Sunday, 26 July 2009

Dealing With Hostile Bait

When dealing with verbal abuse or hostility from clients, it is important to be able to avoid responding to the "bait" that is placed before you. Not only is that important, but it is also important to know exactly what you can say, when you are subject to attacks like:

"If you really cared about my welfare, you would give me my check!"

"You guys in government are lazy and over-paid."

"I bet if I wasn't [ethnic group], you would give me...."

In this On The Line, we will help you deal with these kinds of remarks.

Some Background

In order to deal with these kinds of attacks there are a few things that you need to understand.

Verbal attacks follow certain patterns, and have some hidden rules. The attacker expects you to react in particular ways. Usually a verbal attacker will expect that you will become either defensive and intimidated, or that you will become aggressive and attack back. Unfortunately, when you do what the attacker suggests, you give control to him or her, and increase the probability that the attack will continue. So, the best way to stop an attack is not to take either of these actions.

In addition, verbal attacks tend to "run off" by themselves, in an almost automatic manner. So long as you do what is expected, the attacker is able to continue. So, you need to do something unexpected to stop the attack.

Also, verbal attacks contain bait. Just like the fisherman, the attacker presents you with bait in the hope that you will swallow it and be hooked. Bait is often unsaid, or pre-supposed. What this means is that the attacker need not attack you directly, but need only imply certain things, without really saying anything. Let's take an example.

In the attack sentence "If I wasn't [ethnic group], I bet you would give me....". If you look carefully, you won't find the insult in the words. Still, most people will react to the hidden bait...the implied suggestion of racism. It is important to be able to identify the hidden attack, so you can understand, and resist the attacker's effort to manipulate you.

Self-Defense Tactics

Dealing with these kinds of attacks can be complex, but we can suggest a few options that are likely to disrupt the attack.

1. The Disrupting Question

The general principle underlying this technique is that you want to do something somewhat unexpected, while at the same time, acknowledging the implied insult. It is important not to defend and not to be too passive.

The disrupting question follows the following form:

When did you start thinking that....?

where the end of the question relates to the unspoken insult or attack. For example, faced with the attack implying racism, disrupting questions might be:

When did you start thinking that we allow your ethnic background to influence our behaviour?

When did you start thinking that I am discriminating against you?

Both of these questions are likely to cause the attacker to become a bit confused and have to stop the attack so that he or she can figure out what to say next. This kind of response brings control back to you. In addition, these questions acknowledge, and respond to the issue brought up by the customer in a polite way.

2. Computer Mode

An attacker will often expect you to respond using an "I" statement (eg. I'm not racist), or a "You" statement (eg. "You can't talk to me that way").

You have a third option, that involves doing the unexpected. This option involves using what we call "computer mode" because it is somewhat detached, and removes the personalization from the attack. It does not involve I or You statements.

Some forms to remember include:

"It's interesting that some people think that [their ethnic background affects the way they are treated]."

"A good many people think that [government employees are over-paid]"

Note again that these responses will be unexpected by the attacker, and while they show that you heard the attack, they do not imply that you agree, or that your are defending or attacking.

Conclusion:

We have described two simple verbal responses to verbal attacks that tend to interrupt the attack cycle. Of course, there are other techniques that can be used, and it is important to realize that any attack defusing techniques must be applied with care and good judgement, since every situation is different. These techniques, coupled with others, can result in increasing your ability to deal with the hostile bait.

Basic Negotiating Tips

We all negotiate in our personal and professional lives. We negotiate when we go to a garage sale, or when we want to do something different at work, or when we are dealing with members of the public.

Sometimes its easy to negotiate, but other times, when we have a great deal at stake or we are upset, the task can be intimidating or difficult.

We are going to talk about some tips to effective negotiating that can help you work more effectively with your customers, co-workers, and boss. They are also applicable to other interpersonal situations.

Overview of The Negotiation Process

Negotiating is the process by which two or more parties with different needs and goals work to find a mutually acceptable solution to an issue. Because negotiating is an inter-personal process, each negotiating situation is different, and influenced by each party's skills, attitudes and style. We often look at negotiating as unpleasant, because it implies conflict, but negotiating need not be characterized by bad feelings, or angry behaviour. Understanding more about the negotiation process allows us to manage our negotiations with confidence increases the chance that the outcomes will be positive for both parties.

Barriers To Successful Negotiation

Viewing Negotiation As Confrontational

Negotiation need not be confrontational. In fact effective negotiation is characterized by the parties working together to find a solution, rather than each party trying to WIN the contest of wills. Keep in mind that the attitude that you take in negotiation (eg. hostile, cooperative) will set the tone for the interaction. If you are confrontational, you will have a fight on your hands.

Trying To Win At All Costs

If you "win" there must be a loser, and that can create more difficulty down the road. The best perspective in negotiation is to try to find a solution where both parties "win". Try not to view negotiation as a contest that must be won.

Becoming Emotional

It's normal to become emotional during negotiation that is important. However, as we get more emotional, we are less able to channel our negotiating behaviour in constructive ways. It is important to maintain control.

Not Trying To Understand The Other Person

Since we are trying to find a solution acceptable to both parties, we need to understand the other person's needs, and wants with respect to the issue. If we don't know what the person needs or wants, we will be unable to negotiate properly. Often, when we take the time to find out about the other person, we discover that there is no significant disagreement.

Focusing On Personalities, Not Issues

Particularly with people we don't like much, we have a tendency to get off track by focusing on how difficult or obnoxious the person seems. Once this happens, effective negotiation is impossible. It is important to stick to the issues, and put aside our degree of like or dislike for the individual.

Blaming The Other Person

In any conflict or negotiation, each party contributes, for better or worse. If you blame the other person for the difficulty you will create an angry situation. If you take responsibility for the problem, you will create a spirit of cooperation.

Some Negotiation Tips

Solicit The Other's Perspective

In a negotiating situation use questions to find out what the other person's concerns and needs might be. You might try:

What do you need from me on this?

What are your concerns about what I am suggesting / asking?

When you hear the other person express their needs or concerns, use listening responses to make sure you heard correctly.

For example: So, you are saying that you are worried that you will get lost in the shuffle and we will forget about you...Is that right?

If I have this right, you want to make sure that the phones are covered over lunch?

State Your Needs

The other person needs to know what you need. It is important to state not only what you need but why you need it. Often disagreement may exist regarding the method for solving an issue, but not about the overall goal.

For example:

I would like an hour on Tuesday to go to the doctor. I want to make sure I am healthy so I can contribute better to the organization.

Prepare Options Beforehand

Before entering into a negotiating session, prepare some options that you can suggest if your preferred solution is not acceptable. Anticipate why the other person may resist your suggestion, and be prepared to counter with an alternative.

Don't Argue

Negotiating is about finding solutions...Arguing is about trying to prove the other person wrong. We know that when negotiating turns into each party trying to prove the other one wrong, no progress gets made. Don't waste time arguing. If you disagree with something state your disagreement in a gentle but assertive way. Don't demean the other person or get into a power struggle.

Consider Timing

There are good times to negotiate and bad times. Bad times include those situations where there is:

  • . a high degree of anger on either side
  • . preoccupation with something else
  • . a high level of stress
  • . tiredness on one side or the other

Time negotiations to avoid these times. If they arise during negotiations a time-out/rest period is in order, or perhaps rescheduling to a better time.

Conclusion

Negotiating is a complex process but one worth mastering. If you keep in mind that you are responsible for the success or failure of negotiation, and if you follow the tips above, you will find the process easier.

Organizational Conflict - The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

In my work with public sector managers and supervisors, the issue that generates the most emotion, and frustrated comments, is conflict within the organization. We generally do not look at conflict as opportunity -- we tend to think about conflict as unpleasant, counter-productive and time-consuming. Conflict that occurs in organizations need not be destructive, provided the energy associated with conflict is harnessed and directed towards problem-solving and organizational improvement. However, managing conflict effectively requires that all parties understand the nature of conflict in the workplace.

In this first part of our organizational conflict series, we are going to discuss several views of conflict. In later issues of The Public Sector Manager we will return to the topic with more specific tips on how organizational conflict can be directed to achieve positive ends.

If you enjoy this article and wish to learn more about cooperative communication be sure to check out our quick read book called "Conflict Prevention In the Workplace - Using Cooperative Communication" by clicking here

Two Views: The Good, The Bad

There are two ways of looking at organizational conflict. Each of these ways is linked to a different set of assumptions about the purpose and function of organizations.

The Bad

The dysfunctional view of organizational conflict is imbedded in the notion that organizations are created to achieve goals by creating structures that perfectly define job responsibilities, authorities, and other job functions. Like a clockwork watch, each "cog" knows where it fits, knows what it must do and knows how it relates to other parts. This traditional view of organizations values orderliness, stability and the repression of any conflict that occurs. Using the timepiece analogy we can see the sense in this. What would happen to time-telling if the gears in our traditional watches decided to become less traditional, and re-define their roles in the system?

To the "traditional" organizational thinker, conflict implies that the organization is not designed or structured correctly or adequately. Common remedies would be to further elaborate job descriptions, authorities and responsibilities, increase the use of central power (discipline), separate conflicting members, etc.

This view of organizations and conflict causes problems. Unfortunately, most of us, consciously or unconsciously, value some of the characteristics of this "orderly" environment. roblems arise when we do not realize that this way of looking at organizations and conflict only fits organizations that work in routine ways where innovation and change are virtually eliminated. Virtually all government organizations work within a very disorderly context -- one characterized by constant change and a need for constant adaptation. Trying to "structure away" conflict and disagreement in a dynamic environment requires tremendous amounts of energy, and will also suppress any positive outcomes that may come from disagreement, such as improved decision-making and innovation.

The Good

The functional view of organizational conflict sees conflict as a productive force, one that can stimulate members of the organization to increase their knowledge and skills, and their contribution to organizational innovation and productivity. Unlike the position mentioned above, this more modern approach considers that the keys to organization success lie not in structure, clarity and orderliness, but in creativity, responsiveness and adaptability. The successful organization, then, NEEDS conflict so that diverging views can be put on the table, and new ways of doing things can be created.

The functional view of conflict also suggests that conflict provides people with feedback about how things are going. Even "personality conflicts" carry information to the manager about what is not working in an organization, affording the opportunity to improve.

If you subscribe to a flexible vision of effective organizations, and recognize that each conflict situation provides opportunity to improve, you then shift your view of conflict. Rather than trying to eliminate conflict, or suppress its symptoms, your task becomes managing conflict so that it enhances people and organizations, rather than destroying people and organizations.

So, the task is to manage conflict, and avoid what we call "the ugly"....where conflict is allowed to eat away at team cohesiveness and productivity.

The Ugly

We have the good (conflict is positive), the bad (conflict is to be avoided), and now we need to address the ugly. Ugly occurs where the manager (and perhaps employees) attempt to eliminate or suppress conflict in situations where it is impossible to do so. You know you have ugly in your organization when:

  • many conflicts run for years
  • people have given up on resolving and addressing conflict problems
  • there is a good deal of private bitching and complaining but little attempt to fix the problem
  • staff show little interest in working to common goals, but spend more time and energy on protecting themselves

When we get "ugly" occurring in organizations, there is a tendency to look to the manager or formal leader as being responsible for the mess. In fact, that is how most employees would look at the situation. It is true that managers and supervisors play critical roles in determining how conflict is handled in the organization, but it is also true that the avoidance of ugliness must be a shared responsibility. Management and employees must work together in a cooperative way to reduce the ugliness, and increase the likelihood that conflict can be channeled into an effective force for change.

Ugly Strategies

In future articles we will look at what you can do to proactively manage conflict to increase the probability that positive outcomes occur. Right now, let's look at some common strategies that result in the increase of ugly conflict.

Most of the ugly strategies used by managers, employees, and organizations as a whole are based on the repression of conflict in one way or another. We need to point that, in general, you want to avoid these approaches like the plague.

Ugly #1: Nonaction

The most common repressive management strategy is nonaction -- doing nothing. Now, sometimes, doing nothing is a smart thing to o, provided the decision to do nothing is well thought out and based on an analysis of the situation. Most of the time, people "do nothing" about conflict situations for other reasons, such as fear of bringing conflict into view, or discomfort with anger.

Unfortunately, doing nothing generally results in conflict escalating, and sets a tone for the organization..."we don't have conflict here". Everyone knows you have conflict, and if you seem oblivious, you also seem dense and out of touch.

Ugly #2: Administrative Orbiting

Administrative orbiting means keeping appeals for change or redress always "under consideration". While nonaction suggests obliviousness since it doesn't even acknowledge the problem, orbiting acknowledges the problem, but avoids dealing with it. The manager who uses orbiting will say things like "We are dealing with the problem", but the problem never gets addressed. Common stalls include: collecting more data, documenting performance, cancelling meetings, etc.

Ugly #3: Secrecy

A common means of avoiding conflict (or repressing it) is to be secretive. This can be done by employees and managers. The notion is that if nobody knows what you are doing, there can be little conflict. If you think about this for a moment, you will
realize its absurdity. By being secretive you may delay conflict and confrontation, but when it does surface it will have far more negative emotions attached to it than would have been the case if things were more open.

Ugly #4: Law and Order

The final "ugly strategy". Normally this strategy is used by managers who mistakenly think that they can order people to not be in conflict. Using regulations, and power, the person using the approach "leans on" people to repress the outward
manifestations of conflict.

Of course, this doesn't make conflict go away, it just sends it scuttling to the underground, where it will grow and increase its destructive power.

Conclusion

The notion that conflict should be avoided is one of the major contributors to the growth of destructive conflict in the workplace. The "bad" view of conflict is associated with a vision of organizational effectiveness that is no longer valid (and perhaps never was). Conflict can be directed and managed so that it causes both people and organizations to grow, innovate and improve. However, this requires that conflict not be repressed, since attempts to repress are more likely to generate very ugly situations. Common repression strategies to be avoided are: nonaction, administrative orbiting, secrecy and law and order.

Improving Communication By Eliminating Insinuation

Consider this. Maria, head of her department, has a concern about the dedication of one or two of her staff members. Maria learned somewhere that it's not good to embarrass anybody in public, so at the next staff meeting, she says: "I have some concerns about some people in our department who seem uncommitted and unwilling to go the extra mile. I want it clear that we need maximum effort from everyone." And, she leaves it at that. Is this a good way to approach the issue?

Well, it certainly doesn't single out anyone, hence avoiding public embarrassment. But how do you think staff will react? First, each and every person in the room will wonder if they've somehow offended the boss. That's ALWAYS the first reaction to what we call "insinuation". The next reaction is: "Oh, right, Maria must be talking about Jethro (or some other coworker." Perhaps more serious is the effect this type of communication has on trust. Because of the lack of clarity and ambiguity, it wouldn't be surprising if staff began to doubt the boss's honesty or straightforwardness.

Insinuation isn't used only by managers. Many people use it rarely. Some people use it often. Each use of insinuation increases distrust, damages the work environment and has the potential to trigger very destructive conflict.

So, what's insinuation? Insinuation refers to a statement that is ambiguous, vaguely put, and generally negative. The nature of insinuation is that it is deniable, and that's one reason why people use it. It avoid addressing issues straight up and directly, and therein lies its destructiveness. The use of insinuation pushes solutions much farther away because it disguises the issue, and creates additional mistrust.

Here's another example. Over coffee Mark is talking to Fred, one of his coworkers. Mark says: "I don't want to name names but it's pretty obvious that someone around here isn't interested in anything but his own job." Can anything good come from this? I doubt it. It isn't meant to SOLVE the problem. It isn't being discussed with the right person (who would obviously be the person that remains unnamed). It's just sneaky, deniable back-stabbing.

So, What Can I Do?

First, if you have something to say don't cloak it in vagueness or insinuation. Realize that such remarks won't get anything solved, and are liable to make things worse for everyone, including you.

Second, take some responsibility. If you have a concern, then have the courage to take it up with the person in question, in private, and try to work it out. Don't snipe from afar. If private conversations fail, then it may be appropriate to bring it up in a more public setting, but present it in the spirit of solving a problem, and make sure you take responsibility for your comments and opinions.

Third, understand that people use insinuation when they feel uncomfortable with expressing their anger or frustration, but can't discipline themselves to keep their mouths shut. Or, perhaps their frustration levels are so high, they aren't thinking clearly. If you are tempted to insinuate, ask yourself this question: "Am I saying this in the spirit of trying to solve a problem, or am I saying this because of some selfish motive or because I'm too uncomfortable to approach this constructively? If it's the latter, don't say it.

Finally, keep in mind that every time you use insinuation you will be seen as less courageous, more manipulative and less trustworthy by the majority of people who hear you. This applies even for people who might "congratulate you" on your insinuation, for they, too will realize that your next target might be them.


Understanding The Seven Dynamics of Change

Whatever the kinds of change that people encounter, there are certain patterns of response that occur and re-occur. It is important that change leaders understand some of these patterns, since they are normal outcomes of the change process. Understanding them allows leaders to avoid over-reacting to the behaviours of people who, at times, seem to be reacting in mysterious, non-adaptive ways.

Ken Blanchard, well known management consultant, has described seven dynamics of change designed to help managers better address employee reactions to change. They are worth summarizing here.

People will feel awkward, ill-at-ease and self-conscious

Whenever you ask people to do things differently, you disrupt their habitual ways of doing things. This tends to make people feel awkward or uncomfortable as they struggle to eliminate the old responses and learn the new. Think back to your own experience and you will discover this theme. Whether it be learning to use a computer, the first time picking up your infant, or dealing with a new reporting relationship, recall the self-consciousness that you probably felt. People want to get it right, and fear that they will appear inadequate.

People initially focus on what they have to give up

Even for positive changes such as promotions, or those that result in more autonomy or authority, people will concentrate on what they will be losing. As a change leader you need to acknowledge the loss of the old ways, and not get frustrated at what may seem to be an irrational or tentative response to change.

People will feel alone even if everyone else is going through the same change

Everyone feels (or wants to feel) that their situation is unique and special. Unfortunately, this tends to increase the sense of isolation for people undergoing change. It is important for the change leader to be proactive and gentle in showing that the employee's situation is understood. If employees see YOU as emotionally and practically supportive during the tough times your position will be enhanced and the change will be easier.

People can handle only so much change

On a personal level, people who undergo too much change within too short a time will become dysfunctional, and in some cases may become physically sick. While some changes are beyond our control, it is important not to pile change upon change upon change. While changes such as downsizing bring opportunity to do other positive things, the timing of additional changes is important. If you are contemplating introducing changes (that are under your control), it may be a good idea to bounce your ideas off employees. A good question to ask is "How would you feel if....."

People are at different levels of readiness for change

Some people thrive and change. It's exciting to them. Others don't. It's threatening to them. Understand that any change will have supporters and people who have difficulty adapting. In time many people who resist initially will come onside. Consider that those people who are more ready for the change can influence others who are less ready. Open discussion allows this influence process to occur.

People will be concerned that they don't have enough resources

People perceive that change takes time and effort, even if it has the long term effect of reducing workload. They are correct that there is a learning time for most change, and that this may affect their work. It is important for change leaders to acknowledge that this may occur, and to offer practical support if possible. In the downsizing scenario this will be even more crucial, since resources themselves are cut. Consider following the downsizing with a worksmart process, whereby job tasks are
reviewed to examine whether they are still necessary.

If you take the pressure off, people will revert to their old behaviour

If people perceive that you are not serious about doing things the new way, they will go back to the old way. Sometimes this ill be in the open, and sometimes this will be covert. While Blanchard uses the word pressure, I prefer to think of it in terms of leadership role. The leader must remind people that there is a new course, and that the new course will remain. Coaching towards the new ways is also important.

Conclusion

It is important for leaders to anticipate and respond to employee concerns and feelings, whether they are expressed in terms of practical issues, or emotional responses. When planning for, and anticipating change, include a detailed reaction analysis. Try to identify the kinds of reactions and questions that employees will have, and prepare your responses. Remember that the success of any change rests with the ability of the leaders to address both the emotional and practical issues, in that order.

1 The seven dynamics of change in bold were taken from an article by Ken Blanchard, and published in The Inside Guide, Oct., 1992. Commentary on each of the principles was written by the Editor of The Public Sector Manager.


Change Management - Look Over Yonder Wall

One of my favorite blues songs is called "Look Over Yonder Wall", and while the song carries no sublime messages, the title provides good advice for managers. If present information is any indication, it appears that there will be continued fiscal restraint, cutbacks and possible layoffs for next fiscal year, This indeed creates some "walls" that managers need to "look over".

Changes of this nature pose difficult challenges for managers. It is a time of great stress, not only for employees but also for managers and executives. Unfortunately, because of the degree of stress there is a tendency to focus on the event, or "the wall", with insufficient attention paid to what comes before the wall, and what is to come after. It is important to understand that changes such as downsizing do not consist of an event isolated in time. Downsizing occurs within a flow of events which precede and occur after the actual change announcement.

An organization's ability to deal with drastic negative change will depend primarily on the degree to which management has demonstrated its competence in the past. If management has fostered a sense of trust and credibility, has communicated effectively, and has demonstrated effective planning and decision making skills, the change adjustment period will be shortened, and the organization will have a much easier time of normalizing what it does after the change implementation. If these and other components are not in place before major change, there is going to one heck of a bumpy ride.

It is important that management begin to lay the foundation for negative changes in advance. It is also important that managers be very clear what will be required of them in helping their organizations, and their staff, move beyond events like budget cuts, and staff losses. The stakes are high. Without adequate preparation and planning your organization can be put into a tailspin that can last for years.

In this issue, and over the next few months The Public Sector Manager will be concentrating on managing change. More specifically, we will deal with the high impact kinds of changes that will face all of us in the next 18 months. Much of the material you see is based upon the content of a course we are developing, called "Leading The Elephant Through The Swamp -- Managing Change Through Leadership".

So, for now, "look over yonder wall" to the future, and start planning for it. Begin to assemble the pieces you will need to manage this kind of change effectively.

Leadership, Communication & Change

Introduction to The Link Between Leadership, Change Management, and Communication

Leadership has as its corner stone, the ability to communicate. When we use the word communicate, we are referring not only to the words one uses to transfer factual information to others, but also to other "messages" that are sent and received.

What might these other messages be? Related to change the leader sends a good number of messages. These are listed below.

The leader communicates:

  • A) a sense of confidence and control (or lack thereof) to employees.
  • B)his or her own feelings about the change.
  • C) the degree to which he/she trusts the abilities of the employees to get through the change.
  • D) a sense of purpose and commitment (or lack thereof).
  • E) the degree to which he/she accepts the reactions and feelings of employees.
  • F) expectations regarding behaviour that is seen as appropriate or inappropriate (ie. rumour-mongering, back-room meetings).
  • G) the degree to which he/she is "connected to" employees situations and feelings or is "in-touch" with them.

It is clear that if the leader communicates effectively, he or she will be sending messages that decrease resistance, and encourage moving through the change more effectively and positively. The bottom line with all of this is if you screw up communicating with employees, even the smallest changes can result in ugly problems.

What Is Communication?

There are all kinds of models of communication, some basic and some complex. For our purposes communication can be described as CREATING UNDERSTANDING.

Through words, actions, body language, voice tone, and other processes you send many messages about yourself, the changes, and your organization. This constitutes precisely one-half of the communication process. The second half consists of verifying that the message you intended to send was actually received and interpreted the way you intended. The only way that you can be sure you have created understanding is to listen to the people you are communicating with, and make special effort to encourage them to reflect back to you what they have heard (and what they make of it).

Remember:

A) Although you communicate in a way that seems clear to you, the receiver of the communication, filters the information through a very complicated set of pre- conceptions, that can function to distort the message received.

B) Receivers listen selectively. They hear and process some things and gate out other things. That means that while you may have explained the "whole picture", is it likely that the whole thing wasn't received.

C)The ONLY way you can ensure that you have created common understanding is by asking the other people what they have heard, and what their reactions are to it.

Important Messages Regarding Changes

Since we have indicated that communication involves sending a variety of important messages, it is important that when you communicate about change you know what kind of messages you wish to send, and the what you want people to take away from your communication.

Whenever you communicate to employees about change, you should be striving to convey the following position.

A) that you are personally committed to the change, and seeing it through, even if it has negative consequences.

B) that you recognize that the change negatively impacts upon some people.

C) that you are open to discussion of the feelings of employees regarding the change.

D) that you are confident that the "team" can make it through the changes.

E) that you want and need input to make the changes work.

Sometimes you won't be committed to the change, or you won't be very confident that you and your staff can pull it off, particularly when the change is imposed from above. While some may disagree, it is important that you still convey an image of strength and commitment despite your own misgivings. The change leader has a role to play, and if you have mis-givings or strong negative emotional reactions of your own it may be more effective if you underplay them. If you show anger about a change, you may legitimize the same kind of negative behaviour in your staff.

While you shouldn't hide your own negative reactions completely, it is probably wise to keep them in the background by stating them in a matter of fact way and moving on.


As a change leader you need to make decisions about who you must communicate with, what needs to be communicated, when you will communicate and how you will do it. We will take a look at each of these in turn.

Who?

Managers sometimes have a tendency to communicate about change on a "need to know basis". However, effective change leaders recognize that almost any change will have effects on most people in an organization, no matter how removed they are from the change.

The basic rule of thumb is that communication should take place directly between the manager and employees when employees NEED TO KNOW OR WANT TO KNOW.

Except for situations that involve confidentiality, even those who are indirectly affected will likely want to know what is going on, and how it may affect them. This applies to your own staff, and those organizations that are related to you (ie. other branches within a division or department, client organizations, etc).

You are better off over-including people in your communication, than leaving people out.

What?

If you need to determine what to communicate, keep in mind what you are trying to accomplish through your communication about change. When you communicate you are trying to:

A) give information that will reduce uncertainty and ambiguity regarding the change.

B) Pre-empt the hidden information system of the grapevine, so you can ensure that incorrect anxiety provoking information is not spreading.

C) Provide forums for employees to communicate their reactions and concerns to you.

If you would like another rule of thumb, when deciding what should be communicated, communicate as much information about the change as is available to you. Obviously, you need to exercise judgement where there is confidential and/or sensitive information involved, or where your information may be unreliable.

Be aware that if you only have a small amount of information about a negative change, communicating it may increase anxiety levels and rampant speculation. You should also be aware that if you have preliminary information about a change, that others do also, and that it is likely that your employees will hear rumours regardless of what you disclose.

Finally, keep in mind that you are communicating messages about the facts of the change, and also about your own reactions to it. As a change leader, you must be aware that your staff will watch you carefully to guess how you are feeling about the change, and they will draw their own conclusions based on your behaviour. Sometimes these conclusions will be wrong and destructive.

If you choose to state your own reactions to the change, state them quickly (particularly if they are negative).

When?

The longer you wait to communicate details of change, the more likely you are to extend the period of adjustment. This is because it is very difficult to "keep a lid" on anything in government, and even if you are silent, your staff will likely hear vague things through the grapevine. Grapevine information tends to be sketchy enough that it creates a high degree of anxiety, and also a high degree of mistrust of management.

So, the earlier you communicate the less likely erroneous or upsetting information will come through the grapevine. Communicate as early as possible about change, but do not assume that once you have done this the job is over.

Communication should occur in anticipation of change, during the implementation, and after the change has been stabilized.

How?

Issue #1: Group or Single Meetings

Another decision you need to address is what needs to be communicated in group settings, and what needs to be addressed in one-on-one meetings with employees. What are the advantages of each approach?

Communicating in groups ensures that each person present is hearing the same information at the same time. Group communication also allows people to interact with each other about the changes and can help people develop a sense of team, particularly in a climate of adversity.

Communicating in groups also has some disadvantages. In many organizations there will be people who will not feel comfortable talking in a group context. The more "personal" the effects of the change, the more likely people will withdraw from the group process.

A second danger of group communication is that one or two particularly vocal and negative people can set the tone for the group, and foster unproductive negative discussion. While expression of concerns about change are healthy, the "doom- sayer" can cause this process to become destructive. For this reason, group communication needs to be managed with skill and expertise. Sometimes an external facilitator is necessary.

Finally, there are some issues that cannot be discussed within a group. For example, in downsizing situations, it is inappropriate to announce to a group that John and Mary are losing their jobs. When changes are likely to create a high degree of upset to individuals, they must be dealt with in private.

Communicating on a one-to-one basis has the advantage of privacy. When bad news is communicated, the person receiving the news is less pressured to withhold their reactions. One-to-one communication also allows more in-depth exploration of the person's feelings, ideas and reactions to the change.

A disadvantage to using one-to-one communication is that it may fragment your team. There is also a possibility that you will send slightly different messages to different staff members.

Prescription:

Most situations require both group communication and one-to-one communication. They compliment each other. Using only one or the other will create problems.

Below are some guidelines.

Use group communications if:

A)You need to ensure everybody hears the news at the same time.

B)You want to encourage group discussion to generate ideas and the problem solving process.

C)You want to increase the sense of team.

D)You wish to set the stage for individual meetings. For example, in a lay-off situation, you can call a short group meeting to announce the lay-offs generally, then immediately meet individually with each staff member to inform them of their status.

Use individual meetings if:

A)The changes are likely to cause a high degree of emotionalism that is better dealt with in private.

B)You want to ensure that shyer people have a chance to express themselves.

C)The changes involve elements that should remain confidential (pay or classification changes, employment status, etc).

D)You need to have detailed discussion about the change with specific people.

Issue #2: Written Or Oral

There is a tendency for people to avoid unpleasant interactions, and sometimes managers will use written communication to avoid the discomfort of dealing face to face with staff. While written communication can play an important role in communicating about change, it should not be used for this reason alone. Below are some guidelines regarding the use of written versus oral communication.

Oral communication is more appropriate when:

A) Receiver is not very interested in getting the message. Oral communication provides more opportunities for getting and keeping interest and attention.

B)Emotions are high. Oral communication provides chances for both you and the other person to let off steam, cool down, and create a climate for understanding.

C)You need feedback. It's easier to get feedback by observing body language and asking questions.

D)The other person is too busy or preoccupied to read. Oral communication provides better opportunities to gain attention.

E)You need to convince or persuade. Oral communication provides more flexibility, opportunity for emphasis, chances to listen to and remove resistance, and is more likely to affect people's attitudes.

F)The details and issues are complicated, and cannot be well expressed on paper.

Written communication is appropriate if:

A)You require a record of the communication for future reference.

B)Your staff will be referring to details of the change later.

C)You are communicating something with multiple parts or steps and where it is important that employees understand them.

Generally, it is wise to use both written and oral communication. The more emotional the issues, the more important it is to stress oral communication first. Written communication can be used as backup.

Concluding Comments On Change Leadership

As a change leader, communication is your primary and most important tool. We have attempted to outline some of the important parts of the communication process, but short of writing an entire book on the subject, it is difficult to discuss all the subtleties and issues about human communication.

There is no substitute for good judgement, and change leaders need to be reflective and thoughtful about the ways they communicate. There is also no substitute for LISTENING, and receiving feedback from your staff and colleagues about how you communicate. You may make communication mistakes, but the mark of an effective change leader is that these mistakes are quickly identified through feedback and discussion, and corrective action is taken.