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).

Your work success hint!

We won't tell your boss if you don't. You can make quantum leaps in productivity, morale, employee motivation through learning how to delegate effectively. It's not hard to learn but it's a bit more complex than most managers think.

Learn to delegate properly and when your department hits on all cylinders, the trick will remain our little secret. More on delegation...click here.

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.

Critical Factors For Dealing With Downsizing - Quicktips

1) Timing is critical. What is appropriate when people are upset and emotional is not as effective six months later.

2) The ability of leaders to "read" the feelings and perceptions of staff members is critical to making appropriately timed decisions.

3) Leaders who are able to accept without judgement staff's emotional reactions to downsizing will enhance their own ability to lead, and staff's willingness to follow.

4) Leaders need to help staff refocus their attention on getting the job done, and making the organization better in the future.

5) Leaders also need to deal with their own emotional reactions to downsizing, so that they keep themselves healthy and productive.

Your work success hint!

Did you know that most people habitually deal with conflict in a "usual way" even when the technique they prefer just doesn't fit the situation? You probably do the same.

The trick is to deal strategically with conflict and make conscious choices about which strategy to use. You can learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the five major conflict management approaches inUsing Your Head To Manage Conflict . Click here for more.

6) Leaders should prepare for downsizing before it is announced. In other words, there should be some strategy for helping staff, addressing practical issues that arise, and moving the organization into the future.

7) The most common mistake managers make regarding downsizing is to under-manage. By assuming that it will all work itself out, the manager spends too little time dealing with important issues, and loses the respect and trust of staff.

The Long Term Effects of Downsizing

Few government departments or branches have escaped the necessity of downsizing. The last three or four years have brought almost constant cuts in staffing, and some departments have been "hit" several times. For many downsizing has become an annual process.

When managers are faced with downsizing, they tend to focus on the immediate and practical needs that emerge at the time when staff are being let go. After all, employees need to be selected and notified, one of the most difficult tasks for any manager. Jobs responsibilities need to be shuffled, and generally the period where downsizing is occurring is very busy and emotionally taxing.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for managers to focus on those that are leaving rather than those that remain. This also holds true for central training and consulting agencies who are asked to support the laid off employees with career development help, counselling, and other supports. There is no question that laid off employees deserve and need these kinds of supports and services. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to forget that after the laid-off workers are gone, the "survivors" must soldier on, and the manager must deal with the long-term effects on the remaining organization.

We are now seeing the effects of downsizing on those that remain. One of the most telling comments is often put forth by employees a year or two after downsizing, and it goes like this: "Sometimes I think that the ones who were laid off are the lucky ones". They usually go on to describe a workplace where employees feel:

. a lack of executive commitment to their functions
. confusion about the priorities of their organization
. increased workloads
. confusion about their mandate
. a sense of being betrayed by executives and managers
. a profound sense of distrust
. a sense of futility with respect to long-term planning
. undervalued and unappreciated

In operational terms, this translates into a number of problems.

. the organization moves towards less risk-taking and innovation
. destructive conflict tends to increase
. internal competition for resources increases
. individual staff members devote less effort to working together and more attention to doing things that will protect themselves.
. general listlessness and lethargy
. decreases service levels and increased public hostility

It is easy to understand these effects when they occur close to the time when down-sizing occurs, and remaining staff "grieve" the loss of friends and colleagues. But, these effects are now being seen as long as one or two years AFTER the downsizing period. There are indeed long term effects of downsizing that need to be addressed.

Understanding The Organizational Downcycle

To counter-act the long term effects of downsizing, managers need to understand how organizations slip into "downcycles".

An organizational downcycle can be characterized as a long-term process where the organization becomes progressively more depressed, insular, protective and confused. The important thing to note is that this process occurs slowly, sometimes imperceptibly, and that if the process is allowed to continue unchecked, it gets worse. The downcycling organization loses its positive momentum and enthusiasm. A vicious circle is formed. It snowballs. Bad feelings and depression become the norm rather than occasional, until, in extreme cases, the organization becomes unable to move effectively, and the work climate can become intolerable for everyone.

Because the process tends to be gradual, managers tend to assume that the problems that occur early in the downcycling will solve themselves without attention. It is easy to assume that staff will "get over" the effects of downsizing over time. This may be the fatal mistake, because if the process is left unmanaged, there is a good chance that staff will become more demoralized.

One final point on the downcycle is in order. When an organization is close to the bottom of a downcycle, it is extremely difficult to turn the organization around. This is because levels of trust, hope and enthusiasm are so low that staff will have little faith in the effectiveness of any approach that promises to be helpful.

Some Prescriptions

1. Proactive management activities are always required when downsizing occurs. Managers must realize that they "can pay now or pay later", and that delaying actions designed to revitalize the organization will result in a huge cost down the road.

Managers should consider that the period immediately after downsizing is critical. Action or inaction during this period will determine whether the organization moves into a depressed downcycle, or makes the commitment to move forward. Downsizing time should also be a time when the organization's mandate and vision are revisited. It should be a time when the manager dedicates him/herself to the long-term health of the organization by clarifying, supporting and building trust. Above all, this is the time where the manager's prime responsibility is to communicate, both with staff, and with executives. One focus of communication should be clarifying mandate, vision, priorities
and commitment levels.

2. Proactive long-term approaches should also be applied by any central agencies charged with "helping" downsizing organizations. Support should be offered to those that are displaced, but, in the long term, help offered to "survivors" will be much more important in determining organizational health. As a manager, ask, or demand that these services be made available by central agencies, or procure them from private vendors, if the central agency won't do the job.

3. If you are in the unfortunate position of managing an organization that is "downcycling", you need to be aware of two things. First, it will get worse if neglected. Second, interventions to turn the cycle around must be considered as long-term projects. One shot consulting or training isn't going to do much, and it may be damaging. Remember that your organization may have been moving downward for a year or two, and that it is going to take a substantial period of time to reverse the process. Positive change will require a consistent effort on your part, and may require consulting help over a period as long as a year.

Your work success hint!

Did you know that a high percentage of conflict at work and at home is a result of ineffective use of language? It's true. The best part is that you can learn to alter your communication and language so that what you say is perceived as more cooperative, and less confrontational.

The result? Less conflict incidents, and less severe conflicts. More info...

Conclusion

We are seeing more of the long-term effects of downsizing on organizational health. When downsizing is undermanaged, there is the danger that an organizational downcycle will be created, and left to continue unchecked over several years. The results can be destructive to the organization and the individuals that work there.

It is far easier to avoid or correct this cycle at the time when downsizing occurs, and far less costly. It is important that downsizing trigger organizational renewal strategies immediately.

If proactive action is missing, or is ineffective, corrective actions down the road will require a long term commitment. Once an organization reaches the bottom of a downcycle, it will take considerable time to reverse the process.

Leadership - The Link Between Planning & Doing

If you have read the preceding articles in this section on strategic planning, YOU will have a sense that strategic planning involves more than getting together for one day a yearto develop a strategic planning document. Strategic planning is both a logical, rational process, and a process that involves people. It takes more than developing a plan for that plan to be implemented. In this article, we consider that the critical link between planning and doing is leadership.

Traditional Planning Methods

The traditional way for government organizations to plan is for a group of people, usually executives/management, but sometimes including employees, to get together for some period of time each year. Generally, inadequate time is allocated to the exercise, but if it is completed, it results in a document that contains a mission statement, broad organizational goals, and other elements as is deemed appropriate. Then, the plan is usually hidden away somewhere, never to be seen again. Traditional methods yield traditional results. As a wise man once said "If you keep doing what you have been doing, you will get what you have always got".

It needn't be this way.

Reconceptualizing Strategic Planning

Planning should be considered as a blueprint for change. The plan should be the basis for introducing controlled change into an organization so it can adapt to changing times. By anticipating shifting demands, the plan serves the purpose of allowing the organization to control its own direction, rather than waiting until political forces demand change (and demand change NOW). In addition, the plan allows for consistent monitorin~ofsuccess,~nd re-examination of the degree to which organizational resources should be structured and allocated to achieve future goals.

But, if we look at strategic planning in this light, as a blueprint for change, we also need to consider that any organization has built-in inertia.. the tendency to keep on doing what one has been doing. On its own, the strategic planning process, as traditionally undertaken, is insufficient to overcome this inertia. Other forces need to come into play if the plan, and proposed changes get implemented.

Leadership - The Key Force

In the context of strategic planning, leadership means a number of things. We can outline the role of leadership in the following ways, keeping in mind that leadership may come from appointed leaders (management and executive) and from the ranks

. 1.Those in leadership roles ensure that as many members of the organization as possible buy into the values, mission, and broad organizational goals. There are two components to this function. First, leaders manage the perceptions of staff with respect to the planning process. Remember that most people have experienced the "plan-in-the-drawer" syndrome, where effort expended in planning is seen as wasted when the plan is ignored. Prior to the planning process, leaders must emphasize that THIS TIME, things will be different.

Second, leaders manage the planning process so that staff feel that they have adequate input into the process, that they are heard, and their values and visions are incorporated into the final plan and its implementation. Specifically, leaders arrange things so that the process is open, and conforms to accepted rules of communication. That may mean hiring an external consultant to orchestrate the planning sessions. It will certainly mean that rules get established to guide participation. Everyone who wants to participate should have the opportunity, and even reticent staff should be gently encouraged to involve themselves.

2. While managing perceptions of the planning process is important, the critical role of leadership occurs after the plan has been completed. Leaders must treat the planning results as the "organizational signposts that guide behaviour and decision making". After all, nobody is going to take a plan seriously if the formal leaders ignore it, or never refer to it again.

If you are serious about using strategic planning as a tool for organizational success, consider some of the following actions. A. When working with staff to set individual objectives, be sure to mention how the individual objectives will contribute to the achievement of the mission and organizational goals as outlined in the strategic plan. Make sure that the employee is familiar with the plan when individual objectives are set.

In addition, at each meeting with each employee, work with the employee to help him/her determine how the values outlined in the strategic plan apply to them. In other words, given the particular values, strategic goals and mission statement how is the employee to behave or make decisions.

B. Once the strategic plan has been completed, the formal leader of the organization (and perhaps others) should present and discuss the plan with the up-line manager or executive. It is NOT sufficient to send a copy. Because you will need up-line support to implement the plan, you will need their commitment, and commitment will only come from discussion and explanation of the plan.

C. At staff meetings, when decisions are required, explain how the strategic plan is used, or is to be used to make decisions. If you are the manager communicating a decision you have made, explain your rationale in light of the mission, values and goals expressed in the plan. If you are using a participative decision making process, help staff refocus on these components of the plan, so that they can be used to guide decision making

D. When doing performance reviews with staff, ask the individual to explain how his or her actions are consistent with the elements of the plan. How has their action contributed to organizational goals? Has their behaviour been consistent with organizational values? What needs to change so that the individual can further contribute to implementing the plan? Consider recognizing contributions to achievement of the plan, even if the individual did not have specific responsibility as outlined in their individual objectives. And, when setting future objectives, consider writing an objective that refers to the values expressed in the plan. For example: "Will act in accordance with the organizational values expressed in the strategic plan". If you go this route, make sure -that~the implications of these values are clear to the employee in terms of his or her behaviour.

Your work success hint!

Did you know that a high percentage of conflict at work and at home is a result of ineffective use of language? It's true. The best part is that you can learn to alter your communication and language so that what you say is perceived as more cooperative, and less confrontational.

The result? Less conflict incidents, and less severe conflicts. More info...

3. A final role of leadership is to create more leaders. One goal that formal leaders (executives, managers) can set for themselves is to encourage down-line employees to take on some of the leadership roles outlined above. This can be particularly effective in decision making. The ideal situation is for staff to internalize the plan to the extent that some take on the role of reminding people of the plan, and its relevance to any given decision-making process. Cultivate leaders in your organization by giving increased responsibility, and encouraging this kind of leadership behaviour.

Conclusion

Leadership, regardless of when it comes from formally appointed leaders, or Informal leaders, provides the link between planning and doing. Leadership, regardless of when it comes from formally appointed leaders, or informal leaders, provides the link between planning and doing. Effective leadership helps alter perceptions about strategic planning, and the organization itself, helping to overcome inertia, the tendency to keep things the same.

Without leadership, most strategic plans will end up as dead pieces of paper. Most importantly, when planning occurs without leadership, cynicism increases when staff see that the plan is being ignored, or even violated. The outcome of this is that formal leaders suffer a loss of credibility.

Turning Around Negative Attitudes

At one time or another, organizations develop an over-abundance of "negative energy" or attitudes. Sometimes they can be linked to organizational trauma, like down-sizing, budget restraints or workload increases, but sometimes they evolve over time with no apparent triggering event. The negative organization is characterized by increased complaining, a focus on reasons why things can't be done, and what seems to be a lack of hope that things will get better. It feels like the organization in stuck in treacle. And, it's contagious. Negativism can affect even the most positive employees.

What can you do? Based on an article by Arthur Beck and Ellis Hillmar, professors in organization development at University of Richmond, we suggest the following:

Model Positive Behaviour

It is obvious that if management is walking negative and talking in a negative way, staff will follow. Don't do it. More than that, take a positive approach with staff by showing confidence in their abilities. Expect a lot, support staff, hold them accountable, confront them and be clear and honest. Set standards for your own work and relations with employees, and work towards meeting them to set an example of positive behaviour.

Acknowledge Negativity

You can't ignore negativity and expect it to go away. If you do not acknowledge it, then staff will feel that you are out of touch, and will not be confident in your abilities. Acknowledge the frustration negative feelings, and do not try to convince the person or people that they shouldn't have their negative feelings. However, when acknowledging employees' negative feelings, try asking for suggestions regarding what to do about them.

Look For And Identify The Positives In All Situations

Sometimes we forget to find positives. When an employee makes an impractical solution, we are quick to dismiss the idea. We should be identifying the effort while gently discussing the idea. Look for small victories, and talk about them. Turning a negative organization into a positive one is a result of thousands of little actions.

Give Positive Recognition Often

Pretty straight-forward. Provide positive recognition as soon as you find out about good performance. Do not couple positive strokes with suggestions for improvement. Separate them. Combining them devalues the recognition for many people.

Refrain From Collusion On Negativity

It is easy to get caught in the general complaining and bitching, particularly in informal discussions. When faced with negative conversations, consider changing the subject, comment on the negative content ("Let's talk about something more pleasant"), or ask what can be done about the situation (move from negative to positive slant).

Your work success hint!

We won't tell your boss if you don't. You can make quantum leaps in productivity, morale, employee motivation through learning how to delegate effectively. It's not hard to learn but it's a bit more complex than most managers think.

Learn to delegate properly and when your department hits on all cylinders, the trick will remain our little secret. More on delegation...click here.

A Few More Quick Tips:

Hold a strategic planning session to focus on a positive future (but make sure it is well facilitated).

Encourage staff to find creative ways to make the work environment more enjoyable.

Encourage staff to be involved in decision-making and delegate where possible.

Introduce a "work-smart" program to dehassle the workplace.

Conclusion

It is not uncommon for organizations to go through periods of negativity. Managers play important roles in determining if that negativity will increase, or whether the trough is relatively short. Above all, remember that it is the little things that you do, day in and day out, that make the difference.

Based on "What Managers Can Do To Turn Around Negative Attitudes" (Beck & Hillmar), published in "Performance (A. Dale Tempe, Editor), Facts On File Publications, 1988.

The Effects of Change On The Manager

One of the least mentioned effects of change relates to how it affects the manager leading that change, and his or her ability to undertake the leadership role. We have already talked about the effects of change on the individual employee, and of course managers are subject to the same reactions, resistances and strains. Some types of change, such as restructuring, or downsizing can put considerable strain on the leaders of an organization.

Stress, Stress & More Stress

One primary concern regarding change is the stress it imposes on those undergoing the change. Managers, because they have obligations to their staff, not only have to deal with change as employees but also need to carry some of the concerns of their staffs. In the case of downsizing, the stress levels can be extremely high, because the manager is charged with conveying very upsetting information.

Stress is part of the job, but in times of change, it is critical that you recognize that it may cause you to act in ways that are less effective than usual. As with anything connected with change, the major concern is not short term but long term. If your stress levels result in marked loss of effectiveness, the risk is that a vicious cycle will be set up, where ineffective leadership results in creating more long term problems, which increases your stress, which reduces your effectiveness even more.

Avoidance -- A Common Response

Your work success hint!

Did you know that most people habitually deal with conflict in a "usual way" even when the technique they prefer just doesn't fit the situation? You probably do the same.

The trick is to deal strategically with conflict and make conscious choices about which strategy to use. You can learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the five major conflict management approaches inUsing Your Head To Manage Conflict . Click here for more.

A common response to unpleasant change is to ignore the situation. Avoidance can take many forms. Most commonly, the avoiding manager plays only a minimal role in moving the organization through the swamp. After announcing the change and doing the minimum required, the manager "hides" from the change, through delegation, or attending to other work. This tactic involves treating things as "business as usual".

The outcomes of this tactic can be devastating. By avoiding situations, the manager abdicates any leadership role, when staff needs it most, during and after significant change. In addition, the avoidance results in the manager becoming out of touch with the people and realities of the organization.

While avoidance serves a need for the manager in the short run, it destroys the manager's credibility, and results in poor decisions. The long term consequence of such action is that the organization tends to deteriorate in terms of morale, effectiveness and productivity. Sometimes this deterioration is irreversable.

Denial -- Another Ineffective Tactic

Sometimes the manager deals with change by denying its impact. Usually, the denying manager takes a very logical approach to change. Decisions get made, systems are put in place, or new procedures are developed. Unfortunately, this "logical" approach denies the impact of change on the people in the organization.
The denying manager tends to refuse to understand "what the big deal is", and shows little empathy with employees in the organization.

As with avoidance the denying tactic tends to drop the manager's credibility and destroy any personal loyalty on the part of employees.

Key Points

1) Managers are put under stress by change, and that stress, if mishandled can result in loss of managerial effectiveness. Managers need to be alert to the signs of stress upon their performance.

2) A common management tactic is to avoid involvement in change when that involvement is unpleasant. The affects of this withdrawal can be lethal to the organization and to the manager.

3) Another common tactic is denial of the effects of change. Managers who do this tend to under- estimate the impact of the change, and demonstrate an inability to respond to employees' emotional reactions to change.

The Responsiveness Paradigm

Why are some people respected in the workplace, and others not? Is there something that distinguishes people who are thought of highly from those that are not? What about managers and leaders; are successful respected leaders different from those that are less successful?

The answers to these questions are not so simple. But perhaps they aren't so complex either. And the answers may also extend to regular employees, who gets promoted, and who is seen as an effective employee.

Our work in interpersonal communication has brought us to pay attention to these questions. And we have a tentative hypothesis; something that people can build on to become better leaders, managers and employees. We call this approach The Responsiveness Paradigm.

The Responsiveness Paradigm is a way of looking at how people influence and get along with each other. Based on our work in defusing hostility, it suggests that a primary characteristic of successful and respected people, be they leaders, managers or line employees, is that they have an ability to respond to others in a way that takes into account the needs of both people.

You Can Preview our help card on Responsive Managers by clicking here

What Is Responsiveness?

We characterize responsiveness in the following ways:

An individual (or organization) can be considered responsive if:

s/he identifies both the explicit (clearly stated), and implicit (unstated or below the surface) needs of another person or people s/he interacts with.

s/he uses the understanding of those needs to fulfil those needs when possible.

s/he acknowledges and works in partnership with other parties to find some means of fulfilling needs that IS possible, even if only partial fulfilment results.

s/he uses a family of communication techniques and skills (cooperative communication techniques) that serves the following functions:

indicates interest and concern for others
indicates willingness to work together and not in opposition
indicates acceptance of responsibility for communication and follow-up behaviour

The Responsiveness Skill Set

Your work success hint!

Did you know that most people habitually deal with conflict in a "usual way" even when the technique they prefer just doesn't fit the situation? You probably do the same.

The trick is to deal strategically with conflict and make conscious choices about which strategy to use. You can learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the five major conflict management approaches inUsing Your Head To Manage Conflict . Click here for more.

In terms of learning how to be responsive, we need to translate the above into a set of skills that people can learn. After all, it isn't helpful to know about successes if we have no means of making more successes. The Responsiveness skill set is a collection of elements, that when learned and applied, make people more able to meet the needs of others, and to be perceived as helpful, supportive, accomplished, etc.

First, the responsiveness skill set is composed primarily of thinking and emotional type skills. Second responsiveness requires a set of language/communication skills. We are going to state both types in terms of competencies we believe can be developed in most people.

Competencies

• Active/reflective listening (communication skill)
• Empathetic and acknowledging communication (communication skill)
• Use of cooperative language (communication skill set) eg. use of non-confrontational ques tions to build understanding
• use of qualifiers as opposed to absolute statements
• focus on problem solving vs. blame
• consistency between talk and behaviour (walking the talk) (thinking/emotional skill)
• ability to extract other person's needs from the interactions (communication skill)
• problem-solving skills (thinking skill)

These competencies give us a good starting point to look at some case situations that will illustrate the difference between responsiveness and unresponsiveness. This month we are going to look at responsive and non-responsive managers.