done with a well-edu- cated workforce, in a high-technology company familiar with electronic

mail, video transmissions from top executives, corporate news magazines, and the Internet. Yet in spite of having terminals on every desk and a corpo- rate culture rich in information flow, the respondents preferred to have changes communicated in person.

This coincides with the findings of T.J. and Sandar Larkin who contend that the only communications that are effective are those that:

communicate directly to supervi- sors (first-line managers) as they are the ones the employees look to for information, use face-to-face communication, the preferred method between supervi- sors and their employees, and communicate relative performance of the local work area, which peo- ple can relate to much more than company-wide statistics or general- ized values.

Overcoming resistance is essential when major change is dependent on workforce acceptance for success. However, the likely employee reaction to announced corporate transforma- tions (D’Aprix, 1996) will be:

15 percent angry; 40 percent fearful, skeptical, and distrustful; 30 percent uncertain but open; and 15 percent hopeful and energized.

It’s a Matter of Trust Trust is the foundation of effective communication. In discussing motiva- tion, Dean Spitzer (1995) references findings by R. H. Rosen that 80 per-

32 performance improvement / august 1997

cent of employees say that they don’t trust top management. Poor or inap- propriate communications from top management can lead to confusion. What people don’t understand is often perceived as a threat.

Trust can be built by taking a person- al approach to communications. Most people like to meet in small groups with their boss so that they can ask questions and raise their concerns and complaints early in the transition. Having an opportunity to provide input increases the employee buy-in by giving them the feeling of participating in the design of the change rather than having it imposed upon them.

Communicating personally is one of the ways to make corporate communi- cations motivating. Spitzer (1995) states that “most companies don’t realize that ‘slick’ presentations often have the opposite effect as intended. Employees typically view them as less credible (and less motivating) than more informal-and much less cost- ly-presentations. It is fine to hear a riveting speech, read a vivid mission statement, attend an informative brief- ing, or view a well-produced video- tape, but there is no substitute for per- sonal one-on-one communication.”

But does this need for a face-to-face discussion still hold in the age of the “information highway” in “cyber- space?” In spite of having strong com- puter familiarity and long-term expe- rience with using desktop terminals, only one person in the 440 inter- viewed in 1996 in the re-engineering study mentioned the Internet as a desirable media for receiving commu- nications about the re-engineering (yet this same company has hundreds of “home pages” on their internal intranet). No one in the study suggest- ed a magazine article or a video, both traditional methods for communicat- ing major change to them in the past. Larkin and Larkin contend that com- munications about change should not be delivered directly by the chief exec- utive officer; trickled down through middle management; or delivered via

video, company newspaper, or elec- tronic media. Change communica- tions should be delivered by upper management to first-line managers who, in turn, should communicate these changes face-to-face with their employees.

Getting to the Point Communication is an essential tool for accomplishing change, but it is a tool many organizational leaders use poor- ly or thoughtlessly. It also makes them angry and feeds their skepticism and cynicism, making them evermore resistant to change.

Trust can be built by taking a personal approach to communications.

Negative impressions result from typi- cal official “reactive” communica- tions-what D’Aprix (1996) calls communications that are “carefully crafted, formally written, delivered impersonally, and sugarcoating bad news.” These, in turn, reflect back on the impressions of the organization’s leadership.

Whether the workforce is full-timers, contract people to whom the employ- er will make limited commitments about employment longevity and rewards, or temporary workers who will come and go as needed, the com- munications from the manager still should address human needs on the job. These include what’s expected of them, a belief that both they and what they do are important, how they can best contribute, and how they can involve themselves in the tasks to be done.

It may be that employees, when first confronted with change, are not look- ing so much for information as for reassurance and support. One consul- tant in an Atlanta-based firm that spe- cializes in leading organizations through transitions, Emma Morris, cautions companies that information is only meaningful to employees when they are ready to hear it. Initially they may be seeking empathy and comfort. The manager who can both relay the mes- sage and provide the support can pre- pare them to accept additional infor- mation on how the change will affect their jobs. The employees will not be interested in all those bulletins, pre- sentations, and other directional mes- sages until they buy into the change.

The conclusion, then, is to get “per- sonal” in communicating change. If executives break the news, either in person or in videos, have local man- agement introduce them in a meeting. Then have breakout sessions after- wards to help employees discuss the concepts with local management. Foster two-way communications to increase feedback from employees. Listen to their suggestions and incor- porate them wherever feasible to increase their subsequent buy-in. Leave the electronic media for follow- up such as giving project status andlor distributed training.

References

D’Aprix, Roger, Communicating for Change - Connecting the Workplace with the Marketplace, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Larkin, TJ and Sandar, Communicating Change - Winning Employee Support for N e w Business Goals, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Morris, Emma, “Easing Company Transitions,” Beyond Computing, March 1997, pp. 46-47.

Spitzer, Dean, SuperMotivation - A Blueprint for Energizing Your Organization from Top to Bottom, New York, AMACOM, 1995.

performance improvement / vol 36, #7 33