LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

many employees to lose their jobs, relocate, change job functions and responsibilities, renegotiate benefits, work longer hours, travel more, and work under new bosses. He said this was not true. The draft agreement with the buyer left jobs and operations virtually the same. The CEO expressed concern about the risk of employees leaving the company based on rumors and misinformation. This situation would become a crisis if the company lost its best people. He expressed high regard for his employees’ talents and believed they held his leadership in high regard. Beyond that, departures of talented staff could jeopardize the sale.

      The CEO had prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the following week to announce the purchase to employees. At a minimum, the CEO expected complaints from employees about not receiving enough notice and information. At worst, some employees would leave the company.

      I asked the CEO to review his presentation. The first slide in the deck announced the impending sale. It said the sale would be fantastic for the company. Everything he had hoped for the organization could now occur. The slides addressed why the sale was needed to remain competitive, how the sale would benefit stockholders, who would be affected by the sale, what changes could be expected, where changes would likely take place, when the sale would be announced, and how the company would implement changes.

      When he finished reviewing his slides, my first thought was – this is not my field. I may need to punt. He really needs an organizational and change management consultant. But then I realized that organizational change communications were a subset of the larger field of risk, high concern, and crisis communication – my specialty.

      As with communication about other risks, high concerns, or crisis situations, organizational change initiatives also introduce uncertainty about the future. As discussed in this chapter, the concept of uncertainty is central to the definition of the terms risk, high concern, and crisis. For employees, organizational change threatens and puts at risk many of the things they value, including their autonomy, value, and livelihood. These perceptions of threat can produce a strong emotional reaction just as in the flight‐freeze‐fight response that has kept humans alive for thousands of years. These reactions can severely affect people’s ability to focus, solve problems, communicate, cooperate, and think logically. Communicating successfully in the context of these reactions requires knowledge and implementation of the core concepts, principles, strategies, and tools of risk, high concern, and crisis communication.

      I told the CEO the communication strategies we had successfully used together to navigate through the rough waters of previous health, safety, or environmental issues also applied to these current changes. His presentation focused on how the company benefited from the sale, but not the concerns of the employees. It was also too complex to be absorbed by anxious employees. This was not a normal company briefing. I agreed to assemble a communications team with a cross‐section of members of his organization and develop a draft strategic communications plan.

When the team met, we first agreed that providing clear and accurate factual information was a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective communication about a major organizational change.

      Second, we needed to work quickly. Leaks about the sale were already occurring and rumors were spreading. We wanted to avoid the appearance we were keeping a secret until the sale papers were signed.

      Third, we agreed we needed to do much more communication than a single PowerPoint presentation. We needed to communicate to employees through every available means what the impending sale would mean for them.

      Fourth, we agreed the communications strategy would not just be a one‐way transfer of information. We would need to establish effective means for listening to, and exchanging information with, employees. We needed to focus on the concerns of the employees and answer questions, such as what will it mean for me, my job, and my working environment?

      Fifth, we agreed we could not have all the answers to questions from employees. We would be honest about what we knew.

      Sixth, we agreed we would develop a wide and diverse set of communication products venues, and structures. This would include blogs, webcasts, social media platforms, walk‐arounds, Q&A fact sheets, briefings cascading information down through the organization, and direct communications with employees. If someone posed a question, it should be clear who they should ask.

      Finally, we decided to create a system for tracking, monitoring, and evaluating our change communications. We needed to develop effective means for receiving feedback and determining if our communications were increasing trust; providing useful information; and affecting knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and intended behaviors.

      A key component would be conversations with employees in face‐to‐face meetings, small group meetings, and open house sessions. The employees’ immediate team supervisor would lead face‐to‐face and small group meetings because employees typically viewed these leaders as the most trusted part of management. Additionally, from a strategic communications perspective, the more emotionally charged or technically complex an issue, the more important it is to communicate the information on a personal level.

      The CEO accepted the strategic communications plan and its implementation met with outstanding success. Almost all employees stayed with the organization after the sale. They gave high marks to the communications during this period of change.

      We grounded this successful strategic plan in the core concepts and definitions provided in this chapter. These core concepts and definitions helped us to recognize the scope, nature, and challenges of the situations we were facing and to employ best practices, principles, strategies, approaches, and tools.

2.2 Defining the Concept and Term Risk

      The first term that needs defining is the term risk. Unfortunately, there is no consensus among scholars about how to define the term. The scientific literature on risk and risk communication has offered numerous, competing definitions.

      According to the Oxford English dictionary, risk is “a situation involving exposure to danger.” Risk is inherent in virtually every action, even inaction.

A risk expresses the probability of an adverse outcome and uncertainty about its occurrence and/or magnitude.¹ From the risks associated with crossing the street or eating at a restaurant to an earthquake, terrorist attack, or disease outbreak, individuals face degrees of risk each day.

A risk can have positive or negative consequences of varying magnitudes. However, as used in most health, safety, and environmental studies, the focus is typically on negative consequences. The term risk is defined as the probability of an adverse outcome. It is the probability that a potential situation will cause harm or damage to people, property, and /or the environment.

As noted by Covello and Merkhofer, risk is multi‐dimensional.² At a minimum, the term risk includes two elements: the likelihood of something happening and the consequences if it happens. At a more complex level, risk is a measure of uncertainty. It involves the possibility of an adverse consequence or outcome, the probability of exposure to the occurrence, the timing of the occurrence, and the magnitude of adverse consequence or outcomes.

      One source of potential confusion about the term risk is the difference between risk and hazard. The terms are often used interchangeably. However, from a technical point of view, they are different. In the literature on risk assessment, hazard is typically described as a source of risk. A hazard is a dangerous situation that could lead to loss or injury. The term hazard typically refers to a substance, action, or event that can cause loss, harm, or other adverse consequences.

By comparison, risk, from a technical perspective, refers to likelihood of loss, harm, or other adverse consequences from exposure to a hazard. This distinguishes risk from hazard. Скачать книгу