Communicating change

Professor Leif ÅbergUniversity of Helsinki,

Department of Communicationthird session, Amsterdam, April 1999

Contents

issues so far discussed models & tools open questions

first comments on the 1st assignment

commmunicating changewhat next?

Issues so far discussed

models ”kleuterschool model” pizza model kite model

tools core story 3 x 3 x 3 -diagram

Totalcommuni-cations

externalmarket-

ing

inter-nalmar-ket-ing

work instruct-ions

inductionto work

induction toorganization

internalPR &scanning

externalPR &

scanning

product/ sercivesprofile & surveys

coprporate/ manager profile & surveys

Externalsocial

networks

Internalgrapevine

Åberg’s Kite

LEGITI-

MACY

CORPORATE

CULTUREGROUP DYNAM

ICS

INDIVIDUAL DYNAMICS

B

USINESS

IDEA, M

ISSIO

N

STRATEGY

GROUP AND

TEAM G

OALS

TASKS

COMMUNICATION

MANI-MANI-FESTAT-FESTAT-ION OFION OFVISIONVISION

SCAN-SCAN-NINGNING

COM-COM-MUNI-MUNI-CAT-CAT-INGINGCHAN-CHAN-GEGE

VISION

Visioning as a process

evolutionevolution

evolution

crisiscrisis

crisis

time

evolutionevolution

tasaisenkasvunkausi

crisis

kriisi

?

timepresent

evolutionevolution

tasaisenkasvunkausi

crisis

kriisi

timepresent

?

evolutionevolution

evolution

crisis

crisis

?

timepresent

!

evolutionevolution

crisis

?

present”good old times” ”times ofturbulence”

timetime

?

same planning period

shorter wider

”times ofturbulence”

timepresent”good old times”

evolutioncrisis

evolution

”times ofturbulence”

timepresent”good old times”

evolutioncrisis

evolution

”times ofturbulence”

timepresent”good old times”

Vision, orTHE palm

islands

Communications tools:crisis communications

”times ofturbulence”

timepresent”good old times”

Vision, orTHE palm

islands

ScanningTrends

Randomfluctuation

Environ-mental

responsesto ouractions

”times ofturbulence”

timepresent”good old times”

Vision, orTHE palm

islands

timepresent”good old times” ”times ofturbulences”

Vision, orTHE palm

islands

Visionary!

Good heritage

Manifestation of vision

the 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

”sharp on edges, blurred in the center”vision is deliberately blurred, yet it

shows the direction

Vision

vision creates a harmonic link between what the personnel values and what the customers value (Rowley ja Roevens)

Henry Ford: ”I want to make cars that every American worker can afford to buy”

vision is a state of future events, not a fata morgana, nor an electric rabbit

it describes the future state of events and our position there (if any!)

first the simplified model: the core story, and strategic key messages

then the mission statement

Mission statement

should be a brief, clear statement of the reasons for an organization’s existence, its purpose(s), the function(s) it performs, its primary customer base, and the 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:

1 What function(s) do we perform?2 For whom do we perform these

functions?3 How do we fulfill these functions?4 Why do we do all this?

(Goodstein, L., Nolan, T. and Pfeiffer, J.W., Applied Strategic Planning. New York 1993)

time

Balance

Transformation

Control Chaos

Enhance Perturb

AttractExcite

Task centered change

Communicating change

A dynamic model of organizational change

Revolution: VISION

Evolution: VALUES

Balance

Transformation

Control Chaos

Enhance Perturb

AttractExcite

Task centered change

Robin M. Rowley & Joseph J. Roevens:Organize with Chaos. Lint 1996

Rowley ja Roevens argue, that

when 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

the 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

enhance risk taking and self-organizing behavior

manifestation of vision

key strategic concepts

allow experimenting

stress the value of customerhip, service, and competition

define and surface internal values

enhance free cooperation and communication

create a constructive feedback system

Perturb:”shake” the organization out of its current orbit: create a controlled state of uncertainty -> self-organization begins

abandon old status symbols, rituals and rules

emphasize positive criticism

emphasize open communications at all levels

question old ways: ask ’why’ and ’what if’

pick to the front line the ”true rebels”

throw in ”impossible” professional challenges and make them ”pro-jects of national pride”

use benchmarking and scanning to detect signals of change

Attract:bring about emotional commitment, in order to produce the critical mass needed for change

motivate and bring about commitment

ask all the time the synergic groups to argue and to reason their new ways of doing things

enhance new symbols and rituals, created by synergic groups

use creative problem solution techniques

Excite:create an emotional state that excites people, this gradually leads to a higher level of order

create excitement over things being done ”the new way”

allow outbreaks, bursts of excellence

reward top performance

tell stories about top teams and synergy

bury with dignity old ways of doing things

make the new ways of doing things part of the new vision

timepresent”good old times” ”times ofturbulence”

Vision, orTHE palm

islands

20002001

2002

RP&B

Tools for directing the change:”rolling” planning and budgeting

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

Knowing organization (Choo)

The knowing organisation possesses information and knowledge so that it is well informed, mentally perceptive, and enlightened

Its actions are based on shared and valid understanding of the organization’s environments and needs

Choo, Chun Wei: The Knowing Organization. New York 1998

By managing information resources and information processes, the knowing organization is able to adapt itself in a timely and effective manner to

internal and external changes engage in continuous organizational learning mobilize the knowledge and expertise of its

members to induce innovation and creativity focus its understanding and knowledge on

reasoned, decisive action

conversion

processing

Action

The knowingorganization

Choo, C.W., The KnowingOrganization. New York 1998

informationinterpretation

Sense-making processes

Environmentalchange

Enactment Selection Retention

Choo, C.W., The KnowingOrganization. New York 1998

Knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi)

knowledge 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

tacit knowledge is personal knowledge that is hard to formalize or communicate to others:

subjective know-how, insights, and intuitions

explicit knowledge is formal knowledge that is easy to transmit between individuals and groups:

mathematical formulas, rules, specifications, research reports

explicit

tacit

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 explicitKnowledge creationNonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York 1995

explicit

tacit

tacit explicit

INTERNALIZATION

COMBINATIONEXTERNALIZATION

SOCIALIZATION

Knowledge creationNonaka, 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

Knowledgecreating

Decisionmaking

new knowledge,capabilities

goal-directed,adaptivebehavior

Choo, C.W., The KnowingOrganization. New York 1998

The knowing cycle

streams of experience

Sense making

shared meanings

Knowledgecreating

Decisionmaking

new knowledge,capabilities

goal-directed,adaptivebehavior

scanning

latency

Choo, C.W., The KnowingOrganization. New York 1998

Latency

the 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

monthstransportation means

weeksmail messengers

daystelegraph

hourstelefax, telephone

0new information technology

zero latency enterprises

Zero latency enterprise

a concept created by Gartner groupan organization with instant, real-time

decision makinga theoretical concept, similar to the

concept of absolute zero temperaturea zero-latency enterprise has to

possess tolerance for erratic decisions

What next?

communi-cation

strategy

culture structure

LEGITI-

MACY

CORPORATE

CULTUREGROUP DYNAM

ICS

INDIVIDUAL DYNAMICS

B

USINESS

IDEA, M

ISSIO

N

STRATEGY

GROUP AND

TEAM G

OALS

TASKS

COMMUNICATION

MANI-FESTAT-ION OFVISION

SCAN-NING

COM-MUNI-CAT-INGCHAN-GE

VISION

Totalcommuni-cations

Externalsocial

networks

Internalgrapevine

contingencymodels

models bySchein,

Hoofstede,etc.

A contingency model of organization

there is not the one best way to organize

the organization has to adapt for external and internal factors

these factors are called contingency factors, or situational factors external: stability, compexity, and diversity

of the environment, etc. internal: production technology, size, etc.

a close fita close fit

A Contingency Analysis ofOrganizational Communications

Environmental factors

Structuralfactors

Otherfactors

Ind & groupfactors

Managementfactors

Establishment and structuringof the communications system

Effectiveness of communications

Åberg and Moisala, 1980Åberg and Moisala, 1980