The dogs bark but the caravan moves on - Blair McPherson

Something new comes over the horizon and the alarm goes up. But is it a genuine threat? A quick check reveals there is nothing to be concerned about , this time. Change will always provoke concern and criticism but progress moves on. 

In organisations the noisy response to something new on the horizon should not be assumed to be resistance to change but a natural expression of concern. It’s wise to check it out just in case it does pose a real threat but then the voices can be calmed by reassurances. 

 

Whether it’s new ways of working or the introduction of new technology it will attract concern. How smooth the process is depends on how much confidence employees have in senior managers and how reassured  those raised voices feel. 

An organisation that wishes to embrace change, to be agile needs to establish a relationship of mutual trust between employee and senior management. Trust sufficiently robust to withstand stand the pressure and stress of continual change. 

 

Rather than list the ways organisations can gain the trust of employees I think it is more helpful to look at how organisations lose the trust and confidence of their employees since people don’t start of distrusting senior management but come to this view through experience.

 

Trust is fragile and easily lost a single incident of betrayal  can override many positive interactions. Trusts erodes over time due to negative experiences. A small number of cynical employees can make can make the majority question their faith in what senior managers say.

 

 Senior managers are often accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency. It can appear that the values the leadership claim are so important to how the organisation operates are ignored in favour of short term gains or in response to budget pressures. 

 

Employees often sight this hypocrisy as the reason they don’t trust senior management for example the supposed strong commitment to EDI and yet employees experience of sexism, racism or homophobia. Senior managers are often accused of being more concerned with the reputation of the organisation than addressing the standard and quality of service. At the same time as claiming to be an open and transparent organisation.Employees often have a cynical response when senior managers make public statements insist budget cuts will have a minimal  impact on services. Recent moves to force employee to return to the office 5 days a week have been have highlighted trust issues. The impression has been created in some organisations that privately they think employees have been abusing the arrangement but publicly they claim the move back is better for support and team spirit. Employees think that when it suited the organisation they were required to work from home and sold the idea of greater flexibility now they are told being in the office is better for their well-being. Another example would be the statements by senior management about taking employee health and well-being seriously whilst at the same time increasing the pressure to hit over ambitious performance targets. 

 

Whilst organisations put a lot of effort and thought into communications when they want to make controversial or unpopular changes often is all too often within a context where the day to day running of the organisation lacks transparency. Senior managers can appear reluctant to open up or unsure what they can share. A tendency to close down debate and discussion increases the suspicion that information is being held back , as a result rumours can fill the information gap.

 

If the organisation has not previously shown any concern for the health and well-being of employees then they may think any proposed changes in working practices or mergers are unlikely to be concerned about the impact on individuals. 

 

Where a blame culture exists people don’t trust management not to blame them when things go wrong. Similarly if the managment culture is to micro manage then the organisation has already sent out a message that employees are not to be trusted and must be closely monitiored. We have seen the true colours of some organisation when they have given the reasons why employees must now return to the office when previously it suited the organisation for people to work from home.

 

Most organisations seek employee feedback through mechanisms such as annual/bimanual surveys or focus groups  but what do they do with unfavourable or negative feedback? I have been present when senior management teams have received this feedback and the initial response to negative feedback is often,”Well they would say that wouldn’t they” the implication that this is a reaction to unpopular decisions, budget cuts, or unwelcome changes rather than a genuine concern about communication, blame, and a lack of trust. 

 

There is another factor, the general belief in senior management that employees don’t understand that the organisation’s prioritise are not all equal and some conflict. Senior managers have to manage this conflict which employees may perceive as hypocrisy. That senior management have the big picture whereas employees understandably don’t see beyond their own team and service. 

 

So I think that rather than tinkering with the communication strategy, making a conscious effort to move away from a blame culture and showing more concern for the  health and well-being of employees , a more radical approach is required. 

 

Which is to encourage a debate within the whole organisation as opposed to just within the leadership team about priorities and big picture. Yes this would be a challenge and some employees would take the view that they don’t need to know but it would help employees understand the context. I did something similar when I worked in local government 

 

 I found employees including team leaders and managers frequently accused councillors of being hypocritical because they would vote in support of a strategy and then lead a local campaign against it! They were failing to appreciate that councillors wear many hats, they are a member of a political party and are expected to support the parties polices and strategies, they are also the representatives of local people and expected to advocate on their behalf. So the individual can support the parties environmental strategy to reduce the use of land fill sites but also lead a local campaign against the building of an industrial incinerator in their area. Locality managers would complain that the local councillor would contact them on behalf of a constituent who had been turn down for a service asking them to reconsider the decision to which the manager would say the individual did not meet the council’s criteria ( the same revised criteria this councillor have previously voted for!) . 

 

I ran a one day course for employees explaining the role of councillors in local government why they may appear hypocritical at times and how they try and resolve competing priories like improving services and  living within a reduced budget and the bigger picture they operate within that is central government requirements 

 

The course was popular with employees and councillors. I think other organisations could increase levels of trust by doing something similar about the role of senior managers and board members. 

 

Blair McPherson former Director author and blogger www.blairmcpherson.com