- OC results in higher psychological stress (employees feeling psychologically and emotionally drained due to pressure during the organizational change).
- OC leads to lower job performance due to stress.
- Moreover, neither "organizational communication and support moderate the relationships" between organizational change, psychological stress, and job performance.
The implications are significant for a number of reasons.
- Historically organizations have relied on the hammer approach to organizational change, forcing change regardless of the human capital cost. Sadly, this recession has given many organizations the leverage to do this with seeming impunity because jobs are scarce.
- Many organizations either ignore or minimize the extent to which OC initiatives impact human performance.
- Even in 'enlightened' organizations, many change leaders find great comfort in traditional communications plans that are more based on what I call information broadcasting rather than real dialog.
The challenge remains: for organizations to survive and thrive in an increasingly global and interconnected economy where barriers to entry have been flattened as Tom Friedman suggests in The World Is Flat, they must change. But change requires both change muscle and ability (not just brute force), something many companies either have neglected or think it's unnecessary. Change muscle and ability is something that can be developed the way we develop any other muscle, through exercise and effective use of it.
The reality is that once the economy begins to stabilize (and many indicators seem to be pointing in that direction), the hammer approach to organizational change will not do. All things being equal, companies that can successfully introduce and implement organizational change will have a significant competitive advantage over those who don't.
So (you may ask), I know this...what does one do about it?
First, develop a sense of urgency as to the effect of OC on individual and organizational performance is necessary. Whenever you introduce change, you can expect to see a decrease in performance and an increase in the level of effort required to produce the same or lesser output. This hits the bottom line squarely! Problem is..financial statements usually don't account for this drain but it is real!
Second, once the urgency of attending to the need to address OC more effectively is clear and evident in the minds and hearts of key leaders in the organization (and this is half the battle...recognition isn't enough, there's got to be urgency), organizations are more ready to devote the time, attention, and resources required. Beyond a good communications plan, involve people as much as possible. People don't resist change...people resist being changed!
Lastly, develop razor sharp strategies that do the following:
- Build awareness and understanding of what the change is, why, how, who, when, etc.
- Create acceptance of the change.
- Foster individual conviction and belief in the change.
- Enable and reinforce the desired behaviors.
Excellent summary - we too recognise the inability to understand 'The map is not the territory' and that applying change within the context of standard accounting practice and psychologically unconscious 'systems' is inherently flawed (Ignoring, as they do, not only the unaccounted drain on the bottom line, but the 'change opposing behviours' unconsciously generated due to issues related to Fear, control and assumption).
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding individual belief is front and centre and also links (psychologically) directly to behaviour, this knowledge is essential if leadership are to make cognitive choices that address and understand deeper issues, such as 'Goodness' and 'Benefit for all' (Kaizen / Gai Shan) at a philosophical level.
Good points. We seem to forget that without the buy-in of the front line, almost no change will be longlasting or effective. The hammer, especially with the younger generations of workers, will not work. It will test the leadership skills of many of the older generation that may be accustomed to respect due to position or authority.
ReplyDeleteJames Wells commented on LinkedIn about this blog entry:
ReplyDelete"To me, its all in the way the change is managed. Change does cause stress. I know this anecdotally, but when a change is well thought and planned out and implemented quickly with clear communication, some of the stress starts to melt away. Some stress remains, that associated with adapting to the change, having to learn new roles, other peoples new roles, but the severe stress associated with self preservation can be lessened significantly by planning and communicating well.
Check out my thoughts on other continuous improvement topics at: http://qualitypractice.blogspot.com"
Larry Lacy commented on LinkedIn about this blog entry:
ReplyDelete"I do agree with James, when change is managed correctly and has top management buy in and their direct input, the stress is reduced substantially. Our assessment the Team Scorecard identifies the counter-productive activities and behaviors that is present in the organization. If top management embraces a process such as this, everyone in the organization sees a way to "fix" things, unless they are the individuals creating the stress.. These individuals do not play well with others in any case. The bottom line is whether you us our process or another, a well management process that the top leaders support, will see a substantial change for the good in any organization. The stress that does occur is a good stress."
Agree with both James and Larry. Top level support is critical but the support has to be substantial and visible. Also, planning is key. In my experience I'm almost always brought into a project when the project is already going south. When I've had the opportunity to be part of the planning process the stress levels are much less and the stress people do feel is actually productive, not based on anxiety or fear of the unknown but based on a desired to make something very difficult work.
ReplyDeleteNick Latino commented on LinkedIn about this blog entry:
ReplyDeleteExcellent article right on the money. I have intimate experience in the environment of forced OC with only lip service to address the wholesale changes in senior VP level management and the intimidation of all to accept changes "or go find another job" ultimatums. I happen to be a person who appreciates change, but not just for change's sake, and I was stressed so as my personal life was suffering and I have always been able to partition the two. I have since been freed due to multiple down sizing measures and although unemployed in this very tough job market my stress level has reduced substantially! It was apparent all though our organization that the twice a week "company newsletters" which had announcements for a new corporate executive or two coming in and of course thanking the exiting VP for their years of service, never mentioning "why" there was a change. No, that type of cycle (change, intimidation) will only work until (or if) the economy and job markets improve and then I believe there will be change, but at the middle management, entry level management and skilled labor forces shop their services to the highest bidders. Because at that point the last shreds of loyalty to company's will be non existent."
Nick, interesting comments. Thanks for sharing your experience. I think there are many others who feel likewise. You bring an interesting point about company loyalty. It is one of the key components of what people in the field call 'employee engagement' or the measure of discretionary effort an employee puts into the work. Even when employees remain (and most do thankfully) in an organization, I believe there are many who silently retire and collectively with others like them who feel 'victims' of change become a significant burden on the organization. Obviously there are ways to energize and mobilize this portion of the employee population but it takes time, work, and priority, which is the very reason many organizations find it difficult to do. Effective change isn't easy.
ReplyDeleteChuck Stump commented on LinkedIn about this blog entry:
ReplyDelete"While I think that OC can produce a lot of psychological stress, I believe that there are two underlying issues that exacerbate the stress. One is a feeling of decreased trust because a good case was not made for the change and those affected feel disenfranchised. The other is similar but is just due to a lack of effective communication; people don't understand the change and feel pressured because they don't own the change yet."
Sanjeev Karhallikar commented on LinkedIn about this blog entry:
ReplyDelete"With a sound communication plan, the dialogues and other measures, the intensity of stress can be reduced to a minor degree; however not possible to completely eliminate.
If the organization is a first mover in introducing the change amongst competitors, then the stress level in the employees is usually on a higher side. If it is a follower to introduce the change, then there could be some available benchmarks which could be used as a proof to keep the morale of the employees high during the change process.
I think that the inherent fear in the employee is the main cause of stress. The employee may fear that his skills could be obsolete after the change is implemented and his job is in jeopardy. The other reasons of fear could be doing different new things, new environment, new boss, new location, etc etc. This could seize the comfort zone the employee is enjoying.
It is essential that the organization should address these factors before / during the first phase of change implementation. (How to effectively address is another topic that should be debated seperately.) I am sure these measures will ensure that the employees are not stressed during OC."
I hear at least three things...trust, uncertainty or anxiety because of lack of communication, and fear. I know that when these things exist, not only do you have 'unproductive' stress but also what most people call 'resistance' to change and why shouldn't you expect that. Anyone who doesn't trust what's about to happen or how it's being carried out, who feels in the dark due to lack of information and communication, and who is afraid about the future would reject the idea of change and with good reason.
ReplyDeleteIn reading all the above comments, I am struck by how much this could be a parent / child relationship. The "parent" of course is the company, the "child" the worker. Each has some agenda, and in most cases they are very different. The company ushers in change for the stakeholder's future benefit, much like the parent who's decisions are for the child's "future" benefit. As anyone who has children knows, their focus is on themselves and how any change affects "them" caring not at all about what is good for the parent. If the company takes the time to analyze cause and effect and mitigates the negatives by getting participation and ownership from employees then they are addressing the "me factor", just like a parent would with a child.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are some corollaries (though I'd be careful with the comparison because some might read something different into it). How we exert influence in others is very similar across different situations under stress which tends to uncover how we really prefer to exert that influence, whether by dominance or persuasion or something in between.
ReplyDeleteAt time of stressful change, those managers that can effectively lead change standout from those who talk a good talk during good times but whose tendencies take them back to less effective change tactics.
Stuart Rosenberg commented on LinkedIn's Supply Chain Today's group about this blog entry:
ReplyDeleteMarcelino,
Glad someone is finally addressing this business issue. I have always maintained to those who would listen - not very many - we can not continously ask one person to perform the job functions of three people without a cost. That cost is the human one. It will eventually lead to stress, poor job performance, lower on the job morale issues and an even higher employee turnover.
Perhaps this study will be used to affect change.
Robert Iversen commented on LinkedIn's Supply Chain Today's group about this blog entry:
ReplyDeleteI wish I could still participate in the poll. Good poll. I really enjoyed this article, too. Whether anyone gets anything out of this, I think it will be the prophetic writing on the wall that tells the fate of many once the economy recovers. No one should be surprised by mass exoduses of folks from some companies. Too many ax men out there that will need to change their modus operandi
I think it will be a long journey. This isn't new but companies just like all of us are destined to make the mistakes of the past unless we learn from history.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there is something anyone who has influence in a organization can do regardless of where we sit in the organization. I don't believe that it is absolutely necessary for the C-level leaders to be effective change leaders to create an environment at least within our circle of influence more conducive to effective change. Clearly, it is ideal if all the C-suite gets on the same page about this issues and act accordingly but I've seen leaders who even in less than ideal situations are able to create for their people the kind of change that we are talking about here. It is hard but it can be done.