Drama Trigger: Working in a silo.

In every one of my investigations triggered by reorganizations, the team in charge of making decisions about organizational changes was committed, eager, and approached its work in good faith. When I reviewed their work, I saw agendas, timelines, memos, draft documents with notes, several versions of presentations, notes on the committee’s weighing of pros and cons of taking one path over another, and cost analysis. But in every instance there was another pattern—little or (usually) no employee participation, and little participation from middle managers who would be tasked with executing the details of the reorganization.

When the team rolled out the plan to the employees who would be affected by the change, those employees had not been a part of the planning process and were therefore unfamiliar with both the plan itself and the reason for the change. The result? Resistance to the proposed changes, at least by those who believed the new structure hurt them personally. They perceived the plan to be directly detrimental to their professional growth.

Solution: Collaborate and include.

• Involve line managers and employees in decision-making. They have their finger on the pulse of how the change will affect them.
• Develop a way for employees and middle managers to provide that input. Make sure it doesn’t interfere with the timeline to complete your work, but provides them with a forum to be heard.
• Since those directly affected will take the changes personally, consider having private meetings with those whose role will change (duties and/or reporting structure) to go through their own implementation plan.
• For those with new reporting structures, anticipate questions/concerns about what might be perceived as a demotion or a lack of appreciation for the value they bring.
• For those with new job duties, seek their input as you develop a new job description and consider providing additional training if they will be expected to perform new or different tasks.

Involve those who will be affected by the decisions. This doesn’t necessarily mean the process will come down to a democratic vote, or that employees have to participate in every phase, but it does mean that they are provided with some forum to make suggestions, point out possible flaws, or offer alternatives.

Doing this improves the process in two ways. First, it improves the decision making itself since input for all will allow the decision-making team to sidestep avoidable errors. Second, inviting and welcoming participation from those who will be most affected by the changes will increase the likelihood that they will fully understand the reasons for the change, will accept the changes, and will become champions for advocating for the value of the changes.

And, of course, doing this diminishes the likelihood that those affected will view the changes as unfair and therefore reduces the incidence of workplace drama.

Drama Trigger: Poor execution.

Too often, all effort is put into designing the plan, with little or no effort put into implementation and execution. All the beautiful presentation slides and graphics will do nothing to help explain how this will affect the individuals who hold the positions in the organizational charts. I’ve seen this play out in the following ways:

• Poor communication in rollout. Sending out a surprise email with final decisions is always a recipe for dissatisfaction. What’s worse is a plan rollout that fails to explain the big picture. You need more than explaining that a change is being made, you also need to explain why the change is necessary and will be better for all in the long run.
• Tone deafness in rollout. In addition to failing to explain the reasons for the change and highlighting how the changes are aligned with the company’s mission and values, too often organizations fail to recognize the good work done by the team so far and only focus on how much better things will be under this new structure. The implication, from the viewpoint of many employees, is that the “old” way of doing things was bad.
• Ignoring the challenges ahead. Organizations often also fail to recognize that change is hard. In their zeal to present their plan in a positive way (which is a good place to start), the message becomes, “anyone who reacts negatively to our proposed changes is just a Debbie Downer.”    While maintaining a positive and can-do approach is great, it’s okay to authentically admit that you understand that change is hard and that there will be bumps in the road as you execute the new plan.

Solution: Thoughtful implementation.

• Help employees understand the big picture since doing so will provide an additional way to connect employees to the company’s overall mission, and gets everyone on board with where the company is headed.
• Be specific about why the changes are being made, how the changes are expected to positively impact the company/department, and provide a step-by-step plan about how the changes will be implemented.
• Recognize achievements under the previous structure and explain the business need for the change.
• Do not refer to the “old” system or the “old” way of doing things.
• Be honest about potential challenges and offer support throughout the implementation process.
• Explain how long it will take to implement the changes and identify what you know might make implementation more challenging.

Helping guide employees through the inevitable angst associated with change greatly reduces the chance that you’ll have to deal with unnecessary workplace drama. Taking these practical steps will help.

Drama Trigger: No why and how.

Too often those who are given the task of implementing the plan are left flat-footed. They are given few if any resources to answer questions—high-level ones about the purpose of the changes, as well as specific ones about the step-by-step implementation plan. Without these resources, these key managers either provide inaccurate information or, even worse, admit that they don’t understand the need for change and blame “management” for making unnecessary changes. This is a recipe for disastrous drama.

Solution: Provide thoughtful resources.

• In addition to meeting with the managers who will communicate the plan, develop scripts for them to help them precisely and persuasively communicate the why and the how (see Chapter 8 for more on communicating precisely and persuasively).
• Develop a comprehensive but easy-to-understand FAQ document to proactively address inevitable questions.

Drama Trigger: An “outsider” in our midst.

In the first scenario, the company failed to anticipate how loyal the department employees (including the one who was passed over) would feel and how much they would resist the new department leader. This common scenario presents three different drama traps. First, if handled badly, the internal candidate will wreak havoc because of the disappointment and embarrassment for not being selected for the position. Second, the other department employees might choose to make the new lateral employee’s life difficult, thus greatly diminishing the likelihood of a successful transition. And third, the new candidate will feel ambushed if you don’t properly prepare her.

Solution: Pave a smooth road.

• Give the new manager information about the internal candidate’s application and identify any possible challenges ahead (without saying anything negative about the internal candidate).
• Get the internal applicant on board by fully and respectfully explaining why you decided to go with the outside candidate.
• Give the internal candidate a path for success and recruit him to be an advocate for the new manager.
• Talk to the department employees, individually or together depending on what’s most appropriate, to gain their confidence and assurance that they will give the new manager a fair shot at success.
• Work with the new manager to develop a transition plan.

Hiring managers often feel trapped in these situations. Should they just tell the new manager everything, they ask themselves, or will that sound like unnecessary gossip? Isn’t it better, they often conclude, to provide little information? While it’s true that engaging in gossip is wrong (and a big contributor to drama), leaving the new manager in the dark is equally dangerous. Hiring managers should develop a way to speak with the new manager to prepare her for the challenges that come from being the new kid on the block.

Drama Trigger: Transition from peer to boss.

In the second example, Alicia is promoted for her technical ability, but left stranded on how to be a manager. This scenario is bad enough in a situation where Alicia joins a new department, but it’s particularly treacherous if she also needs to navigate the dangerous colleague-to-boss transition waters. How is she supposed to evaluate, motivate, coach, and maybe even discipline or fire her friends and former colleagues?

Solution: Pave a smooth road.

• Develop a robust new manager training course that covers general management skills as well as manager issues unique to your company and culture.
• Start with the most pressing issues, especially the skills needed to transition from nonmanager to manager, particularly if you are supervising former peers.
• Develop a training course that covers other management skills, but offer the training at intervals, because you don’t want to overwhelm the new manager.
• Consider assigning a mentor or an ambassador, another employee-to-manager veteran to whom the new manager can turn with questions or concerns.
• Do not place unrealistic expectations on the new manager.
• Do not expect the new manager to address serious performance concerns with someone who was the manager’s peer just a few weeks or months earlier. Assign someone else to initially handle performance issues that need to be addressed immediately.

When I interview nonmanagers, a large percentage of them tell me that their goal is to “get into management.” This is an admirable goal and when an employee finally achieves this milestone there is initial happiness. Keep those positive vibes going by implementing a transition plan to help the new manager understand that while technical ability got them the job, management skills will be key to succeeding in the job.

*One important note that applies to newly hired department managers (whether hired laterally or from within) is the new boss who sets performance expectations that are completely different from his predecessor’s. Employees will see new expectations as unfair if their performance was previously judged as acceptable but now, under a new boss, is deemed to be below expectations. If there are concerns, be careful not to be the “zero-to-60” boss who decides it’s his job to fix long-standing but previously unaddressed performance issues ASAP.

Drama Trigger: Quick-triggered leader.

In the final scenario, the board and the search committee for a new CEO made a huge assumption—that a leader experienced enough to take the highest position at their organization would be savvy enough to move slowly and deliberately.  This seems obvious, but it’s startling how often even experienced high-level leaders fall into the trap of  “too much too fast.”

Solution: Set expectations.

• Know ahead of time whether the new leader plans to bring in his own team and help him develop a timeline and a plan to do that.
• Remind the new leader to take an observe-and-learn approach before making any major changes.
• Develop a timeline for the “watch and learn” period before you expect the new leader will make any substantive organizational changes (a 90-day time period is typical).
• Anticipate and be prepared to answer questions about whether there will be a change in the corporate culture as a result of the new leader’s style.
• Encourage the leader to bring in innovative ideas to improve the business, but know ahead of time if there will be a seismic shift in how business will be conducted.

While a board doesn’t want to tell a new leader how to do his job, some parameters can and should be set. A vital parameter is to remind the executive of the dangers of creating the wrong perception when he moves too quickly, and when he brings in a new team and gives the message that the company had been doing everything wrong prior to his arrival.

The bottom line is that change is hard. On everyone. Accept that and plan for some level of resistance and the difficulties associated with corporate change will become infinitely easier to manage.

Drama Trigger: No process or training on interviewing and hiring.

The company failed to design and execute a process through which candidates could be fairly assessed for their relevant knowledge skills and abilities.

Solution: Implement a straightforward process and conduct necessary training.

• For effective recruitment and hiring, do the following:
  • Make sure job postings accurately reflect not only the position’s essential duties, but also address issues related to the company, industry, or culture.
  • Use tools like job descriptions and performance evaluations (assuming they are current) as reference points to craft your job posting.
  • Develop an interview process that gives all applicants a fair shot, with questions that focus on these same issues (job duties, corporate environment, industry nuances).
  • Train managers on how to reach a diverse pool of candidates.
  • Train managers on how to follow the established hiring protocol and on effective interview techniques.
  • Train managers on the dangers of unconscious bias that could negatively impact their decision-making.

By taking these steps, you are much more likely to make better decisions during the recruiting and hiring process and avoid unnecessary drama.

Drama Trigger: Focus on paperwork before leave, no contact during leave.

Because leaves of absence involve documentation-heavy work, most of the focus is understandably on proper notice, proper tracking, and proper distribution of documents. While these are necessary steps, too often companies forget the human side of leaving work for an extended period of time and fail to set expectations about what will happen while the employee is gone. This leads to assumptions about what to expect and ultimately to drama.

Solution: Set expectations and parameters about contact during leave.

• Supplement your current leave protocol to make sure it includes talking about realistic expectations. Empathy and compassion are your friends during this process.
• Set clear expectations about contact while on leave:
  • If the employee is going out on a medical leave, for example, either set parameters about when (or if) that employee will be available or decide that there will be no contact to allow the employee to recuperate.
  • If the employee is in a job that requires some contact while on leave, set parameters for that as well.
• There is no hard-and-fast rule about checking in, sending a card, or taking some other action to show the employee they haven’t been forgotten. Use your best judgment.

Drama Trigger: Failure to establish a reintegration protocol or a specific plan for each returning employee.

Making assumptions is risky. It’s especially risky when people make different assumptions (the company assumes reintegration will be easy; the employee assumes the company will have a reintegration plan in place). In the case of returning employees, companies who fail to plan to reintegrate returning employees do so at their own peril and can expect drama.

Solution: Establish a reintegration protocol.

• Develop a packet of resources, from a checklist to an FAQ document with information and links to resources to help both employees who will be going out on leave and managers who have to handle the business issues that arise as a result of having an employee out on leave.
• Consider a “ramp down” and “ramp up” period for a short period of time before an employee goes out on leave and when they return.¹

Drama Trigger: Failure to establish an authentic way to provide performance feedback.

Too many companies are filled with leaders and employees who dread the evaluation process because in many instances it has lost its true purpose. There are a number of reasons to develop a system to continuously evaluate performance, including: to help an employee achieve peak performance; to help the company identify employees who need more time in a position versus those who are ready to move up; and to provide a two-way, mutually beneficial method to determine whether the employee is progressing. Instead, it is viewed by most as yet another example of an HR process that is mandatory but not very useful.

Solution: Establish an authentic process and communicate the goals of the process with managers and employees.

• Emphasize that performance feedback should be continuous, honest, and precise.
• Emphasize the fact that the company’s goal is to evaluate, provide honest and respectful feedback, and use the evaluation process as yet another tool to improve the overall workplace culture.
• Design a system and provide effective training to teach people the skills to understand your company’s commitment to providing honest and helpful feedback—for the good of the individual employee and the organization.
• When it comes time to give formal feedback (the annual review, for example):
  • Make sure your forms and instructions are up-to-date and that they accurately reflect expectations. (You should compare the evaluation criteria to the job duties listed in the job description.)
  • Provide helpful guidelines and training to managers—both on completing evaluation paperwork and meeting with employees.
  • Provide a process to review written evaluations to ensure accuracy and consistency, and to serve as a resource for nervous managers.
  • If you know the evaluation meeting will be difficult, offer the manager additional resources and even consider doing a practice evaluation meeting to address the emotion/reaction that is likely to arise during the meeting.
• Stay current on emerging trends about how to best manage issues related to performance.