organizational change communication issues

There are any number of reasons for resistance to change in an organization, among them poor communication, self-interest, exclusion, lack of trust and lack of skills (Brookins, 2017). Sometimes change is resisted specifically because the organization does not communicate the need for change effectively -- the people see the disruptive aspects of change but they don't understand the motivation behind the change nor the objectives of the change. In such situations, they may resist, but had the communication surrounding the change been better might not have resisted.

However, not all change is positive from the perspective of all people. What business executives and managers see as positive might be negative, and in such cases resistance can be entirely legitimate in nature. If people are losing their jobs, or if their roles shift to the point where they feel that they no longer have the right skill set for the work that they are being asked to do, they might resist. This is often tied to self-interest, because the change is negative for that particular individual or group of individuals. In a company like FedEx, which is generally stable, roles tend not to change much, so there is definitely risk that change can bring about these types of negative responses.

The change plan that I wish to enact will focus on making FedEx more proactive, and it will ultimately lead us towards the future. This is likely to meet resistance on a few fronts. First, the organization has been fairly hierarchical in terms of its power structure, owing to Fred Smith's background in the Marines. Shifting away from that will reduce the power of certain individuals, whose power to this point was largely based on tenure. I want to provide opportunities for talent to rise on the basis more of merit than the basis of time served. Resistance will come from those who will lose power under the new plan. This is more likely at the managerial levels, which is critical because those are the people who need to implement the changes.

Another cause for resistance will be that my change plan demands a higher level of personal responsibility. My perception is that there are many people within the organization that are floating. Performance measure are largely based on historical precedent, which means people only need to perform to the level of their past performance. But such an approach does not drive excellence. By implementing more proactive performance measures, I believe that the organization will be better equipped going forward to meet the challenges of the future. But part of the plan is specifically to identify underperformers and either raise their level or to encourage them to move on. That is going to upset many people, especially those who have grown accustomed to poor habits, and those whose skill set is ill-suited to the performance level being asked of them.

A final cause for resistance will come from the fact that the change is really seen as something that has no motivation. This is where communication will be important. I am envisioning a change that is proactive. Most people really only see the need for change when there is a crisis, when something isn't working. My intent is to start to change the mindset of the organization with respect to change, so that proactive change is the norm. FedEx has historically been somewhat reactive to change, for example responding to economic shifts with restructuring, but the objective now is to make FedEx more proactive in terms of strategy, and repositioning the organization to take on this mindset.

There are a few things that can be done to minimize the resistance. The first thing is to communicate the change effectively. The communication should be personal if possible -- for example the CEO would deliver a presentation or video for the company. Most communication to the workforce flows through regional or station managers, so communication from Memphis would convey quite clearly the importance of the change, because such direct communication from the top is rare in FedEx.

There are good reasons for the change, but not everybody is going to understand those reasons inherently, so the entire thought process should be laid out, in simple terms, so that everybody understands why the change is happening. This is a way of getting the organization used to the idea that change is coming. The communication plan, however, has to be over the entire course of the change. This reinforces the initial message, it allows for people to see how the different changes on the ground link back to the overall strategic goals, and it allows for people to see the little victories along the way.

The third way to reduce resistance through communication is to ensure that communication is a two-way flow. Employees need to be engaged in the change process -- maybe not at the highest conceptual levels but they will be able to provide insight as to how at the ground level changes can be implemented to be better, or at least less painful. If people at the top of the organization are implementing ground level changes, not only are these likely to be worse but they are likely to leave the rest of the organization feeling disengaged from the process (Heathfield, 2016). Change is done by the organization, not to it, and that is why two-way communication flow is critical. In a company like FedEx, a lot of ground level jobs will not actually change much, but nevertheless it is important for people to see themselves as engaged not just with where the company has been, but where it is going.

The plan will contribute to minimizing change in a couple of ways. First, the two-way flow of information helps to engage the workforce. Their input will be important in a couple of ways where implementation is concerned. First, their input will help implementation be better, because they understand the ground level better than the members of the executive team. Second, they will alert us to the pain points, especially the unanticipated ones. These pain points are worth considering because people fear the unknown. If they know that they can communicate such pain points and will be listened to, that reduces fear. Further, it helps managers implement change in the most effective way possible -- nobody expects the process to be perfect but as an organization we have to be responsive to people's needs where possible because we need to maintain their buy-in (Quast, 2012). It's just a matter of respect.

The other way that my plan will contribute to minimizing resistance is that by rolling out the change regularly, with small guideposts and little victories celebrated along the way, the entire organization can see the value in the change. Where things may be uncomfortable, people can have a clearer sense of the benefits of that pain -- that any issues relating to the change are actually worth it because we are enjoying wins, and working towards our ultimate goals. This long-run reinforcement is one of the important elements to ensure that change sticks long after the process has begun, and the urgency has started to wane (Calder, 2013). Waning urgency has to be warded off, because most people will just go about their daily jobs without thinking change -- the messaging has to be repeated early and often for it to stick in a more conservative working environment like FedEx.

The first communication strategy is to have a clear centralized message. As noted, messaging from head office is rare, so it is a powerful tool for Fred Smith to argue for the change. Indeed, without a push from the top the change has no chance of sticking. This type of messaging is important to establish the urgency and validity of the change. The second communication is the plan for repeated messaging, for example something like monthly updates on the change. The updates would focus both on high level changes, success stories but also prepare employees for changes that are coming to their jobs or stations. This is effective in keeping the change front and center, as well as engaging employees and reinforcing the need for change. The third approach is to have local managers become change champions. This approach puts more of a direct human face on the change, but also facilitates the two-way flow of the change as well.

I recommend that in addition to the other things, local station managers become engaged as champions of the change. These are the bosses that employees see every day, and they are the ones who can provide the opportunity for two-way communication flow about the change. Engagement needs to come from all levels of the organization, and buy-in at the station management level will be essential to ensuring that all employees buy in as well.