Most organizations assume their managers know how to communicate change, and at best give them a leaflet explaining the rationale for the latest changes. Resistance is often viewed negatively, and is avoided. Yet as highlighted in this forum, resistance can be useful and can help progress if it is discussed. People are more likely to be constructive and support the change if it is well communicated and staff understand how it affects them. Studies show that managers often communicate change poorly, or avoid giving full explanations (especially if it may mean bad news for the individual). The reasons for this are:

 Devoting time and effort to others’ physical distress has emotional and time costs - it feels like hard work (yet there is substantial evidence of high benefits and low cost – they overestimate the problems).
 Emotional - avoidance and distancing occurs particularly if feeling responsible, partly to blame. They may also fear being blamed (which may seem very sensible, but again does not happen as much as they think), and a loss of 'face'. Psychological closeness increases own discomfort – so managers avoid speaking to staff.
 A range of cognitive-perceptual sources encourage distancing – managers focus on the likely negative reactions, avoiding communicating bad news, and generally avoid conflict.


Managers need support and coaching to help them communicate effectively to staff – if your change process is not going as planned, look to how you are communicating, not what.

Any views?

__________________
Dr Stephanie Morgan
Crosslight Management
www.crosslight.co.uk

The important fact that marketing is a form that is not used widely enough and many people see marketing as a product selling tool.
The value of marketing the change that is imminent allows for impact of the change to be absorbed. This reduces conflict, allows the affected resources to express a point of view, and a different but still effective way of implementing the change can take place.