Posts RSSIt’s not you, it’s me…
Flickr photo credit: Inner-Chan
Oh the trials of incompatible communication styles. The weeping and wailing, the gnashing of teeth.
I’ve had a few managers talk to me in recent days about frustrations they are having in introducing new ideas and programs in their businesses. When questioned further as to what is going on, they are using very collaborative attempts to include team members in discussions about preferred futures.
Their attempts at inclusive conversations are being met with scorn and overt attempts to undermine them. The prevailing attitude is “if you are asking me, you must not understand what you are doing, and not worthy of your title“.
These conversations have taken me back to the final chapters of my doctoral thesis. My research looked at how different communication models impacted on how employees felt and thought about change. One of the findings was it didn’t matter what communication model you used, if there was not a fit between the employees’ communicative expectations and the communicators competences, effective change communication was unlikely.
So if your employees are expecting a manager to tell them what to do, and be autocratic, and you come in with an inclusive and dialogue driven approach to change, you can communicate all you like, but it won’t be effective.
That’s not to say that you can’t build the competencies of the employees to include the ability to have constructive conversations, but it doesn’t happen by osmosis. Well not in a hurry.
And of course the reverse is true, if you come into an organisation that possesses strong dialogic competencies, and you take a monologic approach to your change communication (top down, information focused), you will be just as ineffective.
Ultimately the responsibility lies with you, if you are the one wanting to initiate the change. It’s not them, it’s you.
I guess cultural anthropologists would argue that it dates back to primal tribalism - the need to identify if the newcomer is ‘one of us’ or a threat. If you are not communicating the way the tribe does, you are a threat. But would the champions of diversity argue? How do we foster the requisite respect for diversity in thought, communication style and behaviour that is said the be required for continuous change?
As change agents we are used to the importance of perceived compatibility in the change efforts - “the new system is just like the one you are using, but with x/y/z added”. But are we putting as much attention on the importance of compatible communication efforts with the very people we are wishing to introduce the change to. Just a thought…
Note: for an overview of the theoretical concepts of the research see “Developing communicative competencies for a learning organization“, published in the Journal of Management Development (2006)
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Great post, Jennifer.
It really resonates for me right now - I find I’m having to think consciously about communication styles & content in my current role, to make what I’m doing / saying / presenting suitable for my multifarious audiences. After years of relying on my gut instincts for success this is quite a challenge!
AmandaBC
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
It’s a good thought. Different expectations and lack of clarity about the decision making process account for a good deal of conflict. Stating the obvious can make a real difference. Thanks.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Hi Jennifer
This has really got me thinking.
Of course I know about different styles of communicating, (it’s just the basics, really - right?) but this post has resonated with some recent events in my business.
The penny just dropped for me that we don’t actually know how our employees are expecting to be communicated with. Pretty fundamental, hey.
Here I am, as a communications professional spruiking open, transparent, two-way discussion, and pushing back on managers who prefer an autocratic, top down approach - but is this really what our people expect? Guess I’d better find out!
Thanks for another informative post.
Susan
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:09 am
Very interesting observations Jennifer. Thank you.
One thing I came to recognise, as an executive and later as a consultant, was that while many of us relish change and are not unduly perturbed by the risk, there are many in the workforce who, when they hear “change”, hear job loss, mortgage default, angry spouse, cranky children. For executive types, “change” can signal opportunity, promotion, increased pay, or maybe if it all goes pear-shaped trying another career path.
And picking up on Susan’s comments, “open, transparent, two-way discussion” signals for some with institutional memory “Yeah, remember what happened to the last person who told the managers what needed to be changed?” On a par with “my door is always open” (”and which one of us do you think is dumb enough to disturb you in your office with the door always open?”).
My personal view is that the onus is on managers to have or develop the emotional maturity to be able to demonstrate that they can take criticism on the chin and then have the courage to follow up real gravamina with higher authorities, so that the air can be cleared and then the real conversation can happen.
Too easy to blame the broader workforce. A wise coach of mine was given to saying that most people do not go to work wanting to do a bad job. And I would add, or work for a dysfunctional organisation.
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:15 am
Amanda, Susan, Robert and Des, thank you all for your thoughtful comments.
Des, I couldn’t agree more - and you have prompted some thoughts for future posts, thank you. Institutional memory is a powerful force (for good and bad). I think a lot of the original intent behind democratic organisational practice got badly done over by managers who lacked in emotional maturity, courage and communicative wisdom.
Just as it’s easy to blame the broader workforce, its easy to demonise the managers who just haven’t evolved that fast. Bit of reflection never hurt any one huh? Susan and Amanda we look to you to lead the way!
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:27 am
Ah if I’d known then what I know now I would have led and been led much better!
April 21st, 2010 at 4:40 am
[…] had some light shed on this experience through one of Jennifer Frahm’s posts, “It’s not you, it’s me.” In this post, Jennifer refers to her own research which examines the impact of different […]
July 27th, 2010 at 6:34 am
[…] markets as conversations, and various models and dialogues put forward by the likes of change guru Jennifer Frahm and the learned folk over at Park […]