Our economy is experiencing a dramatic shift, which essentially calls for a fresh and proactive look at the way we do business to ensure continued economic growth.
In essence, four conditions essential to bring about change are found at the heart of each and every successful change management strategy: people will adopt a new idea when they understand it, like it, can act on it, and want to act on it. Behind this simple, yet profound statement is a mass of psychological and behavioural research that explains the 'why' of change strategy.
The focus of this series of articles is not to provide yet another change model - there are enough of those around. Instead, I want to get down to the basics of successful change. If we want to be able to "roll with the punches", it means we have to become 'gourmet chefs' who have a solid understanding of the 'why' of change strategy instead of following a step-by-step recipe of the 'how' and not really knowing the reasoning underlying each step.
Continuing our previous article, our focus in this discussion is on laying a foundation for ensuring an effective change communication strategy to achieve buy-in from employees and the impact senior management desires.
The communication challenge
How often have you found yourself saying: "That's not what I meant" or "I didn't know that was what you meant"?
Most senior management teams and project leaders have a pretty good appreciation of the need for effective communication when it comes to change. In fact, many view change management to be equal to effective communication - and they're right. However, we continue to be plagued by why our communication despite our best intentions, often fail to produce the desired outcomes. This is often because we fail to fully understand the uniqueness of people's differing worldviews and that which is important to them - we think we know, yet do we really? Biologists claim that 80% of the information we encounter in the external environment comes from information already stored in our brain which directs our thinking. Thus whatever we encounter in our external environment is assessed from a point of what we already know about the subject and what we deem as important.
We are our own worst enemy when it comes to change. We make the mistake of believing that our employees understand the issues, feel the need to change, and see the new direction as clearly as we do, and we end up by communicating the wrong messages using the wrong people.
What is it that our employees would like to know? Who do they want to hear from? How do we make our communications work?
The meaning of communication is the response you get
Irrespective of how good we think we communicate, the proof of its success is in its outcome. I.e. we are accountable for the understanding that others gain from our communication, not they. This becomes glaringly evident the moment an organisation is faced with the implementation of a change initiative.
Facing change, senior management and their employees are often not on par at the onset. We talk past one another. Often what we say and what an employee hears are typically two very different messages. We may communicate to our employees the implementation of a restructuring project for the business to remain competitive and the risk if we don't. We may also touch on all the key messages we think are important and even be very excited about it. However, much of the message we are trying to convey is not heard. Instead, the message the employee hears and discusses at home with their family is very different and goes like this: "My job is at risk" or "The company is having financial trouble." You may have spent 95% of the time talking about the business and 5% on the impact it may have on the people; yet, the employee is more likely to spend 95% of the time talking about the impact it will have on them personally, and 5% on the issues facing the company.
Instead of hearing the actual message, it is overshadowed by fear of the impending change and its impact in terms of job security. What people hear and their interpretation thereof is tainted by their worldviews, level of self-esteem, past experience, career plans, family situations and interpersonal relationships, performance on the job, what they hear among the corridors (or even worse - the media), their level of trust toward the person who communicates the message and senior management - to name but a few. Multiply these factors by the number of employees who are the receivers of our message, and we start to appreciate the communication challenge we are up against - it's not simple or straight-forward.
Who are the communicators of the change message
Senior management often walks into the trap of believing that the primary message employees want to hear is focused on the impending change (what is happening and when it will happen) and that employees want to hear it from them, the change project team, the communications team, or HR. Hence, decisions are broadcasted across the organisation and we await the desired outcome, which frequently fails to materialise.
Contrary to expectation, extensive research involving 800+ international organisations shows that employees do not prefer the change project team, the communications team or HR to communicate change messages - at least not initially. The primary preferred communicator of the change message is senior management who is perceived as the active and visible change sponsors and expected to provide messages in relation to:
* Why do we need to change?
* What is the risk of not changing?
* How does this change align with organisational vision and the business direction?
Second to senior management, employees prefer the active involvement of frontline and middle managers (especially their immediate manager/supervisor) in communicating change at the coalface. This is important as confidence, credibility, trust and respect, which are the vital elements to successful performance, are already established. The message employees want to hear from this person includes:
* What is the impact this will have on me and our group?
* How will it impact my daily tasks and responsibilities?
* What is in it for me (WIFM)?
* What is in it for us (our team or workgroup)?
Thus, although the assumption is that employees want to hear about the 'what and when,' this is clearly not the case. Research continues to show that employees only express interest in what is happening and when it will happen once they have built an awareness of why the change is happening and have made a personal choice to engage in it. Any communication from the project or communications team or HR about new processes or systems or the change schedule will fall on deaf ears until employees have heard from their preferred communicators regarding the topics they care most about.
The reality of misinterpretations
The concept of communicator-receiver demonstrates another important lesson in communicating change. Even when we do involve the right people to communicate the message, there often is a mismatch between what the communicator says and what the employees hear, especially the first time around. Many senior managers appreciate the need for effective communication when it comes to change initiatives and their implementation. Hence many implement a prescribed communications plan for sharing information. Unfortunately, this is often performed in a mechanistic "tick-the-box" fashion as activities are completed, after which they return to their already busy day.
Reality is that most organisations fail to assess what employees have actually heard or to gain some understanding of how information was processed. To simply assume that the employees have heard and understood exactly what we have meant is a grave mistake. It is more likely that they only took in a fraction of the message and interpreted it against the background of what is important to them. The danger is that apart from hearing more than what was said, they will fabricate answers to questions they do not understand - answers that are often worse than reality. The situation is further compounded by information spread through the corridors, with employees starting to compare "official communications" against what they have heard from their colleagues and friends. Never underestimate the power of the grapevine!
What are the implications?
Initiating successful and sustainable change, communication is central to capturing people's hearts and their minds. However, we have to be aware of human nature's tolerance of the conclusions of others, but its tendency to act upon its own conclusions. Equally important, we have to be cognisant of human nature's tendency to interpret its external environment in the light of its internal framework of reference - this includes the hearing and interpretation of messages we receive. Receiving a message, our typical thoughts are: "Can I trust you?" "Can I believe you?" and "What is in it for me?"
By his very nature, man is a communicative being. It is unfortunate that with social media and technology at our side 24/7, we have lost the true art of communication to a great extent. Many a senior management team has made the mistake of thinking electronic devices and emails are sufficient in communicating a change message. However, research clearly points to face-to-face communications still being the most powerful and most effective method to communicate with employees. In this regard, it is imperative to realise that 55% of the message we deliver is carried in our body language and physiology, while 38% is carried in our voice tone. As little as 7% of our communication is determined by the actual content of the message! I.e. people "see" the message before they hear it - credibility and respect are conveyed not simply through the words we speak, but our intent, which is sensed, not simply heard. In simple terms: we are the message.
Implementing and reinforcing change, we have to be crystal clear in the message we communicate and must understand the counter story as deeply as our own to anticipate objections and deal with them proactively - play devil's advocate by inviting colleagues to provide their interpretations of the message. Equally important, we have to listen to employees to understand how our message is received. Test and test again for understanding; consistently communicate over and over again; and be willing to correct misinformation that naturally spreads during change. A lesson I've learnt over the years in dealing with change initiatives is that you can never over-communicate. In fact, we have to plan on key messages being repeated five to seven times before they are truly heard and understand by employees.
In conclusion
In the modern business context, change is a natural and continuous process enabling organisations to stay relevant and at the leading edge. The reality is that it is typically messy and peppered with mistakes, problems and unmet expectations. Coming to change initiatives and their implementation, we are often the very reason for them not completely delivering on our expectations. This is mostly because we view our communication and what it is we want to achieve from our own perspective, while neglecting to take regard of human nature in receiving and internalising our message. In addition, we tend to use the wrong people and channels to communicate the wrong messages.
Effective change is only possible once people understand and like the message, and they can and want to act on it. It has to be a face-to-face process. They need the opportunity to hear it from their preferred communicators, to process the information over time, and ultimately, to make the choice to get into motion. Once this occurs, employees are prepared to hear more from the change or communications team or HR about the "what" and "when." Then, and only then, they will be ready for the details and training to take place, and ready to take ownership of a change initiative and make a positive and lasting contribution to its successful implementation.
Until next time!
Hein Roth
Director
Roth Associates
