Posts Tagged “Change Communication”

In the midst of a major transformation initiative, senior managers are frequently surprised by what employees say in response to open-ended survey questions. As a result, we are big fans of making sure senior management hears these comments. We are also big fans of ensuring senior management acts visibly and appropriately in response to what they hear.

A while back, our company was retained by a client in the midst of a reorganization. The 7,000 employee business was moving from a single corporate entity to a divisional structure along product lines. It had been widely stated that the moves would not cut headcount except for a few senior-level positions. The economy was healthy and this company was meeting its objectives when this was underway.

We ran a survey to assess the situation, and here are a few of the comments we received:

• Give the big picture. As people become aware of this, then you can start drilling down into levels of detail.
• It appears we are doing a lot of explaining without a lot of information being revealed. Rumors, speculation and anxiety grows while we wait. I would have done more “behind the scenes” work and made the changes less visible to the organization until we were ready to make the change.
• I would like to see more “personal” meetings with senior levels. Although the communications are effective, they speak to a broad audience. I would like to see members of the executive team go to each site and personally speak to smaller groups of people to explain the rationale and changes.
• The communications have improved from senior management. There should be a weekly bulletins.
• Be open and honest. The rumor mill is rampant about 20% head count reductions. The change was not communicated this way in the beginning. There is even less communication now than ever. Associates want to know the dates when they will find out about their destiny. The vision about accelerated growth has disappeared. There is next-to-no communication about process changes unless you are directly involved.
• Keep up the good work.
• Set an exact timetable. We keep hearing conflicting dates.
• My manager has done an abysmal job of explaining this to our group, has shown no compassion and seems disinterested in our concerns. The process is too slow and is killing our culture. We hear very little from the executives and they don’t do any “walking around.”
• Will these moves really change the company and break down silos? Or is really a financial restructuring that will enable us to sell off parts of the company?

What are the takeaways:

1. Rumors fill vacuums.
2. Leaders can’t over-communicate. Be visible. Some people want more detail and some want less. There is no way to make everybody happy.
3. Have a plan and communicate your plan. Set expectations and then meet them.

I’ll post more soon.

Change is a scary process in and of itself. But add the word “transformational” in front of change and the idea has people running for the exits. Since transformational change is such a widely used term in change management, why does it elicit such a reaction?

Well, first, transformational change encompasses more than reorganizing a single department or changing a simple business process. Transformational change affects the entire business, from the front-line employee to senior management. It affects the organization’s structure, processes and culture. It creates significant disruption across the organization; it changes the patterns and assumptions found within the organization. For instance, it requires employees to work in new ways; ways that might change their ingrained, comfortable identities.

Even more important than the change associated with transformation is the implications associated with the word. Transformation means out with old and in with new. It means caterpillars are bad – we want butterflies. The only problem is that you are a caterpillar, and you’ve always been a caterpillar. And you like being a caterpillar.

Because the word transformation can start the conversation on a negative tone, the idea of transformational change needs to be carefully approached even in organizations in great need of change. Leaders looking to implement transformational change need to start with an appealing, positive vision and work backwards to the negatives of today. “I envision a world where we will be beautiful, fly with the winds and see the world… As an added benefit, we will have less risk of being stepped on.”

The 80 million Baby Boomers are approaching one of life’s major milestones – retirement. And many companies are preparing for the brain drain that will cause. Ready to step in are the 46 million or so Gen Xers.

But there’s a new generation on the horizon – affectionately called the Millennials. Born between 1982 and 2000, they are 76 million strong and now are beginning to graduate from college and flood the job market.

Millennials have been described as tech savvy. In a 2007 book by Reynol Junco and Jeanna Mastrodicasa, a survey 7,705 U.S. college students showed:

97% own a computer

76% use instant messaging

15% of IM users are logged on 24 hours a day/7 days a week

34% use Web sites as their primary source of news

28% own a blog and 44% read blogs

49% download music using peer-to-peer file sharing

75% have a Facebook account

Given the generational differences between the Baby Boomers and the Millennials – and don’t forget the Gen Xers – employers will be challenged to integrate these generations into their workplaces as the old and new worlds collide. So what will that mean for communicating to them?

Likely it will mean increasing message multiplicity by combining more traditional methods – company newsletters, e-mails, and memos – with more modern methods, like blogs, RSS feeds and text messages to their cell phones. It also might mean developing ways to personalize each and every message to a Millennial recipient.

This would mean implementing technologies to gather data on their own employees’ habits and usage to create individual user profiles. With their propensity for sharing details about themselves through things like Facebook, MySpace, and receiving banking updates on their cell phones, one might assume this to be an acceptable endeavor on the part of companies. However, these are waters that haven’t yet been thoroughly tested.

I found a recent Business Week article about what happens after the corporate layoffs to be a good example of why Dilbert continues to be such a popular comic.

The article discussed, in a rather glib tone, how interior designers are persuading executives “to do something—anything—with the space where employees used to be” after their downsizing efforts.

Now, I’m all for ensuring the remaining employees stay engaged and recognize the need for extra special care during this time. Heck, I’ve been there. And I’m all for recycling – whether it be paper, plastic bottles or office furniture. But seriously…recommending the newly empty space should be used for quiet rooms, massage chairs and plasma TVs seems a little insensitive. Would employees left behind really find it appropriate that their colleague of 15 years has been replaced by the new plasma screen in the hallway?

Perhaps it depends on what stage of coping the remaining employees might be in at the time these initiatives begin. Anyone familiar with the Kubler-Ross grief cycle understands there are seven stages a person goes through during any type of traumatic change, whether it be the loss of a loved one or the loss of a job. The stages are shock, denial, anger, bargaining, depression, testing and acceptance.

More power to the interior designers who can improve our work environments through creative uses of space, lighting and furniture. But timing is everything. Making these types of changes while employees are in the shock, anger, denial or bargaining stages would most definitely cause negative consequences.

But perhaps it might make sense if done during the accepting stage, especially if the employees are given a voice and participatory role in the reconfiguration of their workspace. This ownership would involve them in shaping a new future, and not in Dilbertizing their situation.