Announcing Changes and Making Connections

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles but no personality."--Albert Einstein

 I've watched two different executives at two different corporations make brief speeches about serious, impending changes at their companies. Both were sincere about wanting to connect with their respective organizations.  Here are excerpts from each:

#1:

"I want to let you know of the changes our executive group has designed to make our company more viable going forward. As you know, our profitability has been shrinking over the past four years. We have the ability to turn that around, and our shareholders deserve no less. As a result, here is what I plan to implement beginning immediately": (List of items)

#2

"You are all here today for training and development. But I just found out a little more about what we've expected for some time now--that we need to change the way we approach our business in order to ensure the future of ____________, our work and relationships here, and the critical services that we provide for our 300,000 customers--some of which you know personally. The most drastic changes will involve laying off about 100 of our 5,000 employees.  So I want to use some of this time to tell you how I'm feeing about that; how I feel about the future of this company;  and what I believe we need to do together.

When I'm finished, let's sit down together and simply talk for a while. We've come through a lot together over the years so we'll work through this, too. So let's get started..."

Both executives spoke the truth.

The second one--from observation--generated the more positive (Yep, let's do it!) response in the end.

"Oddly, the more personal something is, the more universal it is as well. When we dig deeper into truthful experiences, that's the work that really touches people and connects us all."--Bill Watterson, creator of the cartoon series Calvin & Hobbs

We're all different, so I'm curious to know which one would have connected, grabbed your commitment, and why?

Comments

[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]

Frode,

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!).

Chris

[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]

Chris,

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]

Becky,

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]

Bill,

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...