Communicating change Professor Leif Åberg University of Helsinki, Department of Communication third session, Amsterdam, April 1999

Contents zissues so far discussed ymodels & tools yopen questions zfirst comments on the 1st assignment zcommmunicating change zwhat next?

Issues so far discussed zmodels y”kleuterschool model” ypizza model ykite model ztools ycore story y3 x 3 x 3 -diagram

Total communi- cations external market- ing inter- nal mar- ket- ing work instruct- ions induction to work induction to organization internal PR & scanning external PR & scanning product/ sercives profile & surveys coprporate/ manager profile & surveys External social networks Internal grapevine

Åberg’s Kite LEGITI- MACY CORPORATE CULTURE GROUP DYNAMICS INDIVIDUAL DYNAMICS BUSINESS IDEA, MISSION STRATEGY GROUP AND TEAM GOALS TASKS COMMUNICATIONCOMMUNICATION MANI- FESTAT- ION OF VISION SCAN- NING COM- MUNI- CAT- ING CHAN- GE VISION

Visioning as a process

evolution crisis time

evolution tasaisen kasvun kausi crisis kriisi ? time present

evolution tasaisen kasvun kausi crisis kriisi time present ?

evolution crisis ? time present !

evolution crisis ? present ”good old times” ”times of turbulence” time

? same planning period shorterwider ”times of turbulence” time present ”good old times” evolution crisis evolution

”times of turbulence” time present ”good old times” evolution crisis evolution

”times of turbulence” time present ”good old times” Vision, or THE palm islands

Communications tools: crisis communications ”times of turbulence” time present ”good old times” Vision, or THE palm islands

Scanning Trends Random fluctuation Environ- mental responses to our actions ”times of turbulence” time present ”good old times” Vision, or THE palm islands

time present ”good old times” ”times of turbulences” Vision, or THE palm islands Visionary!  Good heritage 

Manifestation of vision zthe people should be able to see themselves in the vision when Martin Luther King once said ”I have a dream” and when hundreds of thousands of people listened to that, moved, they did not think: ”this Martin, what a great vision he has”, but saw themselves as a part of that vision, and it was this that emotionally shook them z”sharp on edges, blurred in the center” zvision is deliberately blurred, yet it shows the direction

Vision zvision creates a harmonic link between what the personnel values and what the customers value (Rowley ja Roevens) xHenry Ford: ”I want to make cars that every American worker can afford to buy” zvision is a state of future events, not a fata morgana, nor an electric rabbit zit describes the future state of events and our position there (if any!)

zfirst the simplified model: ythe core story, and ystrategic key messages zthen the mission statement

Mission statement zshould be a brief, clear statement of ythe reasons for an organization’s existence, yits purpose(s), ythe function(s) it performs, yits primary customer base, and ythe primary methods through which it will fulfill its purpose(s) (Goodstein, L., Nolan, T. and Pfeiffer, J.W., Applied Strategic Planning. New York 1993)

To develop a mission statement, organizations must answer these basic questions: 1What function(s) do we perform? 2For whom do we perform these functions? 3How do we fulfill these functions? 4Why do we do all this? (Goodstein, L., Nolan, T. and Pfeiffer, J.W., Applied Strategic Planning. New York 1993)

time Balance Transformation ControlChaos EnhancePerturb AttractExcite Task centered change Communicating change

A dynamic model of organizational change Revolution: VISION Evolution: VALUES Balance Transformation ControlChaos Enhance Perturb AttractExcite Task centered change Robin M. Rowley & Joseph J. Roevens: Organize with Chaos. Lint 1996

Rowley ja Roevens argue, that zwhen the environment is in a state of rapid and unforeseeable change, the organization can best react to these conditions if internal, shared values guide the behavior of the personnel zthe customers’ values play the crucial role here: they should be the ultimate guide

Bringing about change á la Rowley & Roevens

Enhance: create an atmosphere that enhances risk taking, cooperation, and self-organizing behavior zenhance risk taking and self-organizing behavior zmanifestation of vision zkey strategic concepts zallow experimenting z stress the value of customerhip, service, and competition z define and surface internal values z enhance free cooperation and communication z create a constructive feedback system

Perturb: ”shake” the organization out of its current orbit: create a controlled state of uncertainty -> self- organization begins zabandon old status symbols, rituals and rules zemphasize positive criticism zemphasize open communications at all levels zquestion old ways: ask ’why’ and ’what if’ z pick to the front line the ”true rebels” z throw in ”impossible” professional challenges and make them ”pro- jects of national pride” z use benchmarking and scanning to detect signals of change

Attract: bring about emotional commitment, in order to produce the critical mass needed for change zmotivate and bring about commitment zask all the time the synergic groups to argue and to reason their new ways of doing things z enhance new symbols and rituals, created by synergic groups z use creative problem solution techniques

Excite: create an emotional state that excites people, this gradually leads to a higher level of order zcreate excitement over things being done ”the new way” zallow outbreaks, bursts of excellence zreward top performance z tell stories about top teams and synergy z bury with dignity old ways of doing things z make the new ways of doing things part of the new vision

time present ”good old times” ”times of turbulence” Vision, or THE palm islands RP&B Tools for directing the change: ”rolling” planning and budgeting

zin order to survive in an environment desribed earlier, the organization has to be adaptive, knowing and learning

Knowing organization (Choo) zThe knowing organisation possesses information and knowledge so that it is well informed, mentally perceptive, and enlightened zIts actions are based on shared and valid understanding of the organization’s environments and needs Choo, Chun Wei: The Knowing Organization. New York 1998

zBy managing information resources and information processes, the knowing organization is able to yadapt itself in a timely and effective manner to internal and external changes yengage in continuous organizational learning ymobilize the knowledge and expertise of its members to induce innovation and creativity yfocus its understanding and knowledge on reasoned, decisive action

conversion processing Action The knowing organization Choo, C.W., The Knowing Organization. New York 1998 information interpretation

Sense-making processes Environmental change EnactmentSelectionRetention Choo, C.W., The Knowing Organization. New York 1998

Knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi) zknowledge creation in organizations is achieved through a recognition of the synergistic relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York 1995

ztacit knowledge is personal knowledge that is hard to formalize or communicate to others: zsubjective know-how, insights, and intuitions z explicit knowledge is formal knowledge that is easy to transmit between individuals and groups: z mathematical formulas, rules, specifications, research reports

explicit tacit explicit INTERNALIZATION COMBINATIONEXTERNALIZATION SOCIALIZATION COMBINATION specialists analyze data From explicit to explicit INTERNALIZATION ”meester” adapts From explicit to tacit SOCIALIZATION ”meester” guids ”gezel” From tacit to tacit EXTERNALIZATION ”meester’s” work is modelled From tacit to explicit Knowledge creation Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York 1995

explicit tacit explicit INTERNALIZATION COMBINATIONEXTERNALIZATION SOCIALIZATION Knowledge creation Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York 1995 specialists analyze data ”meester” guids ”gezel” ”meester’s” work is modelled ”meester” adapts

The knowing cycle streams of experience Sense making shared meanings Knowledge creating Decision making new knowledge, capabilities goal-directed, adaptive behavior Choo, C.W., The Knowing Organization. New York 1998

The knowing cycle streams of experience Sense making shared meanings Knowledge creating Decision making new knowledge, capabilities goal-directed, adaptive behavior scanning latency Choo, C.W., The Knowing Organization. New York 1998

Latency zthe time between the observation of those weak signals that have to be taken into account and the execution of decisions made on the basis of these signals

years ”the one who knew” travelled months transportation means weeks mail messengers days telegraph hours telefax, telephone 0 new information technology zero latency enterprises

Zero latency enterprise za concept created by Gartner group zan organization with instant, real-time decision making za theoretical concept, similar to the concept of absolute zero temperature za zero-latency enterprise has to possess tolerance for erratic decisions

What next?

communi- cation strategy culturestructure LEGITI- MACY CORPORATE CULTURE GROUP DYNAMICS INDIVIDUAL DYNAMICS BUSINESS IDEA, MISSION STRATEGY GROUP AND TEAM GOALS TASKS COMMUNICATIONCOMMUNICATION MANI- FESTAT- ION OF VISION SCAN- NING COM- MUNI- CAT- ING CHAN- GE VISION Total communi- cations External social networks Internal grapevine contingency models models by Schein, Hoofstede, etc.

A contingency model of organization zthere is not the one best way to organize zthe organization has to adapt for external and internal factors zthese factors are called contingency factors, or situational factors yexternal: stability, compexity, and diversity of the environment, etc. yinternal: production technology, size, etc.

a close fit A Contingency Analysis of Organizational Communications Environmental factors Structural factors Other factors Ind & group factors Management factors Establishment and structuring of the communications system Effectiveness of communications Åberg and Moisala, 1980