« Change: People Can Handle The Truth | Main | Language Matters: 5 Tips To Make Things Happen »


Frode H

Involve the employees seem to be a keyword here. The latter involves them, invite them to talk and probably will end up with a group of people that have sorted out their questions, gotten their new directions and found a way out of it together. The first group will probably be holding unanswered questions, creating uncertainty and resentment. And they will also be negative against the leaders of the company for making bad decisions. The first group will also be without a common goal and work shattered to protect their own job. All managers and leaders should read about change before ever finding themselves in this position. One of my first ever read leadership books was about change. I knew then that nothing was changing right now, but hey, chances are BIG that they will, and they have twice in a year. The first days after change are essential for success.

Steve Roesler


Good advice for new managers. In fact, things are changing all the time for managers; some are simply much larger than others, eh?

Chris Witt

The second leader you quote used "I," "we," and "you" well. He made his remarks sound like a conversation, an honest sharing of thoughts and feelings. I like how he spoke about his feelings and proposals without making himself the focus of his speech.

And I love -- and absolutely agree with -- Watterson's quote. (Bring back Calvin & Hobbs!).


Becky Robinson

I definitely agree that I would respond better to the second speaker. He seemed to be empathetic to his listener's response. I liked the way he invited his listeners to a dialogue about the changes within the organization instead of just announcing changes. I think the second speaker portrays well his commitment to the team process.

Steve Roesler


Your note of the "I, We, You" and conversational style underscore the psychological and relational elements that made #2's meeting a lot more relaxed and immediately productive.

What was interesting was that no one really balked at #1 because he had a lot of credibility and--(and this is important)--his announcement was very true to his working style. As a result, people new he was "being real". The deeper impact is the speed with which the needed improvements are happening. The second person's style allowed the problem-solving/solution process to get underway and get ownership immediately.

BTW: We have every Calvin & Hobbs book sitting on the coffee table and never, ever tire of re-reading:-)

Steve Roesler


Didn't he do an effective job of both inviting and listening? And I hadn't really recognized specifically that it showed a commitment to team process. Thanks for the additional underlying factor.

Bill Lynch

Frankly, I thought both approaches were effective in delivering a tough message. In contrast, my former company's CEO chose to say absolutely nothing, nada, zilch after they laid off key senior executives and 15% of the workforce. That was three weeks ago and the remaining employees are still in the dark about the reasons for the downsizing and the future plans for the company.

C&H forever!

Steve Roesler


Actually, both approaches worked worked quite well. The reason? Both of the execs were being who they were and recognized who needed more direction and who was closer to the solutions than he was at that point.

Thanks for stopping by and taking time to add your experience...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Steve Roesler, Principal & Founder
The Steve Roesler Group
Office: 609.654.7376
Mobile: 856.275.4002

Enter your name and email address to receive your copy of my coaching eGuide.

Human Resources Today
Business Blogs



  • View Steve Roesler's profile on LinkedIn
Personal Growth from SelfGrowth.com

Get Updates via RSS Feed

  • Enter your email address in the yellow box for FREE daily updates

    Powered by FeedBlitz

Awards & Recognition...

  • Career 100
Alltop, all the top stories