The phrase, Change Management, is used in a few different ways – changes to contracts, project changes, and change which directly impact people, employees. This posting is intended to talk about the leadership needed in change management related to its impact on people. As a method for sharing the thoughts and approach we’ll share how a closure of a facility may be handled. Unfortunately, over the past few decades we’ve had to lead communication on closing locations for many reasons including an acquired company which was being consolidated into the purchasing company, shifting operating locations to improve redundancy or stability, or just the loss of a large, key client. The thoughts and actions here could just as easily apply to a reduction of staff at a location which will continue but with less people.
The first and most important thing to consider in my humble opinion is how the change being planned affects people. Not just their jobs, but also their lives, their families, and even, potentially, their identity of self. Losing a job is often frustrating, humbling, scary, and creates huge uncertainties. Many companies and management only focus on what’s best for their company, its bottom line, and risk management. That last one is usually a key driver, risk management. We’ve seen so many downsizings and closures where the management lacks experience and understanding of the impact on the people aspect and expend most of their focus on how to keep the people being released from causing harm to the company. In other words, they are driven by fear to plan and manage their communications and actions.
We advise any leader involved in downsizing to not just think about releasing the people affected. How the company handles those releases will communicate loudly to all the people who are retained by the company and still working. When they see the last minute, walk-to-the-door lay-off they become fearful of what’s next. Will they suddenly be surprised some day? Poor communications and lack of compassion leads to deep seeded fear and uncertainty for remaining staff. It also creates an air of distrust that is hard to overcome, like an ugly cycle.
The approach outlined below has a few important elements. First, lead with trust including people being released unless an individual demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness. If management thinks they’re protecting their IP but being secretive and sudden, then they ensure some remaining staff will start making copies and preparing to walk away with IP, since the result is strong distrust and fear. Second, think about the messaging which may be best to share from the perspective of the person(s) being released and be compassionate in how you communicate. Third, plan communications to cascade from higher management to the next level and the next level and finally to the directly affected people. Think about the order of teams to communicate as part of the communication roll-out. Fourth, create messaging points which are core to all but some message points specific to each layer of management as it relates to the affected people. Be specific on who is affected, what day, what will they receive in compensation, what actions they must take (some companies require a signed release form and return of equipment before cutting the final check, for example, according to your legal team’s guidance) Fifth, keep the communication timeline short, ideally within one day, but certainly no more than two days. I’ve communicated large reductions or shutdowns in less than two days and many within the same day. Make no mistake, this aggressive timeline will likely mean having many meetings and long hours. Sixth and lastly, try to provide early notice just as you would expect when someone resigns. We recommend to at least provide a two week notice but we prefer to communicate as soon as we know the decision is made and what actions we’re taking. In one case we closed a 250-person call center and communicated the closure six months ahead. That approach required having the other centers staffing up and ready in case we lost more people faster than intended but it worked well. We wanted to ensure the message delivered was consistent, had a personal touch in face-to-face sessions so one senior leader conducted all 14 communication sessions personally in the same day for this 24/7 call center. Oh yea, don’t have more than 25, preferably 15, people in any one session. Larger groups of people can move from a personal communication to a mob event. I violated my rule on that once which reminded me why I had the rule.
In our experience when you show trust, when you’re open about what’s coming, and you communicate honestly and with compassion even those losing their jobs may not be happy, but they understand. They also appreciate the early warning and notice which allows them to prepare for that change. Most importantly is the effect this kinder approach has on all associates who are still employed after the reduction and watch how you handle the reduction or closure. They are more likely to trust, and they don’t feel that paralyzing uncertainty of what’s next. They can feel confident any effect to their own job will be well handled.
One more parting thought, approach major changes which affect people both those directly affected and those on the sidelines watching is based on trust and compassion rather than fear and protection of the company’s rights. Please remember how we handle change as leaders affects more than just our workplace, it affects people’s lives and their families.
Follow me on LinkedIn.
Sign up to join my online community and receive monthly updates to your inbox! Click Here!
