Conducted on 18 April 2011, by Thorsten Eisengräber with Nicole Schlegel, in the context of his Master thesis at the Bochum University, entitled “Problematic nature and analysis of the communication in change management, as well as selected internal and external support.”
Eisengräber: Ms Schlegel, change processes are usually inevitable. Employees can often be reluctant to give up existing automatisms and to take part in changes. How do you think you can avoid or reduce such (natural) defensiveness of employees?
Schlegel: Such defensive attitudes cannot be avoided, because they are learnt action patterns, which have long led to success from the employees’ perspective. The key to reducing defensive attitudes is the analysis of the underlying reasons, thus motives, for such defensive attitude. In turn, such motives are to be found in entirely different areas. The classic motives are 4 categories: knowledge barriers, behaviour barriers, method barriers and culture barriers. Conversely, that means: being aware of, knowing, understanding, accepting as well as competence and conviction or identification. It can take from 1-3 years until reaching the last step, because changes do not work like installing new software, which is often forgotten.
Eisengräber: Is an external advisor necessarily required for successfully implementing a change management project or do you see any other, possibly in-house possibilities to accompany and support change processes?
Schlegel: Yes and no, as the scope, the significance, the opportunities and the complexity of changes can be arguments in favour or against it. First of all, you buy a service from external advisors, which is similar to a component that you cannot “produce” or “manufacture” yourself. In part, because you do not know, you are not capable, you do not have experience or because you do not want it, since your own employees often show some bias or operational blindness.
It is important to know the following: the main responsibility lies with the company and its decision makers. Depending on a company’s size und structure, internal change agents may take action.
Eisengräber: According to literature (Doppler, Kotter, etc.), communication is a key task within the scope of change processes. However, if you consider communication from a financial perspective, it is rather seen as time-consuming and as cost factor. In your opinion, what arguments exist to change such financial perspective?
Schlegel: You have to conduct cost-benefit analyses, since communication as performance feature can be estimated, for instance by interviewing clients, employees and stakeholders. Thus, not only the motivation of the workforce can be increased, but by means of such analyses you can track such intangible costs, which otherwise would have remained hidden. And particularly the financial community determines its results on the basis of information that is provided at the right time. Why does the financial community react so strongly on news? Because news have a significant impact on share prices.
Eisengräber: Open communication is generally considered to be very useful. However, you will find such communication not often in distinctive power hierarchies, which so often prevail in companies. In your experience, what are the reasons and how is it possible to support development towards an open communication?
Schlegel: The main reasons are sense of power and leadership philosophy, communication as a means of department and division policy, leadership skills during changes, where I myself feel unsure. But open communication too has to comply an appropriate form. I may not, for example on the office floor, involve my colleague of the other department in a debate on principles, or openly address company-internal matters in front of my principal during a meeting with clients. Openness is always supported by a common moral concept of how we define openness in our functions, roles and relations. The more acceptance this mutual understanding gains, the more successfully open communication will be practised.
Eisengräber: Today’s society as well as modern companies increasingly make use of computer technology to get tasks and activities done faster and more effective. To what extent do you think it possible and useful to apply computer technology during change processes in order to support communication? (e.g. electronic platforms and intranet portals)
Schlegel: Using these technologies is to a certain degree possible and appropriate. The relevant decision factors are in particular strategic conception and the generational question in order to benefit from the workforce’s willingness to accept and to use technologies.
Eisengräber: As a general rule, communication is becoming increasingly difficult, the more people are involved and the further they are dispersed. In your opinion, what is the best way to achieve efficient communication with many persons at different locations?
Schlegel: It is required to make centralized, controlled data accessible through electronic channels and to shape decentralised and targeted information policy related to situations, individuals, recipients and context.
Information has no intrinsic value, only when information has a point of reference, then it rises up and becomes a value, thus, even efficient communication needs to take account of that.
Eisengräber: One principle of change management is, “turning passive participants into active participants.” Is it really and fundamentally true, or do companies not sometimes have to cope with changes that have to be imposed without any involvement of the employees? (e.g. change of location/relocation). If such changes take place without any involvement of the employees, in your experience, how can we maintain the motivation of the employees?
Schlegel: The principle is that situational requirements define the point of time, the target, the reasons and the degree of participation. Often, they also correspond to the corporate culture und the management philosophy.
Thus, employees are to be involved whenever possible, however, there are decisions such as a change of location, which have a very low degree of employee participation. Such decisions must be taken and promptly communicated. Possible losses of motivation on the part of the employees are unavoidable in such decision-making, therefore you should not spend too much time in implementing the decision.
Eisengräber: Companies are increasingly the focus of public attention, especially when changes are pending. In your experience, how should a company externally communicate its change management project?
Schlegel: External communication must always be guided by the brand standards and brand promises of the company, since it is especially in change process that trust and credibility are being redefined. That’s why an overall approach including strategic communication objectives, defined procedures, selected forms etc. must be adapted to the target groups and stakeholders of the company. At the same time, branding through employee behaviour is often underestimated. We are talking about employee brand management. A precondition for this is that the companies know WHAT needs to be said as otherwise the HOW cannot take success criteria as a basis. Once this has been guaranteed, statements can be adapted to communication lines, particularly in providing employees with confidence in their actions in terms of the significance towards clients, competitors, etc.
Eisengräber: The ability to manage conflict and dealing with resistance is an integral part of communication. However, it is not always possible to convince all employees of planned changes. In your view, what actions do we have to take when we’re dealing with very unreasonable employees?
Schlegel: You may not simply ignore these employees. You have to confront them again and again with the change, explain targets, take decisions and to allow more space for reflection, because stubborn refusals always help us to discover something “new” about changes. Should all efforts fail, and the employee’s refusal remains incomprehensible, a separation from the employee will be inevitable.
Eisengräber: “Nothing is more constant than change,” said Heraclitus as early as 500 BC, however, it is human nature to refuse any changes. In your view, do we have, except for communication, opportunities to encourage changes and the acceptance of these changes? (e.g. job rotation and employee suggestion systems)
Schlegel: Changes must always be aimed at creating optimisation, which includes not only tangible but also intangible aspects as well as learning ability and capacity for reflection. We’re still drinking coffee, but today TO GO, made with coffee pods, and some people again brew their coffee themselves in the traditional way. Probably, we will still consume coffee in the coming years; just the way we do it will change.
Therefore, many changes do not really occur in the WHAT but in the HOW!
Companies have to focus more precisely on the subject of changes and at the same time to preserve their openness in order to perceive discoveries and insights provided by changes. The aim is to implement continuous change processes in order to shape the company into a learning organisation.
Eisengräber: During an interview published in the Harvard Businessmanager (5/2002) Edgar Schein indicated that a certain degree of fear at an early stage of the change process might be unavoidable to make the necessity of change recognisable. What do you think of this statement? Would be fear, e.g. to lose one’s job, not more likely to be counterproductive?
Schlegel: At first, confrontation with realities will activate feelings of insecurity, which can also arise in the form of fears. But fears let us become vigilant and expectant so that we look for necessary assistance and solutions. I am not, however, a supporter of creating constant fear, since fear will result in a loss or productivity and it would be inconsistent with the management principles.