By-Monika Sinha

Effective Communication & Change Management Case Study

E F F E C T I V E C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D C H A N G E M A N A G E M E N T C A S E S T U D Y

The rate of failure of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) has been variously estimated at anything between 50 and 75 per cent. Much has been written about the failure rates in M&A and the reasons for the failure. However, taking into account the huge communication and cultural challenges of a merger, it is perhaps surprising that so many succeed. Employee’s work at XYZ ltd. was important to them. It provided them not only with their income but a large part of their social identity. Work provided them (usually) with companionship, and even friendship, and it was where people learnt new skills and experiment with new ways of doing things and relating to people.

When XYZ Ltd changed its identity by merger with ABC ltd, the problem stroked at the heart of the identity and loyalty that people had built up for XYZ Ltd, as managers and professionals in particular had been urged to donate their discretionary effort to the organization as a cause which they can feel proud to be part of. There was an emotional connection which went beyond a purely transactional relationship. XYZ Ltd Merged with ABC Ltd by Integration attempting to use the “best of both” from the organizations. The plan here was to have a single new company but for neither of the organizations automatically to dominate the new entity.

People therefore understandably resented those who made the decisions– inevitably in secret – which had deprived them of the organization they identified with. E.g.: Imagine if the Prime Minister of the UK made a secret deal to merge the country with France. The reasons may be excellent, but many people would feel resentful and betrayed, even if they acknowledged the logic. They feared about job security, career advancement and ongoing levels of benefits associated with the merger. Majorly the senior person was threatened by these realistic fears. This, then, was the emotional climate in which much of the internal communicator’s work had to be done. The risk of change was seen as greater than the risk of standing still. People genuinely believed that the integration was a bad idea”.

Ideal communication strategies in situations of such a change had to attend the message, the method of delivery, the timing, and the importance of information shared with the employees and other stakeholders of the organization. Many leaders at XYZ Ltd. believed that if they tell people what they (the leaders) feel they needed to know about the change, then everyone will be on board and ready to move forward. But in reality, people needed to understand why the change is being made, but more importantly, how the change is likely to affect them. A big picture announcement from the CEO did little to help people understand and accept change. People wanted to hear about the merger from their direct supervisor. By planning and dealing with these three areas thoroughly, carefully, and sensitively, people were motivated to implement the change and adapt to drive organizational excellence far more readily and supportively. Nickols’ writes that, “it is often a person who is not responsible for results, who typically ask the questions; perhaps that is why people don’t see the point of change”.

XYZ Ltd knew that the natural leaders and communicators were those who had the largest stake, financially or emotionally, in the old regime. These were the people to whom others listened. These communicators needed to establish relationships with all the employees at different stages and it would helpful if they can understand the drivers that motivate these people.

Key internal players:- Who are they and what are their preoccupations?- What sort of listening they need to do?- What employees are thinking and saying.- The cost of getting it wrong.

Role of Communication Specialists: Senior communication advisers had a role in helping leaders of the

organization frame their communications to the various important audiences, both internal and external. In their view they had another important role, which rose from their closeness to these various stakeholders: ability to represent the stakeholders’ likely views and reactions to the organization’s leaders. This position also gave them the opportunity to ask questions with a pseudo external voice. It means that they could in some ways play the role of

devil’s advocate and ask the simple and big questions at a time when the rest of the leadership team might be supporting each other in a “groupthink” way, avoiding potential conflict within the team by failing to expose shortcomings in arguments or holes in assumptions.

Communication specialists were the one who shared the responsibility for strategizing and planning the change management program. They had to spread a positive message about the coming change. They had be the ones to clear all doubts of the employees. They had to answer the questions like why change is happening, what are the risks of not changing, why change is happening now, etc. They also informed employees about the personal impacts of the change - how will this merger impact their day-to-day work, how will it impact their group. But the real scenario was quite different. Employees not wanted to hear from HR, or a communications specialist, or the project leader or the change management consultant. They wanted to hear from someone at the top and the person they report to. So, the responsibility of Communication specialist was to enable themselves as the preferred senders to deliver these messages. They can segment the audience, create talking points, build presentations and even schedule communication events, but the messages should be delivered by the Main Change Agent.

Questions:

1. What would the organization have done if they had planned the change management before?

2. How did the Communication specialists help Change Agents? How can HR work as change agent in developing organizational excellence?