Constructing Effective Change Messages

Dulek’s article in Part 2 of this themed section describes a particularly dramatic moment at a meeting hosted by the CEO of the American offices of a major international manufacturer. The CEO was introducing a new program intended to increase the employees’ sense of empowerment. To roll out the program, the CEO met with small groups of employees on a regular basis; at each session he asked employees to identify the major gaps between current operating conditions and the strategic and cultural goals to be achieved as a result of implementing the change program.

In the fifth session, a brave employee addressed the CEO and delivered news that no senior management would be pleased to hear: Metrics being reported by workers are “not real.” The employee explained that workers are under such great pressure to meet numbers that it is necessary to “bend” projections and accomplishments.

On hearing this, according to Dulek, the CEO’s “initial reaction was to cross his arms and look sternly at the speaker.” But, instead of so responding, the manager paused for 5 seconds and then took an altogether different tack. He calmly replied that “If you are under such pressure to meet numbers that you are having to ‘bend the numbers’ to survive, then there must be something wrong with the system.” He promised that a team would investigate the issue beginning next week and that the problem would be fixed “as quickly as possible.” The CEO concluded by thanking the employee for “sharing this problem with me.”

As Dulek explains, during those 5 seconds before responding to the question, the senior manager realized that the success of the new culture change program depended on a truly open answer. Crossing his arms and sternly staring at the employee—the CEO’s initial reaction—would seriously erode the leader’s credibility. The manager had made a conscious choice to frame his message in a manner that was consistent with the emphasis on employee engagement being promoted within the company. That message was effective; according to Dulek, this moment in the fifth session proved to be a “tipping point” for gaining employee participation and “buy in” for the program.

The articles in Part 2 of this themed section, “Communicating Organizational Change,” emphasize that managers are more likely to construct effective change messages if they are aware that certainkindsof messages are more likely to promote the participation and “buy in” of employees than other less appropriate types. In addition, change agents (i.e., persons seeking to initiate change) should recognize that the type and tone of messages that seem instinctual may not be viewed as effective by employees. (Think of Dulek’s CEO, whose first response was to act as a stern authority.) In short, the construction of change messages involves making certain choices, and some of these choices are likely to be more successful than others.

Campbell, Carmichael, and Naidoo present the results of a study where employees of an American supply chain company assess the effectiveness of five types of responses to various kinds of hostile questions concerning a pending technology upgrade. The researchers conclude that, in general, change agents can most effectively and credibly address hostile inquiries, or challenges, by indicating that now is not the most appropriate time to offer a definitive response. Rather, the inquiry will adequately be addressed when more data or other information are available—presumably, in the near future. The researchers also emphasize that a manager or change agent must never deny that he or she is the right person for handling the challenge. “Passing the buck” is not a good choice when constructing change messages.

Cardon and Philadelphia document the findings of an investigation involving 118 early-career (aged 27-35 years) professionals who prepared videos of themselves presenting change messages. Each participant assumed the role of Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo!, and the message consisted of an announcement that Yahoo! no longer permits working from home as a regular practice. The researchers discovered that the types of messages constructed by the participants strongly correlated with their motivational values. That is, assertive-directing professionals—persons tending to be competitive and willing to take risks—were most likely to construct messages that emphasized the new policy as consistent with Yahoo’s corporate vision. By contrast, participants deemed strongly analytic-autonomizing—individuals who are generally cautious, analytical, and careful in the use of resources—tended to produce video messages that indirectly conveyed the “bad news” of not permitting work at home. Also, some of these professionals prepared messages indicating that senior management wished to enter into dialogue with employees concerning the policy change. The researchers concluded that the motivational values of change agents will influence the construction of messages. That is, the choices made by professionals are likely to be consistent with their attitudes toward risk, competition, thorough analysis of situations, and other values.

Dulek delivered a presentation of his article at the October 2014 ABC Annual Conference in Philadelphia. When he concluded, a member of the audience asked what had happened to the CEO who said he would act on the issue raised by the employee. According to Dulek, that senior manager was ultimately promoted within the company. Apparently, the CEO’s choices—his methods of constructing change messages—were deemed effective.