Susanne Dahlman - Strategic Internal Communication: A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementing Cutting-Edge Methods for Improved Workplace Culture

ONE OF THE most important focus areas for internal communication in modern organizations is communicating strategy and change. A clearly implemented strategy helps the organization work toward a set goal. Change planned and emerging helps organizations adapt to changes in the surrounding world. Both strategy and change help drive success in an organization. As these areas are of fundamental importance, we have chosen to discuss them in the first chapter.

Today, changes in organizations are the norm, and we seem to live in the era of change. Everything seems to be going so fast and constantly changing fashion, dcor and opinions. The tides of change also apply in organizations, and it is more normal than not to regularly implement major changes. Change or die! The urging that came from leadership expert Alan Deutschman 10 years ago has left deep marks in many organizations and led many leaders to increase the rate of change even more.

Changes thus occur often, many times far too often, and the results of these changes are more often than not small. Failed organizational change can be explained by a lack of and poor internal communication, for example that the coworkers are given too little involvement in the process. Another important factor, which is often overlooked, is that the change must be grounded in how the vast majority of coworkers experience the organization, and not in the dreams of management. In the article, the authors argue that it is possible to implement change in an organization even if the coworkers are initially adverse to the change. However, they emphasize that this is only possible if management successfully explains and communicates the need for change to the coworkers.

One point of departure in many discussions about organization change is that if things had only been done correctly from the beginning, the change would not be necessary. In other words, people assume that the organizational change is a result of the organization not adapting quickly or enough to other changes in society, the market or the organization.

As coworkers of an organization, it can feel difficult to have to change your way of working, or to get a new manager or colleagues as often as it usually occurs. However, for many organizations, change is about pure survival. Many factors, including globalization, social and technological developments, climate and environmental issues, and new legislation and lifestyles, are constantly creating massive changes to the business climate. This means, or should mean, that organizations need to become professionals in change and in communicating change.

Naturally, there are many different reasons why an organizational change may occur. Broadly speaking, organizational change occurs as a result of various pressures or forces. Among the most common forces are:

• political changes (for example, outsourcing in public organizations or new regulations)
• technical changes (new IT systems)
• demographical changes (changes in the population or customer profile)
• economic changes (such as a boom or recession)
• significant organizational changes, such as a new CEO, mergers, acquisitions or cultural changes
• management trends (for example, New Public Management, Lean Management, and transformational leadership).

In the next section, we write more about some of the most typical reasons for larger, planned organizational changes.

One of the more common reasons for major, planned organizational change is the fusion of two organizations (a merger). One example is the merger between two university hospitals in two Swedish cities, Lund and Malm, with a distance of 20 kilometers, that came together and formed the University Hospital of Skne (SUS) in 2010. In this case, the merger came as a result of a political decision by the local regional board. In other cases, mergers may come from the acquisition of a competitor or a collaboration between two companies, such as the merger between Nissan and Renault.

The opposite of fusion also exists division (or fission). One such example is the division of the Swedish medical technical company Getinge when Arjo was formed. Though this may seem like a simple operation, as both companies stem from the same organization, this is not necessarily true. Previous mergers may have resulted in positive effects, which the coworkers lose during the fission. So even here it is important for management to be aware and accepting of the coworkers reactions.

The major challenge for mergers and fissions is developing a new or changing the current organizational culture. A fusion will result in a new culture being formed, often to the detriment of one organization. Management groups tend to be a bit optimistic about how quickly and easily a new culture can be developed. It typically takes between 5 to 10 years for a new culture to develop. Implementing a new culture requires intervention, patience and switching out the organizational members who are no longer able or willing to be a part of the new culture. In a fission, a new culture will be formed, but it will often build on the old culture, which makes the transition to the new or modified culture easier.

A recurring pattern in many organizations is that a new manager automatically leads to an organizational change. Managers seem to believe that they are expected to storm into an organization, full of ideas, and use their magic wand to set things right and drive success. There also seems to be a belief that managers who drive change are strong and actionable. This notion is often repeated in management literature, not least in the simpler sorts of literature that you often find at airports, which in turn further spreads and maintains this belief. The biggest problem with this notion is that the new manager does not listen to and take into account the depth of expertise and knowledge within the organization. It is therefore important for managers to not be in a hurry about their organizational changes, but instead to first learn the organizations history, conditions, challenges and competencies. This, in turn, gives information about where a large organizational change may be needed.

It is not unusual for a manager to want to implement an organizational change because they have been inspired by a new management philosophy or have encountered a new technical system. Management trends have a strong pull, and managers and their organizations want to show the outside world that they are up to date. It is important to hop on the train before it is too late! Too often, managers copy other managers in other organizations. We have been able to see this when it comes to using social media, New Public Management within public organizations, and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Instead of first researching the actual need for change and analyzing its potential effects, organizations tend to just do what others are doing. This effect is called isomorphism within institutional theory. Traditional leadership theories presuppose that leaders of organizations make wise, well-founded decisions based on available information. Institutional theory shows that decision-making is rarely that rational. Many times, decisions are based on current and popular ideas and trends. So, when everyone is talking and writing about, for example, CSR, leaders are quick to introduce it into their own organizations in order to appear modern and current. In other words, many important decisions are made in line with institutional theory, meaning that they are based on imitation rather than on rationality.