Balancing value, trust and information in change communication
Balancing value, trust and information in change communication
5 minutes
Leaders are tasked with communicating changes to their teams, ensuring both investment alignment across the organisation. However, as more information pops up, your team members are more likely to have varying reactions, essentially turning consistency and clarity into a challenge.
Should the focus be getting the information out as soon as possible, or ensuring support and involvement from the teams?
The key is both! Think of it as a step-by-step process. First, hearing news from their leaders than other teams create a sense of trust and reliance. When your team feels safe and informed in times of change, it then becomes more likely to get your team’s trust and investment or “buy-in” in the change process.
But of course, communicating change and ensuring it is easier said than done. In fact, it brings about a new question entirely: How, then, should a leader get the “buy-in” for change?
To drive successful change, start by understanding what will motivate your team to invest in it. This involves identifying their perceived costs versus benefits, what matters most to them, and whether they view the change as justified—this is your value proposition.
A strong value proposition, combined with earning your team’s trust, creates the foundation for an effective, targeted change plan. Trust, intentionality, and understanding your team’s motivations ensure your plan resonates and drives action. However, how you communicate this plan is just as critical as its structure.
The Communication Strategy Continuum highlights that the effectiveness of your approach depends on the amount of information shared. Providing too little information—commonly known as the “spray and play” method—leaves your team without a clear picture, leading to confusion and disengagement. On the other hand, overwhelming your team with excessive details can be equally ineffective, sometimes even counterproductive.
Choosing the right one depends on what goals the organisation has in the change process. Check out the benefits and downsides of each style below:
Benefit: management exercises high degree of control.
Downside: staff distrust, possible bitterness and resetnment.
Benefit: addresses issues and misconceptions as soon as it crops up
Downside: assumes that teams already understand problems these changes are going to address.
Benefit: staff misunderstandings are resolved, change more clear and readily accepted, practical recommendations may also crop up
Downside: takes time and open communication
Benefit: this can be done quickly
Downside: teams are essentially passive. This may give way to skepticism and cynicism.
Benefit: Teams are made aware of change.
Downside: Teams are overloaded with information, and left on their own to make sense of why change is happening.
The key is striking the right balance between information, strategy, and leveraging team motivation. Offer enough clarity and context to engage your team without overloading them, enabling them to see both the why and the how of the change and how it would benefit them. When done right, communication fosters alignment, trust, and commitment to the change ahead.
