Communicating change: Grey is the new black

One of the defining elements of today’s hyper-partisan environment is an insistence that there’s a single, correct point of view on any given topic. Gradations of opinion are seen as a sign of weakness; deviations from the party line are challenged and sanctioned. It’s a zero-sum mindset that is absolutely antithetical to communicating change.

Get to your goal – with empathy

The accepted wisdom around good change communication advises leaders to “chart a clear path” to where their organizations need to go. While no one would argue against clarity and direction, certainty about a destination needs to be leavened with empathy about the emotional path to get there; championing change requires no small measure of patience and flexibility.

Let’s say a company is recalibrating its business model, dispersing employees into new teams and eliminating a number of roles (a common scenario that I’ve experienced, and had to communicate, countless times). The reasoning behind these changes may be sound but their impact will be real – and likely to whip up strong currents of anxiety across the organization.   

Walking the thin grey line

How should the company’s executives and managers communicate the impending changes? If their position is something along the lines of “this is the greatest decision our firm has ever made,” they risk losing credibility; few decisions are that clear-cut. On the other hand, if leaders aren’t seen as fully supporting the rationale behind the decisions, clearly that will undermine how successfully they’re implemented.

The best approach is nuanced, explaining why the changes are needed, acknowledging – upfront and with genuine compassion – the near-term disruption they’ll cause, and then building in multiple opportunities for employees to get comfortable with the journey they’re being asked to make as they move along the change curve.  The key is allowing each person time to come to grips with what change will mean for them.

Grey doesn’t mean muddy

Nuance, in this context, is not inconsistent with clarity and focus. It doesn’t mean weakening or watering down the message; rather, it recognizes the difference between the objectives for change and the process by which these are achieved. 

Nuance acknowledges complexity and springs from a fundamental empathy with those you’re trying to reach. It embodies an audience-centric approach to strategic communication – recognizing that people absorb change differently, at different rates and for different reasons.

That goes for leaders as well, who are often impacted by the very change they’re instigating, even as they’re expected to be its forceful advocates.  In 2008, when my former company, The Thomson Corporation, was in the process of acquiring Reuters – a $17B deal impacting 50,000 employees around the world – my team questioned me about the underlying strategy and anxiously asked if they’d have jobs when the transaction was completed.

My response was that while I had concerns – and was unsure about my own prospects as well! – I agreed with the basic rationale for the acquisition. Being open about my own apprehension, while still supporting the broad changes underway, let some steam out of the kettle and helped us all stay focused and productive.

The takeaway: Patience, honesty, empathy

So, what’s the lesson for leaders? Not everyone is comfortable paying more than lip service to the disruptions inherent with major change. But (as any parent knows), while it’s possible to mandate behavior, the real and more enduring measure of success comes from evolving hearts and minds as well. That requires a thoughtful application of the old adage about walking in a person’s shoes – and adapting the message accordingly.