by Gitte Randrup
The other day, I saw a cartoon that said: “If you say the word ‘reorganizing’ one more time, I’m gonna hit you.” I think this is a fair reflection of the way many employees feel after experiencing too many change management projects. They’ve just had enough of it!
Or maybe they’ve felt like fish being thrown out of a fishbowl – thrown out of familiar surroundings without knowing how things will end. “What will the future hold? Will I survive this?”
Organizations have legitimate reasons to want change, or they simply must change. These reasons include obtaining competitive advantages (for example, via innovation) or due to pressure from the outside world (such as ethical and environmental requirements). Change processes may also result in changes in everyday life in terms of culture, duties, technology, targets, and strategy, new hires, layoffs, and behaviors, for instance in communication.
Change management processes are difficult, and many of them are never implemented despite significant efforts to do so. The reasons for this are varied. One is the employees. They may not understand why the change is important, or they’ve been through so many changes already, they don’t have the strength for more.
We’re not only employees and the titles we carry. We’re human beings made of flesh and blood, reacting emotionally – expediently as well as inexpediently.
The book “Organizational Change and Change Management” by Dag Ingvar Jacobsen mention the following types of resistance to change:
1. Fear of the unknown: “I know what I have, but not what I’ll get.”
2. Breach of unwritten rules / the psychological contract: “I feel cheated. I expected something else.”
3. Loss of identity: “I’m a very important employee for this organization. Is everything I’ve done in vain?”
4. Change of symbols: “Why do I have to switch offices? It’s important for my work to sit next to my closest colleagues.”
5. Change of power structures: “This change means I’ll have less influence. If I’m no longer a part of this group, I won’t be part of the decision-making process.”
6. Demands to acquire new knowledge and put aside current knowledge: “I’ve invested so many years into becoming an expert in this area. Now you’re telling me that, to keep my job, I have to switch areas. Can this really be true?”
7. Extra work (for a period): “All this extra work is way too much. I can’t do more than I already do.”
8. Working relationships ending: “What a shame I won’t be working with Jacob anymore. From now on it’ll be Steve, whom I don’t like.”
9. Prospects of personal loss: “What will happen to my career aspirations now?”
Let me illustrate this with an example. A management team has announced that one of the smaller specialist departments will be merged into another, larger department. The small specialist department is not profitable enough to continue as a single department.
Peter, who is a specialist, is worried when management announces the structural change. “What will happen? Will I be part of the merged group?”
He also wonders what will happen to the promotion he worked so hard for. Will this dream come true?
As mentioned, Peter is a specialist, a role he has spent many years developing. His identity as a dedicated knowledge worker makes him see himself as an important and essential employee. Will he now lose this identity?
Peter doesn’t have any formal power, according to the organizational chart. However, his manager is very powerful, both formally and informally. Peter has benefitted from this fact due to their strong relationship, and many of his ideas have been implemented. “Will this continue?”
As the organizational changes progress, Peter must acknowledge that he’ll have to gain new knowledge if he wants to stay in the company. This frustrates him because he has spent years acquiring knowledge in his current specialist field. However, if he wants to stay, he has no other choice.
Then there’s all the extra work during the transition phase. Peter and his colleagues are becoming exhausted. They can’t do everything they should be doing, but they try their best to do what they can.
One thing that saddens Peter the most is the loss of his old colleagues and their working relationship. He had good working relationships with people he had known for many years. Now some of them have been fired, while he won’t be working with others after the restructure. What’s worse is that he’ll be working with Steve, whom he doesn’t like.
This example shows how many thoughts and questions Employee can have. If you’re a manager, it’s a good idea to take the time to talk to your reports both during and after an organizational change.
A change often creates insecurity and many unanswered questions. You can’t predict how employees will react to them. Some will be passive because they lack energy for more changes and don’t understand why change is important. Others will mutter around the department, while still others will find the change to be a good idea. Several types of reactions may arise. What’s essential is that you spend time addressing your reports’ concerns so that the change management process goes as smoothly as possible and obtains employees’ support.
In the next paragraph I’ll focus on different types of employee reactions to the answers you give them when they ask about the change process.
As I mentioned earlier, I focused on the thoughts that employees may have during change management processes – thoughts that are good for you, as a manager, to know. In this article, I’ll focus on the actions emerging from these thoughts and stemming from what you tell your employees in regard to the change.
According to the book “Sensemaking in Organizations” (1995) by Karl E. Weick, seven factors influence the way we make sense of things. The book states:
1. We create sense socially – with other people.
2. The sense we make is based on our identity.
3. We make sense retrospectively – from earlier experiences.
4. We make sense from cues.
5. We make sense on an ongoing basis.
6. We make sense from what seems plausible.
7. We make sense in an enactment.
You can use this information to understand your reports when you introduce changes. Let me illustrate with an example:
Your management team tells Peter and his colleagues that you need to introduce a larger change process. Maybe this will lead to layoffs; you don’t know that yet. What you do know is that you need to save 10% on the bottom line. This means you’ll have to actively seek new customers, segments, and markets. As part of this, you plan to seek more media attention and attend more exhibitions.
After you present the new situation, Peter responds by asking if the employees will have influence. You reply, “No.”
Peter reacts to this “no” by complaining about the change to his colleagues (the social process). They talk about how tough it was the last time the organization went through a major change, including layoffs, new systems, and work procedures. Everyone was turned upside down (the retrospective part, plausibility, and enactment).
Peter creates a story based on what other people do wrong – a story pointing away from himself.
Basically, Peter is worried about his own position (the identity aspect) as the department’s expert. He is also worried about his own understanding of his importance, position, and ability to make an impact, as he refers to a powerful manager.
However, it’s important to point out that Peter had another choice. He could have asked you for a meeting during which he could have expressed his fears about the future and during which you, as a member of the management group, would have had the opportunity to reply. A completely different process might have come out of this (another type of social process).
In the same way, you could have responded “yes” to Peter’s question about exerting influence. You could have replied that the employees would help influence the ways in which you’d find new markets, customers, segments, and proposals, as well as which fairs and media you’d seek out (another type of social process). You would not have focused on the fact that you need to save 10% on the bottom line, that you need to adopt a more proactive style with regard to customers and markets, and so on.
Your change management strategy influences how employees make sense of change. Is it a top-down- driven change based on analysis, strategic goals, sub-targets, and action plans for implementation? Everything else being equal, this type of strategy does not leave much room for employee impact and participation. In addition, it might cause Peter and the other employees to complain more and engage in negative talk about the change.
Conversely, you could choose a process based on cooperation and discussion. You wouldn’t discuss whether the change should be made but instead would seek input into how to implement the change the best way possible, with the help from those completing the tasks on a daily basis.
This example is intended to illustrate how your role and actions as a member of the management team affect your employees’ thoughts and actions. You might t, but it does, in fact, have a significant impact. If you pay attention to your approach, you can foster understanding and acceptance of your project. You won’t solve all your issues, but you’ll be taking a more proactive approach toward acting within your organization.
~Gitte Randrup
LinkedIn: Gitterandrup FB: @Gitterandrup
Need to Rent a HR Business Partner?
Need a Better On Boarding Process?
Need Help With Recruiting People?
About The Author
