Dunphy and stace change matrix

https://myclasses.argosy.edu/d2l/le/content/22563/viewContent/1041321/View

lectures

This week we'll discuss some techniques used by high-performance organizations. Employees in high-performance organizations use combinations of process interventions and OD interventions. Process interventions focus on understanding processes and how people relate to one another. OD interventions involve using specific interventions to solve problems. Both process and OD interventions are required to implement successful change management initiatives.

What are Process Interventions?

In an organization people communicate with one another either as a part of formal groups or through informal interactions. Often the dynamics of these interactions can create problems or prevent the group from resolving differences.

Process interventions are designed to understand various processes involved in formal group and informal interactions. When you are involved in process interventions your role shifts to that of a coach. For example, a coach works with a football team to help identify and assign various roles to players such as who should be the quarterback or wide receiver. While doing so the coach focuses on the abilities and skills of players in the team. The coach diligently observes players during the game.

To improve performance the coach works in tandem with players to build an effective team. The key responsibility of the coach is to enable players to make crucial decisions while on the field.

In an organization supervisors may observe the strengths and weaknesses of various team members. Supervisors also observe how team members relate to each other. Based on these observations the supervisors assign appropriate tasks to team members. The supervisors also help team members relate better to each other and contribute to improving team performance.

Process Interventions (2 of 2)

Process Intervention Techniques

Process interventions involve several steps—the primary and the most crucial is observing and listening. A process intervention technique that can be often used by you is to participate in team meetings with the purpose of obtaining process data.

You can track the following activities:

Who initiates discussions?

Who does the most listening?

Does anybody interrupt the conversation? If yes, who?

Who holds the leadership in the team? Is it the team leader or another person informally regarded as the leader by the group?

Who makes decisions? How are they made?

How do various individuals behave?

Who talks to whom?

You can gather such data by observing several group interactions and conversing with other employees. This data provides you an excellent insight into how the group interacts. You and the team members can analyze if current processes enable the team to be productive. The team can work towards the following ways to improve productivity:

How can quiet listeners contribute their ideas?

How can some employees stop dominating the conversation?

How can decision-making be more participatory?

While handling process interventions the idea is not to solve identified problems. Instead the entire focus is on improving processes.

Need for Process Interventions

Why should you be concerned with interpersonal processes? The reason is that ignoring processes can often result in the failure of change initiatives. If the team leader is dominating and overbearing it may result in quashing ideas contributed by team members. Talkative team members often ignore suggestions made by quieter peers. Decision-making that is not participatory may result in resistance from employees.

Process interventions are very important, but they cannot be isolated from OD interventions to solve organizational problems. A successful employee is one who simultaneously examines and conducts these interventions.

OD Interventions (1 of 2)

What are OD Interventions?

Earlier you learned about problem diagnosis. OD interventions specifically focus on resolving diagnosed problems. They focus less on processes and more on issues at hand. For example, Total Quality Management (TQM) is an OD intervention to improve quality and performance. Another OD intervention is to engage in job redesign to improve performance.

Continuing the analogy of a football team the coach works with the team to improve performance, not relationships. The coach shows how to make a better pass or score a goal. Practice sessions are held and the team works together to improve the play. The coach organizes practice matches and replaces players and equipment if necessary.

In an organization the supervisors seek resources to improve performance. At an organizational level restructuring or downsizing may be deemed necessary. Technology resources may need to be added or replaced. The motivation or morale of team members may be low and morale boosting techniques and strategies may need to be initiated.

OD Interventions (2 of 2)

OD Intervention Techniques

When engaging in OD interventions external help may often be sought. The external change consultant needs to possess function-specific expertise. For example, replacing the current technology system with enterprise-wide IT solutions such as Oracle or SAP will require the expertise of technology consultants. Another example is when an organization lacks vision and direction; a strategic planning expert may need to be called in.

During the implementation of change initiatives you should not lose track of the systemic view to organizations. You may recall from earlier weeks that all the systems in an organization are interrelated. A technical change implies that employees may need to learn new technologies, change their working styles, or report to new bosses.

You should bear in mind that there are several overt and covert issues that will need to be monitored during change initiatives. Overt issues are easily identifiable and often documented, such as attendance and absenteeism, production efficiency, and quality. Covert issues often go unnoticed such as interpersonal relationships, emotions, feelings, morale, identity, and commitment. Your task is to recognize such issues and ensure that they are taken into account during process changes.

Ultimately the success of any intervention lies in acceptance as much as fulfillment of expectations. So OD interventions and process interventions go hand in hand.

Several OD interventions can be used depending on the problem at hand. These interventions will vary depending on whether the change is targeted at the individual, team, inter-group, or organizational level. Job enrichment, TQM, role analysis, career planning, cultural analysis, survey feedback, appreciative inquiry, force field analysis, and so on are some examples of OD interventions.

Many of these interventions require considerable experience and expertise, and you can benefit from using a simple OD intervention—the technique of goal setting. Goal setting enables individuals to measure their performance and raise standards.

Summary

This completes Module 3!

In this week you learned about various techniques adopted by organizations for the successful implementation of change management initiatives. Employees in high-performance organizations use the combination of process intervention and OD intervention techniques to implement change management initiatives.

You learned that interventions focusing on understanding processes and team dynamics are referred to as process interventions. You also learned that using specific interventions to solve problems are called OD interventions.

Next week you'll learn about specific OD interventions, goal setting and MBO. You'll learn how to set goals and work towards achieving them. You will also learn that the MBO technique is an extension of goal setting that can be extended to the entire organization at all levels.

Module 3 Readings

Complete the following reading early in the module:

Module 3 online lectures

READING FROM ARGOSY TEXT BOOK. https://digitalbookshelf.argosy.edu/#/books/1260003663/cfi/6/40!/4/10/56/2@0:39.8

From the assigned textbook, Managing Organizational Change 3rd read:

Change Communication Strategies

Change Management, Processual, and Contingency Approaches

Note: While reading, make notes of pertinent and important facts. You will be required to reference your readings in discussions and apply them in the week's assignments.

Chapter 7

Change Communication Strategies

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter you should be able to:

LO 7.1Identify key elements in the change communication process.

LO 7.2Understand how gender, power, and emotion affect change communication processes.

LO 7.3Understand the power of language in influencing responses to change.

LO 7.4Explain and assess appropriate strategies for communicating change.

LO 7.5Understand how successful communication processes vary with the type and stage of organizational change.

LO 7.6Assess the utility of a range of different change communication channels, including applications of social media.

LO 7.1The Change Communication Process

The ways in which changes are presented and discussed are critical to success. All of the approaches to change management explored in chapters 9 and 10 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 (see chapter 9).

Change communication, they note, aims to influence the opinions of many different audiences, inside and external to the organization. This suggests that clarity and consistency are important. However, Christensen and Cornelissen (2011, pp. 402–3) argue that organizations have to work with many voices, with different views and ideas (technical term, “polyphony”). In other words, it may often be desirable for change communications to be ambiguous and inconsistent, for the following reason:

[V]ague and equivocal language allows organizations to talk about themselves in ways that integrate a variety of members and stakeholders without alienating anyone. Too much clarity and consistency in the formulation of “shared values” may actually prevent managers from establishing accord with some corporate audiences. Although writings in corporate communication and branding call for organizations to eliminate ambiguity, ambiguity is

206

essential in promoting “unified diversity,” the ability for differences to coexist within the unity of the organization. Ambiguity and polyphony may even be a conscious management strategy designed to foster identification and reduce tension by allowing different audiences to apply different interpretations to what is seen as one corporate message.

The process of communicating change—what is going to happen and why—can therefore be more complex than it first appears. In this chapter, we 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.

Communication Is Not a “Soft” Function

The American consulting company Towers Watson (2013) argues that communication is key to organizational performance. From a global survey of 650 organizations, they found that those with effective communication practices were three times more likely to show superior financial performance, compared with those that did not use those practices. The best practices were:

Helping employees to understand the business

Educating employees about organization culture and values

Providing information on financial objectives and organizational performance

Integrating new employees

Communicating how employee actions affect customers

Providing information about the value of individuals’ total compensation package

Asking for rapid feedback from employees about their opinions of the company

Borrowing from consumer marketing, Towers Watson also argue that effective organizations categorize employees into groups based on the value of their skills and on personal characteristics. This approach to employee “segmentation” means that communication strategy can be tailored to focus on behaviors that are critical to performance. The most effective companies pay close attention to employees when they are planning change, evaluating culture, and assessing employee readiness and the impact that change will have. Middle and frontline managers need to be good at articulating what employees need to do differently to be successful, communicating what change means to individual employees, and creating a sense of ownership about change initiatives.

Three factors in particular now put a premium on “communication effectiveness”:

Workforce: Increasingly diverse workforce, with rising expectations of the employment deal

The stakes: The competitive advantage to be gained from “discretionary effort”—the willingness of employees to “go the extra mile” to improve company performance

Shorter timelines: The need to communicate rapidly, driven by developments in technology and globalization, tighter resources, and increased concerns for security

They conclude:

Today, top-performing organizations are building community—fostering the sense that employees at all levels are in it together. These organizations create the opportunity for social interaction using the latest new media technologies, display the appetite and courage to hear from employees, and establish ongoing forums conducive to collaboration rather than top-down communication. Those that do this well typically see better financial performance. (Towers Watson, 2013, p. 9)

207

Dianne Gayeski and Jennifer Majka (1996) argue that one of the challenges for communicators concerns the expectation of what can be achieved. They argue that an outdated “director” image has dominated our understanding, linking corporate communication with control and manageability. They claim that communication is better understood in terms of chaos and complexity (a “nurturer” image). The nurturer image may decrease the frustration of not being able to control events in the way that a director image assumes. Change managers may be able to shape but not always control the communication of change. More generally, each of the six images of change outlined in chapter 2 is associated with a different strategy for communicating change; see table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1

Change Images and Communication Purpose

Image

Purpose of Communication

Director

Ensure that people understand what is going to happen and what is required of them. Answer the why, what, who, how, and when questions. Present the “value proposition” of the change. Modify leadership style and information to “fit” the type of change and organizational levels affected. Avoid “spray and pray” methods, which lead to message overload. Do not distort the message.

Navigator

Outline the nature of the change, paying attention to the range of interests affected, power relationships, and actions that could disrupt the change. Problems identified can thus be addressed, and the change “replotted” if necessary to generate the best outcomes in the situation. To win staff over, “tell and sell” communication methods are appropriate.

Caretaker

Let people know the “why” of the changes, their inevitability, and how best to cope and survive. This involves the use of reactive communication methods, recognizing employee concerns and responding accordingly (“identify and reply”).

Coach

Ensure that people share similar values, and understand what actions are appropriate to those values. Model consistency in actions and words. The director “gets the word out”; the coach “gets buy-in” to change by drawing on values and positive emotions. Team-based communications are effective (not top-down led by chief executive). Key messages are emphasized to check understanding and encourage two-way dialogue (“underscore and explore”).

Interpreter

Give employees a sense of “what is going on” through storytelling and metaphors. Recognize the multiple sense-making that occurs in different groups with regard to change. Present a persuasive account of the change to ensure that as many people as possible will have a common understanding. Recognize that not everyone will accept the change story. Aim to provide the dominant account using “rich” personal and interactive communications (media richness is discussed below).

Nurturer

Reinforce the view that change processes cannot always be predicted, and that creative and innovative outcomes can be achieved, even though few in the organization could have anticipated these.

We will first outline a classic model of the communication process, indicating how language, power, gender, and emotions are central to an understanding of how this operates. We will then consider how this model applies to change communication, and explore the dilemmas facing the manager designing a change communication strategy. Is it possible to communicate too much? How can communication strategy be tailored to the type of change, and to the phases of the change process? Should the aim be to “get the word out” or the “get buy-in,” or both? Where should responsibility for communicating change lie? The different images in table 7.1 are likely to offer different answers to these questions. Finally, as explained earlier, we will then assess the use of different media for communicating change, including the evolving use of different forms of social networking technologies.

Modelling the Communication Process

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.

This process of exchange is illustrated in figure 7.1, which illustrates the main components of interpersonal communication. This model is based on the work of Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1949), who were concerned with signal processing in electronic systems, rather than with organizational communication.

FIGURE 7.1

Exchanging Meaning: A Model of the Communication Process

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 on209the 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. Communicationoften 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 changeinitiative, 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.

When designing a communication strategy, it is therefore important to assess how aspects of the context could affect the coding and decoding of the message, and to design the message content and channels accordingly. Terry Nelson and Helene Coxhead (1997) highlight three particular problems to consider when designing change communications:

210

Message overload: More new information is provided more quickly than recipients can process.

Message distortion: Intentional or unintentional misinterpretation when transmitting or receiving the message.

Message ambiguity: As noted earlier, ambiguity allows different interpretations, but this should not exceed recipients’ ability to tolerate ambiguity (which can be reduced by anxiety).

These problems can be avoided by adopting a common language with regard to the change, and where top management consistently model the desired behaviors. Enhancing employee involvement and self-esteem, and using specialist staff to monitor the change process, can also help to reduce communication errors.

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.

LO 7.2Gender, Power, and Emotion

The basic communication model that we have discussed can help to explain why communication sometimes breaks down. However, we also need to understand the impact of gender, power, and emotion on communication in general, and on change communication in particular.

Gender

Gender 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 changeitself.

Deborah Tannen (1995, p. 141) also observes that even the apparently simple choice of which pronoun to use can influence who gets the credit:

In my research in the workplace, I heard men say “I” in situations where I heard women say “We.” For example, one publishing company executive said, “I’m hiring a new manager. I’m going to put him in charge of my marketing division,” as if he owned the corporation. In stark contrast, I recorded women saying “we” when referring to work that they alone had done. One woman explained that it would sound too self-promoting to claim credit in an obvious way by saying, “I did this.” Yet she expected—sometimes vainly—that others would know it was her work and would give her the credit she did not claim for herself.

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.

Power

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.

The term “power tells” describes the various signs and clues that indicate how powerful someone is—or how powerful they want to be (Collett, 2004). The power tells of dominant individuals include:

· sitting and standing with legs far apart (men);

· appropriating the territory around them by placing their hands on their hips;

· using open postures;212

· using invasive hand gestures;

· smiling less, because a smile is an appeasement gesture;

· establishing visual dominance by looking away from the other person while speaking, implying that they do not need to be attentive;

· speaking first, and dominating the conversation thereafter;

· using a lower vocal register, and speaking more slowly;

· being more likely to interrupt others, more likely to resist interruption by others.

The power tells of submissive individuals include:

· modifying speech style to sound more like the person they are talking to;

· more frequently hesitating, using lots of “ums” and “ers”;

· adopting closed postures;

· clasping hands, touching face and hair (self-comfort gestures);

· blushing, coughing, dry mouth, heavy breathing, heavy swallowing, increased heart rate, lip biting, rapid blinking, and sweating are “leakage tells” which reveal stress and anxiety.

We can thus “read” the power signals of others. More importantly, however, change managers may need to control their own “tells” in order to appear less dominant and less powerful, particularly when communicating change in a manner that will encourage staff feedback, engagement, and support.

Emotion

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. Table 7.2 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. Change managers can avoid this situation by:

Perspective taking: Thinking about how others are likely to think and feel about a change.

Threat-reducing behavior: Engaging in intentional, interpersonal interactions with staff to minimize their perceptions that changes are likely to lead to harm for them.

Reflection: Self-evaluation to reduce the emergence of negative emotions and to identify corrective actions where necessary.

213

TABLE 7.2

How to Get Emotional Commitment to Change

Address These Issues

How This Is Done

The Core Message

Emotional arguments

Positive words signal future success; negative terms indicate what will happen if change fails

Metaphors

The use of familiar metaphors can help staff to picture the future and make it appear less strange or unusual

Packaging the Message

Emotional mode

Capture attention with music, color, slogans, pictures—but avoid excessive use of any one mode

Humor

Humor can reduce the gap, and tension, between manager and staff

Display emotion

Use feelings, tone of voice, body language, and facial expressions to generate warmth and confidence

Change leader characteristics

Messages are perceived as more credible and attractive when they are consistent with leader behavior

Change Manager Behavior

Fairness and justice

Decisions should be seen to be fair and follow legitimate, recognized procedures, with opportunities to raise issues

Setting

Group dynamics

Use groups and teams to strengthen commitment to change

Ceremonies

Stimulate emotions and reinforce the benefits of change with celebrations that also signal departure from the past

Atmosphere

Speak in warm, informal terms, to produce positive feelings toward the change (not formal and cold)

Source: Based on Fox and Amichai-Hamburger (2001, pp. 87–92).

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).

Table 7.3 summarizes the main barriers to successful organizational change communication.

TABLE 7.3

Barriers to Effective Organizational Change Communication

Language

Choice of words and tone of message can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations

Gender differences

Men and women use different communication styles, which can lead to misunderstanding; men tend to talk more; women tend to listen, and ask more questions

Power differences

Research shows that employees distort upward communication, and that superiors often have a limited understanding of subordinates’ roles, experiences, and problems

Context

Organization culture and history, as well as physical setting, can color the way in which change communications are transmitted and interpreted

Cultural diversity

Different cultures have different expectations concerning formal and informal communication; lack of awareness of those norms creates misunderstanding

Emotion

Emotional arousal interferes with message transmission and receipt, and emotional responses to change communication can be negative (anxiety, anger) or positive (exciting, stimulating)

The communication process appears to be simple, but it is prone to errors arising on both sides of the exchange. We cannot confidently assume that receivers will always decode our messages in a way that gives them the meaning that we intended to transmit. Communication is central to organizational change, but this claim has practical implications. It seems that organizations function better where:

· communications are open,

· relationships are based on mutual understanding and trust,

· interactions are based on cooperation rather than competition,

· people work together in teams, and

· decisions are reached in a participative way.

These features are not universal, and are not present in all countries, cultures—or organizations.

LO 7.3Language Matters: The Power of Conversation

As we discussed at the beginning of this chapter, 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. She offers215the following illustrative statements, which each require the same response but signal different information about the relationship between those involved:

There’s Nothing Like a Good Story

As chief executive at Hewlett-Packard (HP), Mark Hurd wanted the company to develop a more sales-oriented culture. To reinforce this message, he told the story about how, in his first week as a newcomer at NCR, he made a successful sale to a San Antonio tractor maker for some printing equipment. However, he failed to fill in the order form correctly and the person in the NCR billing department refused to process the order because of a minor mistake that he had made in the paperwork. When Hurd informed his manager about the situation, his manager phoned the guy in billing:

“Hey, did my man just come down here with an order?” asked the manager as Hurd listened. “The next time he does, I want you to get your ass out from behind your desk, and I want you to shake his hand. And I want you to thank him for keeping your ass employed. If there’s anything wrong with the order, I want you to fix it so that he can get about the job of continuing to keep you employed.” (Lachinsky, 2006, p. 93)

“Sit down!” This signals higher status of the person uttering the statement, perhaps indicating anger, and informal conversation is not appropriate.

“I would be pleased if you would sit down.” This signals respect, or possibly sarcasm, depending on the tone of voice and the situation.

“You must be so tired. Why don’t you sit down?” This signals either a concern and closeness for the person, or condescension.

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.

Talking in Stages

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. In216other 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

Conversations for performance focus on producing the change, and involve the action stage when:

promises are made

obligations are entered into

accountabilities are established

deadlines are set

Conversations for closure signal the completion of the change, and facilitate the movement of people into new projects and initiatives. These conversations involve:

acknowledgements

celebrations

rewards

Breakdowns in change and conversations occur when:

· Initiative conversations are held with people who are not in a position to proceed with the change.

· There is a lack of shared understandings about the intended changes and the expectations for the “conditions of satisfaction.”

· There is shared understanding, but performance conversations do not take place, so people do not know who is accountable for specific actions.

· Requests for action and performance are not rigorous and fail to specify intentions regarding results and deadlines.

· Closure conversations do not take place, and people feel that they are still involved with the change, while being asked to move on to new initiatives.

Ford and Ford (1995) emphasize that change managers need skills in handling change conversations, while recognizing that not all change conversations take place in a linear PG.217

manner; some stages may be skipped during the process. The practicing change manager thus needs to consider the following:

· Where managers are engaged in multiple change processes, there will be issues relating to how smoothly they are able to transition themselves among the different conversations.

· The stages of the conversations may be open to multiple interpretations among participants. Where managers assume that some conversations are complete and that it is appropriate to move on to another stage in the change conversations, others may have differing views.

· It is not clear that all managers are able to be trained or are able to exhibit all of these conversation skills successfully. For example, some managers may have more affinity with initiative conversations rather than performance conversations, and so on.

· Change managers need to confront the notion of power. The willingness of participants to be involved meaningfully in each of the four change conversations may be affected by significant power imbalances. Some understandings may thus need to be enforced rather than shared.

Talking Coherently

John Sillince (1999) also emphasizes the role of language in change conversations, focusing on the coherence of change conversations. Drawing on linguistic and political science theories, he outlines four dominant language forms that are found in organizational change conversations:

ideals

which express preferences

appeals

which seek support

rules

which seek to direct the behavior of others

deals

which serve as a form of bargaining and exchange

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 communicationof rules and the negotiation of deals.” He illustrates this with the restructuring at AT&T in the 1970s and 1980s. Sillince (1999, p. 499) concludes that, despite the absence of a planned communicationprocess, a logical sequence of language forms can be detected:

moving from attacking current ideals in 1973 (corresponding to the “unfreezing” stage in Lewin, 1951), to supporting new ideals in 1973–1978, to attacking current rules or the lack of rules in 1979–1980, and increasingly supporting new ideals and new rules after 1981 (the “change” stage in Lewin, 1951). The few deals referred to occur after 1981. Appeals tend to be promises and warning before change takes place and requests for support and exhortations to action during and after change.

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 PG 218

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 chapters, 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.

IBM’s Script for Offshoring Jobs

Internal IBM documents reported in The Wall Street Journal in January 2004 suggested that IBM was planning to move high-cost programming jobs offshore to countries such as Brazil, India, and China, where labor costs were lower (Bulkeley, 2004). Rather than pay $56 per hour in the United States, the documents indicated that a comparable programming job would cost only $12.50 per hour in China. The documents also revealed that IBM was aware that this “offshoring” process was a sensitive issue and provided managers with a draft “script” for presenting information to affected staff.

One memo instructed managers to ensure that any written communication to employees should first be “sanitized” by communications and human resource staff (“Do not be transparent regarding the purpose/intent”), and also directed that managers should not use terms such as “onshore” and “offshore.” Part of the “suggested script” for informing staff that their jobs were being moved offshore was to say, “This is not a resource action” (an IBM euphemism for being laid off), and that the company would try to find them jobs elsewhere. This script also proposed that the news should be conveyed to staff by saying, “This action is a statement about the rate and pace of change in this demanding industry. It is in no way a comment on the excellent work you have done over the years.” And, “For people whose jobs are affected by this consolidation, I understand this is difficult news.”

Aligning Language with the Change

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. PG 219

To avoid such problems, Marshak advises managers to align their language closely with the planned change. He identifies four different images of change and the language appropriate to each:

Machine imagery

Based on a “fix and maintain” view, portraying the organization as “broken,” and the change as a “fix.” The change manager is the repairperson; terms such as repair, adjust, and correct are aligned to this type of change.

Developmental imagery

Based on a “build and develop” view, in which the organization has to improve performance by building on past and current practices. The change manager is trainer or coach; terms such as nurturing, growing, and getting better are aligned to this type of change.

Transitional imagery

Based on a “move and relocate” view, in which change is designed to alter how the organization operates, for example by introducing online sales and services. The change manager is guide or planner; terms such as moving forward and leaving the past behind are aligned to this type of change.

Transformational imagery

Based on a “liberate and re-create” view, where change involves reinvention, or radical change to the nature of the business or market in which the organization trades. The change manager is visionary, helping to discover new possibilities; terms such as reinvention, re-creation, and adopting a new paradigm are aligned to this change.

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.

The NASCAR Model

Apparelizm (pseudonym) is a Fortune 500 retailer, with over 1,000 stores nationwide, which began a major organizational change effort resulting from a review of its strategy. As part of the effort to build support, the change team drew from a NASCAR analogy, NASCAR being a sport well understood and liked by many of the staff. The change team argued that store staff were like a NASCAR race crew. Past store practice was likened to a race crew member driving the car, pumping the gas, and changing the tires during the race. A “pit crew” would do the ordering and receiving of goods and put them on the shelves after they arrived. The “drivers” would be responsible for helping customers as they moved around the store. The “racetrack manager” would monitor the traffic flow in the store, removing the “multicar pileups” that happened when sales associates/“drivers” congregated together (rather than servicing customers). The metaphor was further extended to a parallel between the need for NASCAR racing teams “to be fast, responsive, and knowledgeable” if they were to be successful. A similar point was made with regard to the need for excellent communication between the “drivers,” “pit crew,” and so on.

The metaphor worked well. Staff understood and accepted the analogy and saw how the changes would help them to work more like an effective racing team (based on Roberto and Levesque, 2005).

220

Creating a Common Change Language

Managers are not alone in using—or misusing—terms and phrases in ways that cause amusement and confusion. It is important to check the assumption that different individuals and groups involved in change have a shared view of the terms—the language—being used. (See “Misused Terminology?”)

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.

Misused Terminology?

Term

Meaning?

Emergent strategy

Justifies a lack of strategic thinking; if a strategy does emerge, we do not have to do anything

Learning organization

We were right to neglect training; all we have to do is tell employees that we like them to learn for themselves

Empowerment

A magic word which, if we repeat it often enough, will make a downsized and delayered structure work without any further effort from us

Culture

Culture is what we say we will change when we cannot think of anything else to do

Source: Based on Hussey (1998).

Heracleous and Barrett distinguish between “surface-level” communication and the underpinning “deep discursive structures.” Deep structures include interpretive schemes, central themes, root metaphors, and rhetorical strategies. A focus on the different discursive structures explains the resistance of brokers and underwriters to the new system, and the failure of the project:

[W]e saw stakeholder groups talking past each other, rather than to each other, because of their almost diametrically opposed discourses, at both the deeper structure levels and communicative action levels, and their lack of common ground on which to base a dialogue. (Heracleous and Barrett, 2001, p. 774)

221

Culture, Language, and Change in General Motors Poland

General Motors (GM) began to develop its Opel Polska car plant on a greenfield site in Poland in 1996. One of the key tasks for management was to develop working practices consistent with a car plant that could be competitive in the twenty-first century. Although part of the challenge was due to the lack of exposure to competition during decades as part of the Soviet bloc, there seemed to be a more fundamental issue rooted in hundreds of years of Polish culture. A high value was placed on fantazja (imaginativeness), which was directly opposed to the idea of being systematic or well organized—the latter being equated with boring and unnecessary. Fantazja was also associated with independence and freedom from subjugation—the opposite to following standard operating procedures.

The practices designed for the new plant clearly required a high level of discipline and coordination. Managers were concerned that while fantazja could contribute to the continuous improvement processes that were to be part of the plant’s operating model, the cultural tolerance for disorder could be damaging. There was no shortage of Polish workers: 46,000 applied for 1,800 positions in the new plant, which meant that the company was in a very powerful position (but threats of job loss for noncompliance were not to be used). The European managers met with their new employees (along with translators). Although cultural values and linguistics appeared to lie at the heart of employee resistance to GM’s working practices, the solution was also found in the same roots. As in English, the term “development” in Polish can mean “to start something” and also “to progress.” In turn, “to progress” is the opposite of stagnation. For the Poles, stagnation is something that lacks fantazja. Through discussion, “disciplined organization” was positively reframed using concepts and values that were already part of Polish culture. By 2000, the plant had the best quality and performance figures of all GM plants worldwide (based on Dobosz-Bourne and Jankowicz, 2006).

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.”

LO 7.4Change Communication Strategies

The Importance of High-Quality Communication

Researchers have focused on the importance of effective communication with employees during change. Empirical research has demonstrated that high-quality change communication increases acceptance, openness, and commitment to change. Furthermore, the failure to provide sufficient information or providing poor-quality information can result in a number of problems, including cynicism about change and widespread rumors, which often exaggerate the negative aspects of change (Rafferty et al., 2013, p. 122).

222

In this section, we will focus on the communication strategy questions facing the change manager: Can you communicate too much, how to get “buy-in,” when to use communication strategies other than “spray and pray,” and who will take responsibility for communicating the change? We will also explore two contingency approaches to communication strategy, one based on the type of change and the other related to different phases of the change process.

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 communicationstrategies. 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?

Can You Communicate Too Much?

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, see chapter 9.

223

Getting the Word Out, or Getting Buy-In?

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).

Communication designed to generate “buy-in” involves capturing from staff information that will be useful in delivering the change, identifying what is important to them, and discovering what they see as the costs and benefits. It is therefore important to identify a clear “value proposition” that addresses the interests and motives of individual staff. Examples include (Guaspari, 1996, p. 35):

“As a result of the new skills you’ll learn in order to perform your job in the newly reengineered organization, you will have significantly increased your value internally and your marketability externally.”

“The work will be backbreaking. The pace will be relentless. You stand to make a ton of money.”

“We are making these changes to enable us to rewrite the rules in our industry, to improve by orders of magnitude the value we can create for our customers.”

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.

[E]mployees are likely to expect an explanation for a change decision regardless of whether the outcomes are positive or negative. If those employees are not given an explanation, they are likely to feel that the procedures used to make and implement the decision were unfair, leading in many cases to resentment against the decision process and the decision makers.

Daly’s (1995) findings are consistent with other research, which has found that managers are more likely to be trusted by staff when they:

· provide accurate information and feedback;

· adequately explain the basis for their decisions;

· use open communication, enabling an exchange of ideas.

224

Thirteen Points for an Effective Communication Strategy

1. Convince top management that communication is important.

2. Build alliances across the organization to support initiatives.

3. Recognize that no one method will be effective.

4. Use a mix of approaches and use all available channels where relevant.

5. Target communication to the audience; different methods for shop floor and managers.

6. Respect cultural diversity and vary approaches accordingly.

7. Make sure that messages are consistent, over time and between audiences.

8. Ensure clarity of message and keep things simple.

9. Train managers in communication skills.

10. Develop and sustain two-way communication, dialogue, and feedback.

11. Ensure that employees feel that they can say what they think without discomfort.

12. Ensure that communication is built into the planning stages of all activities.

13. Review communication initiatives to check what has worked, what hasn’t, and why

Source: Cannell (2010), pp. 2–3.

Beyond “Spray and Pray”

Phillip Clampitt and colleagues (2000) locate communication strategies on the continuum shown in figure 7.2. 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 in table 7.4. 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 PG 225

changes, a “withhold and uphold” strategy was used, in order to avoid exposing staff to promises about the future that they were not able to meet. This dual approach led to discontent and mistrust, as staff saw management providing them with significant amounts of information, but avoiding the issues about which they cared the most.

Source: Clampett, The Communication Strategy Continuum, Academy of Management Journal, p. 48, 2000.

TABLE 7.4

Communication Strategies

Strategy

Actions

Spray and pray

Shower employees with a range of information; more is better. Managers pray that staff will see what needs to be done. Benefit: Staff are exposed to company information. Downside: Staff overloaded with information, may not be able to identify what is more important, and may be able to understand what is happening, but not why.

Tell and sell

Limit the information provided to core issues. Management tells staff about the changes and “sells” them on why these are necessary. Benefit: Can be done rapidly.

Downside: Staff are passive recipients, and lack of dialogue opens potential for staff skepticism and cynicism.

Underscore and explore

Focus on fundamentals, but engage employees in dialogue to identify obstacles and misunderstandings that need to be addressed. Benefit: Staff engagement solves problems, strengthens support for change and can generate useful ideas. Downside: Takes time.

Identify and reply

Defensive approach to identifying and responding to rumors and innuendo, and to reduce staff confusion about changes. Benefit: Can resolve problems at an early stage. Downside: Reactive approach that assumes (sometimes incorrectly) that staff understand the organizational problems that the changes need to address.

Withhold and uphold

Withhold information until it is absolutely necessary to communicate. Management publicly defend the change strategy. Information is not disclosed openly. Benefit: Management retain a high degree of control. Downside: Staff bitterness and resentment.

Source: Based on Clampitt et al. (2000).

A Dozen Tips from the Experts

A Dozen Tips from the Experts

Rebecca Saunders (1999) has collected the following suggestions for communicating change:

Specify the nature of the change.

Explain why.

Let staff know the scope of the change, including the good and the bad news.

Continually repeat the purpose of the change and how it will occur.

Use graphics.