“Employee reactions, such as depression, anxiety, resistance and openness to change, have emerged as offering important insights to change success” (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999, as cited in Axtel, et al, 2002). This is corroborated by a “sense of deprivation' often accompanied by feelings of anxiety” (Dar & Resh, 2001, as cited in Axtel, et al, 2002) and “that those who have not participated in change have worse strain compared to those who have been involved” (Parker, Wall, & Myers, 1995; Seeborg, 1978, as cited in Axtel, 2002).
The place of PR in communicating change
According Harrison, 2003, “ change communication is … the common factor in every change process (p253).
“Effective organizational communication is vital in making employees understand and
support this organizational change . . . and is vital in making employees understand and support organizational change.” (Gonrig, 1992).
Communication was also one of four major areas identified as necessary for successful organisational change in a 1991 US survey, Communication for Change (Coulson-Thomas, etc al, as cited in Hart).
Studies show that the main cause of unsuccessful organisational change is lack of a communication process. “Those at the top of many organizations appear unable to communicate their commitment to a shared vision. All too often their companies’ staff perceive a wide gulf between words and deeds, especially in the area of culture change.” (Hart, 1995, p263). Likewise, Harrison (2003) states: “overwhelmingly management fail to consult and involve staff in their plans for change.”
Quite simply, PR can be part of the process, or be left behind and have their jobs put at risk. “Communication professionals must decide whether they will be victims of change, or change mangers.” (Gonrigg, 1992). “Communicators must become experts on participative management and commit to taking a leading role . . . in managing this culture change.”
PR professionals must practice as change leaders, “who must help people in the organization to fundamentally overcome their fear, accept risk, and transform their work into a new model that benefits them and the organization.” (Kerfoot, 1996).
In planning a change communication program (Moss Kanter, et al, 1992) identified eight essential elements for success, of which communication was number four. “Whatever strategy, two-way, face-to-face, continuing communication is especially important for major changes that are strategic, large, wide and have implications for day-to-day operations.” (p394).
“The vision must be shared, the purpose of change communicated and employee involvement and commitment secured.” This is where “the ability to communicate is an essential management quality” and a necessity. However, effective communication occurs (only) when there is:
- a mutual understanding between the elements of the organization
- vision, values and goals are shared
- individuals understand their contribution” (Hart, p270).
There are overtones of Grunig’s two-way asymmetrical theory in this proposition, particularly with regard to developing “mutual understanding”.
The full benefits of this process are realised by Moss Kanter, et al, who argue that “full involvement, communication and disclosure … can be potent tools for overcoming resistance and giving employees a stake in the outcome”. (Beer, 1980, as cited in Kanter, et al, p384).
Morgan (1972) identifies six areas of basic communication necessary in change strategy.
- Get in on the ground floor
- Report all facts of change quickly and completely
- Observe fundamental communications practices (excellence)
- Encourage good communication in managers/supervisors. Morgan, 1997, takes this a step further, stating supervisors/team leaders should be trained in communication skills.
- Use all (relevant) forms of communication (formal and informal, e.g, web brochures, newsletters, noticeboards, videos, personal meetings, forums).
- Be ready for emergencies
Further components that communications professionals should use include:
- Regional offices must be represented in any organisational change team
- Team leader must be respected and able to report directly to the CEO
- Co-opt volunteers from other departments
-
Supervisors are key players. “Research concludes that employees' preferred source of information is supervisors – not top executives, or even their unions” (Larkin, T., as cited in McLoughlin, 1977).
- Ensure support of senior management
- CEO must be the main communicator of the change
- Always tell the truth
- Messages must be consistent
- Make it interactive (peers consulting with peers)
- Report regularly on progress
- Give everyone a say
According to (unknown author, Phillips Business Information Corporation,1996) the important things to communicate during change include:
- Why are we changing? Why is this important?
- What do you want me to do differently?
- How will I be measured and what are the consequences?
- If I change, what tools and support do I get?
- What's in it for me? And for us?
Many of the above tools, processes, strategies and guideline used in organization change are stock-in-trade of the PR practitioner and apply to most, if not all aspects of communication, such as truth and gaining support of management. In fact, McLoughlin (1997) is adament that when “developing a change communications strategy, you must have a seat at the table of the change management team”. This would include sitting alongside human resource and finance managers.
“Real communication (in a change situation) requires dialogue – a give-and-take that allows different parties to express themselves and be listened to.” (Ashheras & Jak, 1990, as cited in Kanter, et al, p388). This function of dialogue is central to the vital part a boundary-spanning (PR) role can play in a change situation.
“By listening an responding to concerns, resistance and feedback from all levels, change-makers gain a broader understanding of what change means to different part of the organization, and how it will affect them”. (Kanter, et al, p388).
Feedback (or listening) in itself is one of the basic fundamentals of good communication, and contributes markedly to change strategy programs (as outlined by Morgan) by:
- Allowing anticipation and revision of programs
- Establishing interest and confidence
- Measuring the program’s effectiveness
Unfortunately, the process of involving employees in real dialogue is usually too late. “In practice, employee input to the earlier stages of change is often limited and all too often, employees' first meaningful involvement with change is when it is implemented. Moreover, such exposure is an inevitable and potentially very important stage in any change process.” (Axtel, et al, 2002).
Another area in which PR can play a central role is in the research. According to Legge (1984) research should be done before any change. Unfortunately, in most cases it is done afterwards, which is too late once the change has occurred. The research would include things such as:
- level of employee resistance
- attitude towards change
- ideas for change
- expectations after change
Morgan (1972) cites factors which should be considered the research process, including:
- Are the right signals being given?
- Are they (publics) participating in the changes?
- Are the changes too fast/too slow?
- Are we over-committing/under-committing resources?
- Too much/too little change?
Case Study 1
“A southern US textile mill in the 1940s decided to merge two small sections in a new location, with new equipment and a better location. One group was told and kept informed, the other not. On the day of the announcement, the uninformed group almost went on strike. The informed group took the change in stride, starting work with no lost production, no grievances and high morale. The promises of benefits had been carried out. The same benefits were available to the uninformed group, but they were too upset by the surprise to notice them.” (Morgan, 1972). The results of this study reflect modern research (technology change in a UK distribution company) which aims to show that “those who have greater exposure to change will become more open to such change and experience no reduction in well-being over time, whereas those who have less exposure will experience decline in these outcomes.” (Axtel, et al, 2002).
Case study 2
Citibank enlisted employees worldwide in cost-cutting and new business-building to improve profitability. In the '70s and '80s, Reeder explained, Citibank underwent a major expansion, launching credit card operations overseas that have netted more than six million customers outside the United States. But the bottom fell out at the end of 1990. The economy weakened and they felt the impact their bottom line. The corporation was forced to take larger than normal write-offs for bad debt, which made profits shrink. Financial analysts were starting to say bad things about the company's viability. To turn this situation around, Citibank's top management prepared a five-point plan, focusing on core businesses, to increase profitability and reduce costs. With employees spread out in more than 3000 offices in 90 countries. Headquarters staff depended on "a network of several hundred communications professionals around the world who received quarterly briefings on our earnings. Each quarter they received packages that they could use in local businesses. Employee newsletters, the employee video news magazine and a daily electronic news service were all used. Employees received information as soon as it was available to the media. They also feed back information about how they communicate across businesses and borders. The PR people reinforced Citibank’s broad messages to local audiences. At the end of a two-year period, Citicorp's operating margin increased by $2.3 billion.
REFERENCES:
Axtel, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., Clegg, C., Gardner, P., Bolden, R. (2002, April). Familiarity breeds content: the impact of exposure to change on employee openness and well-being. (UK) Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75 2 p217. [On line].
Carnall, C. (1999). Managing change in organizations (3rd ed). Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.
Dunphy, D. (1989). Organisational change by choice. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Gonring, M (1992). The communicator's role in leading corporate culture change. Communication World. Vol. 9 No. 2 p25(4). [Available on line].
Harrison, K. (2003). Strategic public relations. Perth: Century Ventures.
Hart, N. (1995). Strategic public relations. London: McMillan.
Hauss, D. (1993). Giving employees bad news: how to minimize the damage. Vol.49 No.12 p18(4). [Available on line].
Kerfoot, K. (1996). The change leader Nursing Economics. v14 n5 p311(2). [Available on line].
Legge, K. (1984). Evaluating planned organisational change. London: Academic Press.
Lundquist, L. (2002). Smooth transitions: when you're communicating organizational changes. Communication World. v19 i3 p24(2).
McLoughlin, B. (1997). The Bits & Pieces of a Change Communications Plan: PR News.
Vol 53, issue: 47. [Available on line].
Morgan, S. (1972). Managing change: the strategies of making change work for you. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moss Kanter, R., Stein, B., Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organisational change. New York: Free Press.
Unknown author. (1996). How to change behaviour in change communication. Phillips Business Information Corporation. PR News. May 27. [Available on line].
