PNA, Oct. 16

HR: Helping employees through organizational change

By Janet Mcnally, VP, Human Resources
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association

No matter what changes an organization needs to make, if the changes call for employees to change, managers will need to deal with the issue of change itself.

For a simple example, pick up a pen and write your name on a sheet of paper, just as you would sign a check. Then transfer the pen to your non-dominant hand, sign your name, and look at the results. For most people, that second signature took longer to produce and doesn’t look very much like your normal handwriting.

If changing the hand you write with is difficult, imagine changing even part of your work routine. Most of us learned our daily routines through iteration and mastery of thousands of small changes. The copier code has changed, use the new one; park in this new spot, use this door, not the old one. We learn our routines so well that they define us in many ways. Professor Herbert Simon of Carnegie Mellon University called us “boundedly rational.” We’re rational, but we limit our universe of choices in so many matters, that we effectively make ourselves irrational at times. We want what we want when we want it. For those of you who are managers, does that sound familiar?

How managers feel organizational change

Think about how you as a manager view change. For a manager change usually involves a realization that change must take place. This can be a realization that occurs only to you, but in most cases managers will talk with other managers. Over time, they will realize that change must occur. In most cases then, a long period of discussion about the change will take place, with consideration of various options. Managers give themselves time to think about the short- and long-term implications of each option and in many cases will develop a formal plan. Then it’s time to execute the plan.

When it comes to managing people, the term “execution” can carry some unfortunate connotations. It reminds me of the old football coach whose team was losing badly at halftime when a reporter approaches and asks, “Coach, what do you think of your team’s execution?” Coach rubs his eyes and replies, “At this point, I think it would be a good idea.”

Change for the individual is difficult, and it’s rooted in fear, a fear of losing control over one’s routines, hard-wired over the years. It’s a feeling of falling backward.

You may have studied Abraham Maslow’s pioneering work on the hierarchy of human needs, where Maslow shows us that people are concerned first with their own biological needs, then safety, then the need to belong. When these needs are addressed, one-by-one, we begin to think about how we view ourselves (self-esteem) and whether our lives are fulfilling the promise we think we have (self-actualization).

How employees feel organizational change

So there is your employee, all of his or her needs fully addressed, self-esteem humming right along on the path to self-actualization, when BAM! Your company announces cutbacks, layoffs, buyouts. Immediately the employee falls back to being concerned about the most basic of human needs. Moreover, employees begin to notice their manager talking about how this change is in the best interests of the company. And they are not interested in hearing that at the moment.

Because even if certain employees are not personally caught up in the layoff or buyout, they have not had nearly the amount of time to think about this change, as management has. And employees will soon start noticing some other feelings creeping in.

Hanging Out with SARA

One of the things we can learn from those who have studied the grief process is that people go through predictable stages when confronted with loss. The acronym is SARA; the S stands for shock, the A for anger, the R for rejection, and the final A, acceptance. Think of any loss you may have experienced in your life, and while for you SARA’s emotions may not have lined up into the neat little package that the acronym suggests, you may find you have indeed moved through each phase in some way until some sense of acceptance has been achieved.

So back to our organization, where we have the “perfect storm” scenario. Managers are soberly and carefully announcing their plan and employees are experiencing their first tidal wave of shock. Employees begin to ask, “How did we get to this point? How did this happen?” to which managers reply, “We did everything we could to avoid this day and having to make this decision.” to which employees say, “Why didn’t you tell us we were in trouble sooner?”

I believe that part of this reaction comes from management’s relationship with employees. Managers may act and feel as though they are parents to their employees, and their employees are just like children. Or managers may adopt a sterner, “do as I say” approach. But implicit in these approaches is a deal that the manager has made with employees: “Stick with me and I’ll take care of you.” So when a layoff or some other huge change is announced, employees with this type of manager may feel betrayed because the second part of the deal has been broken. “Why didn’t you tell us…” in this case, really means, “How could you let this happen to us?”

Managers may also adopt the “we’re all in this together” approach. “I’m not really managing you,” they say in effect, “I’m coaching and facilitating your performance.” Well-meaning managers who act under the term “empowerment” sometimes forget that the root of that word is power, as in sharing your power with employees to make real decisions. It’s not enough to call employees “associates.” There must be some actual transfer of power and provision of pertinent business information to employees to empower them.

The upside of empowerment is that employees work hard when they feel they have a stake in the company, in its success and failures. But this approach comes with a price, and that is transparency. Managers who operate under the banner of empowerment raise expectations of employees that no unilateral decisions will be imposed, and this includes organizational change. Otherwise, when employees ask, “Why didn’t you tell us we were in trouble sooner?” this type of manager will have no answer for the employees who may be on their way out, but more important, none for employees who are staying in.

How are YOU holding up?

At the same time, in this “perfect storm” managers are certainly not feeling any love. They are feeling the stress of having announced an organizational change and having their good intentions questioned. Managers in this situation may experience a sort of “reverse SARA” effect. Managers may not feel the shock of change in the same way that employees do at the time of an announcement, but they are shocked when formerly loyal employees turn against them. As the days and weeks pass after the change announcement, and as employees tackle a greater workload, hostility toward managers may increase. Managers may respond by getting angry at employees, rejecting in part their roles as managers.

Doing change better

When change is difficult, at the very time when managers most need to look like leaders, we often don’t! There are very real business consequences to this. When managers and employees are discouraged after an organizational change, it can take very long – too long – to get back on track. And being on track is why your management team has started the change process in the first place.

How can we “do change” better? I think it has to do with what we as managers do before the change occurs, during and after. We’ll take up the issue of what to do “pre-change” in next week's issue of Headlines & Deadlines. Stay tuned.

[BACK TO HEADLINES & DEADLINES HOME PAGE]