Change communication: what's decided, what's still open?

In the change process, communication is the actual work of leadership. Several barriers lie between an announcement and a changed practice. Said does not mean heard, understood or agreed. Agreed does not mean applied. Applied does not mean sustained.

Five principles help to overcome these barriers. Communication is comprehensive and honest, because vague information and half-truths do not prevent resistance and feed rumours. It is understandable and also provides the details that only the initiators have. It is unambiguous, because everyone responsible passes on the same information. It comes without delay, since even a small time lag fuels uncertainty. And it reaches all levels, for example through fixed dates by which all employees must have been informed.

Different groups need different information. Employees and managers ask about the effects on tasks and collaboration. Customers and suppliers are interested in performance and their relationship with the company. Authorities, politicians and the public may have further expectations. These perspectives are examined for the specific project. A general list does not replace conversations.

The content of change communication fulfils three tasks. Information and instruction make the overarching goal, sub-goals, milestones and framework conditions known and repeatedly present. This includes the approach, project organisation, timelines, personnel matters and, explicitly, the processes that remain.

Understanding and acceptance arise when the connection between strategy and change, market development, key figures and project status are comprehensible. Especially when the outcome is open, such information promotes confidence in the process. Mobilisation and identity, finally, depend on trust in those communicating. Symbols, values and a shared understanding of leadership and work express the company's identity.

If a direction has already been decided, it must be clear what can still be discussed. If a question is open, it needs a comprehensible path to a decision. Good change communication combines listening and understanding with discussion, decision and implementation. Participation becomes robust when it is clear how feedback is taken into account and who is responsible for the decision.

The phases described range from analysis and awareness of change through a vision of the future to implementation and evaluation. The tasks of communication change depending on the phase. Feedback from a conversation can reveal new questions or correct an assumption. Such observations feed into the preparation of the next step.

The management board puts the change on the agenda with high priority, visibly takes time for communication and demonstrates the change in its own routines. Managers help shape the development, see themselves as role models and work through what the change means in practice for their employees. Corporate communications provides background material, promotes dialogue and checks terms for clarity.

Change agents are the informal link between project, line organisation and workforce, in both directions. The works council picks up employees' assessments and concerns, maintains exchange with leadership and those responsible for the project, and supports the search for solutions in cases of hardship.

Leadership commitment shows in comprehensible decisions and in actually working on open issues. Communication formats must therefore be connected with those responsible for the change project. If a commitment cannot be honoured organisationally, a new task arises for leadership and project steering.

A communication architecture connects several formats over the course of the project. A change forum is a regular discussion round of managers and employees alongside the usual meetings. A leadership forum brings managers from all levels into conversation, and their contributions feed into business decisions. In a small facilitated round with eight to ten participants, the management board and middle management talk openly about expectations and concerns.

Then there is the preparation of managers. They have to endure a sandwich position between top management and employees. Training prepares them to provide orientation, deal with scepticism and emotions and work through conflicts. Resistance is regarded as a symptom of uncertainty, doubt or being overwhelmed and not as a disruptive factor.

After implementation, the review looks at what has been understood, which questions remain open and what experiences those involved are having. The logic of the change phases explicitly provides room for evaluation and for acknowledging progress achieved. The course remains tied to the specific organisation. A phase model describes an orientation and not a guaranteed sequence.

Change communication distinguishes information, dialogue and participation. A decision must be clearly named, as must the questions that can still be discussed or decided. Affected departments have knowledge of processes and consequences for customers that may be missing in early planning. A suitable format brings these perspectives into the project work.

The return path is important: what was done with the input, what remains open and who decides next? This gives communication reliability. It cannot phrase uncertainty away and should not promise participation where the decision has already been made. Leadership and the project team must actually work on the conflicts that have become visible in conversations. Only then does communication support the change as part of the work process.