Maintaining employee engagement when communicating difficult issues: an IABC survey shows that companies that take a strong position and answer questions as forthrightly as possible reap the benefits.

Everywhere you turn, it is all over the news--missed earnings estimates, product recalls, strikes, layoffs, bankruptcy, corporate relocations, ethical wrongdoing, natural disasters. It seems virtually every organization has been touched by difficult issues. Often the people who are most affected are the employees. When left unaddressed, difficult situations can cause employees to feel disempowered. Productivity may decline as they lose faith in their silent leaders and begin speculating about how the news will affect them. But it doesn't have to be that way. Two recent informal surveys of IABC members who specialize in employee communication show that organizations worldwide are realizing that, even in a crisis, good communication keeps employees engaged and the organization moving forward.

Honesty is the best policy

According to our surveys, the most important element in maintaining employee engagement in a difficult situation is open, honest communication. Open communication allows leaders to demonstrate that they understand the problem and are prepared to lead the company through it. It is vital that leaders do not try to spin the issue. More than 50 percent of survey respondents agreed, saying that spinning the issue is the worst thing a company can do. Yvonne Hunt, vice president for worldwide internal communications at Hewlett-Packard, explains: "When companies spin internally, it is very difficult to build credibility since most news delivered to an internal audience (especially difficult news) is often communicated externally. When there is a disparity between what employees hear from their manager and what they see in the media, it leads to distracted, de-motivated employees who feel a lack of trust caused by a lack of transparency--whether that is real or perceived."

The message should provide context to further explain the issue: its causes, the plan of action, when changes will occur, why they are necessary and how the situation will affect employees. Most corporate leaders understand this. Fifty-three percent said that their leaders did not try to spin the news. However, the remaining 47 percent said that their organizations did try to spin the issue to some degree.

Don't let rumors start

It's more difficult to overcome the damaging effects of a rumor than to prevent one from starting, so it is imperative that you communicate quickly to halt the spread of misinformation. By delaying communication, you risk employees making assumptions, sharing their anxieties with peers and exacerbating the problem. A swift response may not soften the impact of the news, but employees respond most positively when they are given the details in a timely manner so that they know what to expect.

There are times, however, when you may not be able to respond as openly and rapidly as you'd like. Michael Zimet, president of Dialogue Solutions in Newtown, Pennsylvania, points out that "most publicly traded companies (in the U.S., at least) cannot divulge certain information to employees before it is made public. All too often, they must contend with rampant speculation in the press--as well as rumors within the organization--which must be 'denied' or 'deflected' by management until they're able to make the public announcement. Some people, especially employees, may interpret that as misleading, but most company attorneys will tell you it is a necessary evil. There is no easy way around this, but consistently practicing communication that is timely, open and honest will cultivate the trust and credibility needed to pull through the worst times. "When you can speak, be prepared to use the same candor and honesty, remembering that employees would rather hear bad news than no news at all."

One anonymous survey respondent said that her organization found itself in this situation. Her company's leadership explained why it could not confirm or deny the rumors and promised to follow up as soon as possible. The result, she says, was that staff reacted positively. She believes that being honest about the process and addressing it frequently helps employees understand and accept the complexities surrounding it.

It's not just what you say

The message must not only be communicated quickly and honestly, it should also be delivered clearly with tact, empathy and respect. Avoid "corporatespeak," which comes across as cold. Instead, have your messenger speak from the heart to reinforce the connection between leadership and the employees. It may also be necessary to tailor your message for various employee groups, because the news may not affect everyone the same way. Keep in mind that everyone's perspective on an issue is different, so try to anticipate the various reactions and address them in the message.

Choose the vehicle wisely

Your choice of communication channel can be the determining factor in whether your communication efforts are successful. "Every situation is different," says Ron Fuchs, a communication consultant based in Woodside, California, "but some of the factors to consider when choosing your communication vehicles are content of the message, audience demographics (including everything from where they are located to what level of the organization they're in), what channels are available and the audience's mind-set." Employee communication experts overwhelmingly agree that extremely bad news should be delivered by the organization's leader in a face-to-face forum and followed up with additional materials such as web site FAQs, e-mail messages or intranet postings. For less sensitive news, employee publications or the company intranet may suffice. In any case, our experts point out that the message should be repeated and additional information provided using a variety of communication vehicles.

A two-way dialogue is essential to maintaining employee engagement in the midst of adversity. Providing employees with the means to comment or ask difficult questions ensures that their deepest concerns will be addressed and gives them the opportunity to participate in resolving the situation. Leaders who listen and respond using an array of communication channels were viewed the most positively by our survey respondents.

Be prepared

Train your messengers to be good communicators before a crisis arises. Familiarize them with the communication tools and resources available to them, and when problems surface, work with them to develop and deliver the message. More than 68 percent of respondents attributed their organization's ability to deliver their message effectively to having the proper tools in place and leaders who were willing to apply them.

Trust and engagement

One of the surest ways to improve your odds of maintaining an engaged workforce is to establish a trusting relationship between the organization's staff and leadership early on. "Difficult news is best received from people you trust," says Russell Grossman, head of internal communications for the BBC. "The more leaders cultivate trust when times are good, the more they will reap the benefits when the cream turns sour." It is vital that leaders focus on good communication in good times and bad. "It's the communication practitioner's role to prod their leaders to do just that," he says. "Sometimes that can be a lonely role, and no one will pretend it's easy, but when it brings results, it's one of the more rewarding parts of the job."

Ron Fuchs adds that leaders "should be operating in an environment where, for the most part, surprises are avoided because they've done such a great job of keeping their employees aware of the context of their organizations such as marketplace conditions, competitor insights and customer needs. Leaders should 'walk the talk' by living the values of the company and people they lead."

Challenging the culture of silence

While many organizations are embracing more open communication with employees, some are still reluctant. One respondent, who asked not to be identified, said that the organization she works for has a "culture of silence" when it comes to acknowledging difficult news: "They think that not communicating the tough stuff will keep employees unaware of it. Of course, it doesn't work. It just fuels the grapevine and makes employees turn to the media for information. There is no opportunity to manage the message. Employee morale, trust and alignment all suffer greatly." As a result, she says, the organization's leadership and employee communications have little credibility. Unfortunately, this member is not alone. Several respondents indicated that their companies avoid communicating bad news or simply post a message on the company intranet and consider the case closed.

If your organization takes a similar stance, communication consultant John Finney of Watson Wyatt Worldwide recommends benchmarking other high-profile companies to see how they address these issues. Show your results to your organization's leaders and make the case that the current approach isn't working. Then, suggest that they try an alternative approach on a trial basis and survey employees to see how this new tactic affects their level of engagement.

The way forward

Difficulties need not lead to a disengaged workforce. Even though employees may not like the news, an honest, well-thought-out message combined with thorough preparation and a good communication plan will make complications easier to bear. As one respondent said, "The better we are at professionally, consistently and rationally communicating the news, the better our audiences will accept it."

STRONG LANGUAGE FROM MEMBERS

Surveys were sent to 508 IABC members who specialize in employee communication; 292 people, or 57.5 percent, responded.

How successful has your organization been at delivering difficult
news to employees?

  11%    Very successful
  40%    Pretty successful
42.5%    Somewhat successful
 6.5%    Not successful

The primary vehicles used by organizations to deliver bad news:

 29%    E-mail
 19%    Face-to-face meetings with direct supervisors
 18%    Face-to-face meetings with senior leadership
 12%    Letter/memo from company leadership
  8%    Internal employee web site
  6%    Teleconference/videoconference
3.5%    Company newsletter
0.5%    None
  4%    Other

The most common difficulties communicators have had
to communicate to employees are:

   1 Layoffs
   2 Benefits changes/salary reductions
   3 Mergers/acquisitions
   4 Changes in senior leadership
   5 Site/facility/plant closings
   6 Financial/budget issues
   7 Legal issues
   8 Outsourcing
   9 Market shift *
  10 Media issues *
10 Natural disasters*

* Equal number of responses

Gretchen Hoover is director of international development and executive programs at IABC headquarters.