. u:
L slur:
1:1

3:31...
$33.”.

vial-turn

. q ’1 9 91
3.3.3.7.}...
8.3L

no??? .
ifsiun‘ .0
£11.: in L.
‘1'! .3 I

o
3.!
2:53,:

c5 L. L
aha ,

 

vuemo ‘

                                                                                             

WIIHIIHIHHll

193 01410 2499

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Use of Public Relations in the
Facilitation of Organizational Change

presented by

Amy M. Brandais

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master‘s- degree inkWti—sing

@MMUMJML

Major professor

Dateflilgllst 1+. 1995

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to man this chockout from your ncord.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or Moro doto duo.

  

DAIEDUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   
 

AUG 1 1 2007
”72331

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU loAn Afflnnotlvo ActtorVEquol Opportunlty Institution
WMt

 

USE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS IN THE
FACILITATION 0F ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
By

Amy M. Brandais

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Advertising

1995

ABSTRACT

USE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS IN THE
FACILITATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

By

Amy M. Brandais

Reengineering, Total Quality Management and other organizational changes are on
the rise. Unfortlmately, these situations can lead to poor attitudes on the part of employ-
ees who feel unsure of their futures or simply left out of the decision-making processes.
Many organizations are using various communications strategies to combat the problem.
This thesis examines the role that public relations can play in terms of communicating
with internal “publics.” Because of the lack of empirical data, an exploratory study was
conducted to examine how corporate executives perceive communications strategies
during periods of change. A questionnaire was mailed to 700 corporate executives. A
total of 127 responses were returned, with 105 cases where some form of significant
organization change was perceived in the past five years, with an average of 80% of
employees being affected by the change. Most companies used some type of public
relations tool to communicate during the change, although meetings, whether regularly
scheduled or not, were cited most often, resulting in an average success rating of 70. It
was also found that many companies increased the frequency of communications during
change, but returned to pre-change levels after the change occurred. In addition, a
communications consultant was used on only 15 of the 105 cases examined, with varying

81100688 rates.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Keith Adler, Ph.D., whose assistance on
this project was invaluable. His course on re—engineering helped to truly focus the scope
of the project. In addition, his willingness to step in after the project had already been
started was appreciated.

I would like to also express sincere appreciation to Bonnie Reece, Ph.D. and Nora Rifon,
Ph.D. whose classes have also played a part in the inspiration for this project.

Special thanks also goes to Cornelius Pratt, Ph.D., who piqued my original interest in the

rather misunderstood field of Public Relations.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF EXHIBITS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

PUBLIC RELATIONS: A WORKING DEFINITION

THE STATE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS TRAINING AND
ATI‘ITUDES TOWARD THE COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTION
Public Relations Training in Management Areas

Management Training in Communications Areas

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
Reengineering

Total Quality Management (TQM)
Downsizing

Corporate Mergers/Acquisitions/‘I‘akeovers

A HANDFUL OF “EXPERTS”

Stuart M. Klein

Gary Gates

Alvie L. Smith

John Purser

Mary Lou van Schaik

Jane Easter Bahls

James R. Lamb

Les Landes

Robert Heath, Steven Leth and Kathy Nathan

CASE STUDIES
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

iv

12

17

28
31

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)

SUMMARY

RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
III. METHODOLOGY
PROCEDURE

IV. RESULTS

Type of Change/N umber of Employees Affected/Employee
Participation in Decision-Making

Public Relations Tools

Frequency of Communication

Use of Communication Consultant

Demographics

Communications Training

V. DISCUSSION

VI. CONCLUSIONS/RECONIMENDATION S
APPENDIX A - QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX B - LIST SELECTION
APPENDIX C - VERBATIM RESPONSES
BIBLIOGRAPHY

36

37
39

42

58
62
65
69
70
81

Table 1 -

Table 2 -

Table 3 -

Table 4 -

Table 5 -

Table 6 -

Table 7 -

Table 8 -

LIST OF TABLES

Most Significant Change Experienced by Your
Company in the Past Five Years

Percentage of Employees Affected by the Change

Average Percentage of Employees Affected by
Bach Type of Change

Type of Change by Level of Participation
Distribution of Use of Each Communications Tool
Frequency of Communication

Level of Education

7A. Total Sample

73. Respondents Indicating Change

7C. Respondents Indicating No Change

Communications Training for Respondents Who
Indicated Change

vi

43

45

48

49

52

53

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 - A Checklist for Planning Public Relations Campaigns:
Research — Adaptation — Implementation Strategy —
Evaluation (RAISE)

Exhibit 2 - Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s Fourteen Points of Management

Exhibit 3 - Ten Elements of Effective Public Relations Programs

vii

14

34

I. INTRODUCTION

Reengineering and Total Quality Management have become the latest buzzwords in
management circles. But these are not the only changes a company can experience;
mergers, downsizing, etc. can all take a toll on manager and employees alike. During
the 1980’s, roughly 80% of US. firms went through some form of organizational change
(Palmer and Bruns, 1992). Managed effectively, these changes can be a source of
competitive advantage; if not, they can create corporate casualties.

Realizing the need for extensive organizational change in order to remain competi-
tive in a global economy, top level managers are spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars buying new technological equipment, paying top dollar to consultants to assist
them in implementing these principles, and expending large numbers of man-hours in
moving the organization in a new direction. To some degree, they are able to achieve a
number of the organizational goals envisioned. However, the biggest hurdle in effecting
organizational change seems to be in obtaining the proper attitudinal changes from
employees, many of whom are reluctant to alter the status quo in exchange for the new
company vision. Employees are unsure of how the changes will affect the way they do
their jobs, unsure of the expectations of upper management, concerned about their job
security, and thus, resist or even rebel against the changes taking place. Rumor-
mongering, low motivation, and a lack of trust are all symptoms of the lack of

communications during phases of change.

2

Many managers seeking organizational reengineering and/or Total Quality Manage-
ment are ill-prepared to create, plan and execute the communication strategies needed to
facilitate the desired changes. Often, they send the message that if an employee is not
willing to conform to the new company vision, he or she can find work elsewhere. This,
unfortunately, creates even more bad feelings on the part of employees who are usually
not well-informed about the new company vision and the part they will (or will not) be
playing within it.

Creating bad feelings on the part of employees can be costly to an organization. For
instance, if an employee does leave the organization, his/her skills and knowledge leave
as well. These skills can be major assets that cannot be quantified and are therefore often
discounted. If managers had an idea of the cost of training new staff, along with the cost
of the learning curve, perhaps they would be more apt to work harder to ensure employee
loyalty and buy-in to the new company vision. Lack of motivation can cause extremely
low productivity, which too can be very costly to the organization. Additionally,
employees might feel some degree of animosity toward the organization and may express
these feelings, either knowingly or unknowingly, to customers, damaging the company’s
image with external publics. In any event, it is not necessary to perpetuate bad feelings,
damage motivation, and risk losing valuable employees while implementing organiza-
tional change. Effective communication strategies can smooth the transition and effect
employee buy-in to the new company vision.

Many organizations are already using various communication media to combat the
problem. Newsletters, memos from the CEO, retraining programs, fi’ank discussions and
other tools are being utilized as a means of reassuring or of helping to facilitate the
transition from what was to what will be. And many of the tools and techniques that
managers could be using to create effective communication strategies before, during and
after the implementation of major, or even minor, organizational change, and assist in

maintaining productive relationships between the organization and its employees, come

3

under the heading of a very unique and ill-understood communications discipline:
Public Relations.

Public relations is usually discounted as a mere function of the communications
department, a function that seeks to showcase the organization in the most favorable
light, and to manage image crises as necessary. Very few managers have an idea of the
actual role that public relations officers could and should play in the decision-making
process as it relates to communications strategies, and few undergraduate communica-
tions programs are properly training public relations professionals for that role.

For that matter, few business schools are giving future managers the training for effective
communications skills (Baskin, 1989).

This thesis will explore how organizations use public relations tools and strategies
to facilitate change, and will hopefully provide some insight into how these tools can
assist organizations through periods of change. The purpose of this project is to begin
the process whereby more top-level executives see the benefits of positive employee
relations, not just during periods of change but at all times, and how public relations
practices can assist in that end. This task will require an examination of organizational
change strategies, a definition of public relations tools in order to survey the use of these
tools by organizational change agents, and an exploration of the relative importance top-
level managers place on strategic communications planning before, during, and after the
change takes place.

A review of the contemporary literature related to the role of public relations as it
relates to communications strategies in the face of organizational change follows. A
working definition of public relations will be established as a foundation for the remain-
der of the literature review. The “worldview” of public relations will be discussed to
illustrate the particular bias that exists against public relations, one that is pervasive
within not only business organizations, but management training institutions as well. A

discussion of the educational needs of both communications professionals and business

4

managers will also be included to reveal that, in many cases, each one is needed for
effective internal communications to take place.

A sample of the literature dealing with organizational change, including mergers,
reengineering and Total Quality Management will then be discussed, with an emphasis
on the hurdles organizations are facing with regard to their communications strategies
vis a vis their employees throughout the change process. Due to the lack of related
empirical data, a review of the popular literature will be examined to provide a look at
the following: 1) a discussion of the various forms that organizational change can take,
including reengineering, Total Quality Management, downsizing and corporate mergers;
2) a sampling of communications consultants, especially those with a specialty in public
relations, and their respective theories on the “best” ways to handle communications,
especially throughout periods of change; 3) a review of several related case studies; and
4) a look at the few related empirical studies. The literature review concludes with a
summary and critique of the existing literature related to the topic, followed by a
discussion of the manner and scope of the research study suggested by the literature

review and subsequently explored in this thesis.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

PUBLIC RELATIONS: A WORKING DEFINITION

For many, the term “public relations” conjures up images of “press-agency” types
scrambling to inform customers, or potential customers, about the organization, vainly
trying to get “published,” i.e. gaining attention for the organization through a variety of
means, but primarily through media channels (Steward, 1987). On the other hand, the
late Edward L. Bernays (1952), one of the earliest proponents of public relations, defines
public relations as a “two-way street in which leadership and public find integration with
each other and in which objectives and goals are predicated on a coincidence of public
and private interest.” This definition seems to leave out internal publics, such as employ-
ees. It does, however, take into account the two-way symmetric model of public rela-
tions, the ideal, yet theoretical form, that is promoted in public relations educational
courses today.

Robert Kendall (1992), in his textbook, WW,
defines public relations as “seeking to build mutually beneficial relationships with
constituent publics. When activities attempt to improve relations with employees,
stockholders, customers, members, government, or any of the many publics on which an
organization’s well-being depends, the effort is public relations. When a collection of
those activities is structured into an organized effort, it becomes a campaign.” He goes

on to say that public relations campaigns seek specific objectives as a means of building

6

relationships with constituents that may be involved, and while it may use mass
communication, it relies on the complete spectrum of communication media.”

Using the above as a basis, for the purposes of this thesis, public relations is defined
as the building of two-way symmetrical relationships in which an organization takes into
account the needs and welfare of its various publics and responds accordingly in ways
that are in the best interest of both the publics and the organization. The term “publics”
can be defined as any group that is affected by, or has an effect on, the organization, and
as such would include (but not be limited to) customers, competitors, stockholders,
employees, the community surrounding the organization and the government. Kendall’s
definition of a campaign will be maintained as stated above, and the use of the term
“tools of public relations” will refer to any appropriate medium from the entire spectrum
of communication media. For example, in the case of internal publics, this can mean
newsletters, corporate memos, communiques fi'om the CEO, closed-circuit television
broadcast messages, and other media.

Public relations techniques can be organized by examining their role in the strategic
development of a campaign. The RAISE model i.e. Research, Adaptation, Implementa-
tion Strategy and Evaluation, as discussed by Kendall, involves statement of an objective
and strategic planning at each stage. Exhibit 1 shows a checklist for planning public
relations campaigns using the RAISE technique, including the various steps involved. It
begins with a statement of the situation or problem that prompts the campaign, and goes
through the subsequent steps of researching the situation and the organization involved.
An example of an individual technique for internal public relations strategic planning
would be a survey of employee attitudes, or perhaps a survey of their awareness level of
the organizational changes taking place. Using techniques such as survey questionnaires
allows an organization to effectively have its “finger on the pulse” of employee needs,
and to adapt its communications strategies accordingly.

The aforementioned “worldview” of public relations is much more pervasive

 

 

Exhibit 1 - A Checklist for Planning Public Relations Campaigns:
Research — Adaptation — Implementation Strategy —
Evaluation (RAISE)

State the “situation” that prompts the campaign.

Research of the Situation and the Sponsoring Organization
1. Discover the facts to confirm or alter the situation.

2. Ensure dependable findings by using valid methodology.
3. Interpret the data accurately and adequately.
4. Identify the problem(s) in statement form.

Adaptation of the Organization’s Resources to the Situation.
1. Subdivide the problem into measurable goal statements.

2. Segment target publics in order of priority.

3. Research and brainstorm for possible solutions.

4. Make a “shopping list” of workable solutions to the problem.
5. List resources and limitations: money, time, people, etc.

6. Develop a system for liaison with management.

Implementation Strategy for Solving the Problem/Reaching Goal
1. Select a strategy from “shopping list” above.

3) Be sure targeted publics are addressed.

b) Goal should dictate both strategy and targeting and be based on
research findings.

2. Design the communication plan to support the strategy.

3. Calendar the entire strategy and communication plan.

4. Budget each action or event in per-action dollars/people.

5. Justify or “sell” the strategy/communication plan to a skeptical client or employer.

Evaluation of the Total Campaign Effort
1. Provide for establishing proof of success.

2. Measure degree of goal achievement, results, etc.
3. Consider three aspects of evaluation: in-process, intemal, and external.

4. Collect pluses, minuses, and make projections.

From “Public Relations Campaign Strategies” Robert Kendall (I992)

 

 

8

outside the halls of academia. Some estimates claim that roughly 85% of organizations
understand public relations to be the “press agentry” function of the corporate communi-
cations department (Grunig and Hunt, 1984). This “worldview” of public relations,
which sees the discipline as “persuasive and manipulative” (Grunig, 1989), is apparently
perpetuated by practitioners who do little to improve their own image. According to
John Bitter (1986), “if an organization’s public relations person, in his or her naive
innocence, assumes that the task at hand centers on inundating the media with publicity
puffs and responding as best as one can to public relations crises, the craft will continue
to hold a low place in the corporate pecking order.”

What perhaps is not realized is that public relations can be an incredibly powerful
management tool, especially in the realm of organizational change, such as the imple-
mentation of Total Quality Management or business process reengineering. These
processes require extensive changes to the fundamental organizational structure of a
company, which in turn requires a high level of commitment on the part of middle
management and other employees. To truly achieve this “buy-in” attitude, top manage-
ment must learn to communicate the vision effectively to each and every employee, and
to ensure that each employee has a true understanding of the who, what, why’s and

how’s of the changes.

THE STATE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS TRAINING AND A'I'I'ITUDES
TOWARD THE COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTION
Public Relations Training in Management Areas

In his textbook, Kendall additionally defines the “public relations officer” as being
responsible for corporate values, as the collector, interpreter, and disseminator of what
the organization believes, and what it considers to be important. “Values and ethics, as
the responsibility of the public relations officer, place him or her at the very heart of the
corporate culture” (Kendall, 1992). Unfortunately, the public relations officer often has

9

not been able to achieve the proper buy-in attitude from management such that he or she
is capable of assisting in the development of strategy to this end (Bitter, 1986).

According to Grunig (1989), “practitioners without education in public relations
usually are little more than press agents or joumalists-in-residence, unless they are able
to get equivalent knowledge through continuing education or self-study.” He feels that
university administrators have not dedicated the resources to public relations education
that are required for people who have chosen it or in relation to the “importance of public
relations for the organizations it serves or for the well-being of society.”

Kinkead and Winokur (1992) conducted a study involving both personal interviews
and a literature search, concluding that corporate culture and individual ability are the
strongest influences that govern the amount of strategic influence that public relations
professionals can exercise. “While handling a crisis is a hallmark skill for seasoned
practitioners, helping management avoid the crisis in the first place is a far more valuable
talent to the organizations represented. And the most effective way to exercise that talent
is to gain a seat at strategic planning sessions, where the opening moves are mapped out.”
Companies that recognize the importance of the so-called “soft side” of strategic devel-
opment tend to include communications professionals on their strategic planning teams.
However, as previously discussed, most public relations practitioners are not receiving
the training needed to fulfill that role. Kinkead and Winokur propose ways for the
practitioner to achieve the goal of a place on the strategic team, such as taking the
initiative, breaking down barriers, networking, etc. However, the practitioner must still
possess some management skills and business know-how to be effective.

An in-depth qualitative survey conducted by Carrington Associates (Carrington,
1992) of 39 public relations professionals in the New York area reported that the major-
ity of those surveyed cited a need for practitioners to “shift from serving as irnplementers
and technicians to being active policy-makers.” However, many believed they lacked the

“strategic training required to be a player in senior management/client decision-making.”

10

Perhaps commrmications departments should consider adding management training or
basic business courses to their curricula.
Management Training in Communications Areas

On the other hand, studies show that many managers have had little or no formal
training in public relations or other communications areas. Master of Business
Administration (MBA) programs in the United States tend not to emphasize these areas,
assuming that students have already mastered basic communication skills during
undergraduate study or on-the-job experience, or, more importantly, perpetuating the
perception that communication is not an important element of management or leadership
(Pincus et. al., 1994).

A study by Pincus et. a1. concerning the role of communications training in manage-
ment education surveyed a random selection of deans or directors of schools taken from a
list of 600 MBA programs. The majority of respondents indicated that students typically
spends 10 percent or less time on communications topics. In addition, while communica-
tions Offerings have not decreased over the five years prior to the study, neither did they
increase by a significant margin. According to the authors of the study, most MBA
programs “fail to meet the minimum standards of communication education necessary to
adequately prepare graduates for the increasing and diverse communication demands of
contemporary business life... Most business schools need to revise their approaches to
communication education if their MBA graduates are to be minimally prepared for the
competitive demands of the international marketplace... [Communication education]
must be accepted as an integral strategic element of business education...” (Pincus et. al.,
1994). This sounds great in theory, but what of the people already out there, functioning
as managers without the communication skills they need to manage effectively? And
what of the communications practitioners out there practicing without the managerial
skills? For the time being, it seems to be essential for public relations or corporate

communications officers (who are usually charged with the public relations function) to

11

work together with top organizational management as a team to strategically plan
communications campaigns, especially during a period of organizational change.

Another study, focusing more specifically on public relations, was conducted by
Edelman Public Relations Worldwide (Public Relations Journal, 1993). The study
randomly selected 107 business schools in the US. and Canada, and revealed that only
6.5% of the schools offered a stand-alone course in public relations. Most graduate
business programs incorporated public relations teaching into marketing or other business
subjects. “As a result,” Edelman concludes, “most MBA graduates now enter the busi-
ness world without having the opportunity to learn about the power of public relations, or
the competitive advantage it can provide for an organization.”

Otis W. Baskin (1989) states that the “lack of consideration for the technical skills
has led to the criticism that graduates of [MBA] programs have little appreciation for the
centrality of public relations in critical areas such as strategic planning, budgeting and
organizational design.”

Because of insufficient training for both public relations professionals and business
managers, problems in the coordination of organizational change strategies could occur.
While many public relations/communications officers could be doing more to assist in
strategic communications matters, they do not always have the practical management
training to do so. And, while many managers do not have the communications training
to plan strategic communications campaigns, they also do not appear to place enough
importance on these functions, nor on the people who carry them out, to utilize them to
the firllest, especially during periods of organizational change.

The various forms that organizational change could embody will be examined in the

next subsection. Implications for public relations will also be briefly discussed.

12

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
Reengineering

Perhaps the most popular (read latest to hit the scene) of the deliberate changes a
company can choose is Business Process Reengineering. Reengineering, as defined by
the authors of the 1993 best selling business book, W, is the
“fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic
improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality,
service and speed” (Hammer and Champy, 1993). According to a study by the Grant
Thorton Consulting Firm, 95% of the country’s mid-sized industrial companies claim to
have reengineered at least part of their operation, and 30% say they have reengineered
their entire business within the last three years (Kinni, 1994).

According to James Champy, in an interview with Theodore B. Kinni, “reegineering
is rooted in the belief that the way work and organizations are structured is wrong in
today’s context. Organizing by function and specialization worked for 200 years...
but as we have developed increasingly larger companies, that has led to... too much
attention [being paid to] infrastructure, where each function becomes a separate country
with borders. Reengineering attacks fragmented companies. It changes the structure of
work.” Champy goes on to state what he sees as the five basic stages of reengineering,
as follows:

1) Create a case for action, i.e. a simply articulated statement of what you need to do

2) Build a business operating model

3) Identify the organization’s core processes

4) Redesign the processes

5) Implement the new design (Kinni, 1994)

Reengineering can also be defined as restructuring, reorganizing or renovating. It
can involve a single department, but it usually spills over into other departments in the

process. According to Stewart (1993), the main tool is a clean sheet of paper.

l3

“Reengineers start from the future and work backward, as if unconstrained by existing
methods, people or departments.” Done right, it can deliver extraordinary gains in speed,
productivity and profitability. But it is “strong medicine... and almost always accompa-
nied by pain -- or at least unpleasant side effects. By one estimate, between 50% and
70% of reengineering efforts fail to achieve the goals set for them” (Stewart, 1993).
Perhaps a lack of employee involvement in the core of the change is responsible. Total
Quality Management, on the other hand, is intended to incorporate all employees in the
process of change.

Total Quality Management (TQM)

Total Quality Management, or TQM, emphasizes statistical means of reducing
variation in production for manufacturing firms. In this way, product quality can be
controlled, built into the system from the onset, thereby reducing the need for mass
inspection as well as reducing scrap in the process (Deming, 1986). Dr. W. Edwards
Deming, considered the father of TQM, claims in his book “W315.” that
managers must increase the quality and productivity of the systems of people and
machines that they manage. He promotes optimizing the system through teamwork and
reduction of the variability in processes through statistical process control. When
systems are optimized, he says, employees are able to feel greater satisfaction with their
jobs, and thus with the organizations for which they work. Dr. Deming claims that
management is responsible for 94% of quality problems because it is management that
determines the systems, and it is management who must lead the company into effecting
the changes necessary to optimize the systems.

Deming apparently gave a great deal of thought as to how to best create the buy-in
attitude so critical among employees if the organizational environment is to successfully
change. He incorporated a great deal of employee involvement philosophy in his
“Fourteen Points of Management,” illustrated in Exhibit 2.

Many companies are seeking to adopt these fourteen points, in full or at least

l4

 

 

Exhibit 2 - Dr. W Edwards Deming’s Fourteen Points of Management

1.

\0

Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the
aim to become competitive, to stay in business and to provide jobs.

. Adopt the new philosophy. Western management must awaken to the challenge,

must learn their responsibility, and take on leadership for change.

. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection

on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.

. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize

total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long term relation-
ship of loyalty and trust.

. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve

quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

. Institute training on the job.

. Institute leadership. The aim of management should be to help people and machines

and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as
well as supervision of production workers.

Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.

Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales and
production must work as a team to foresee problems of production and in use that
may be encountered with the product or service.

10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero

ll.

l2

13.
14.

defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial
relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong
to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.

a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers,
numeric goals. Substitute leadership.

a. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship.
The responsibility of supervisors must be changed fi'om sheer numbers to quality.

b. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right
to pride of workmanship. This means inter alia, abolishment of the annual or
merit rating and of management by objective.

Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.

Put everyone in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The
transformation is everybody’s job.

From “Out of the Crisis” W. Edwards Deming (I986)

 

 

15
partially, and communication strategies play a crucial role in achieving these goals
(Bovet, 1994). Susan Fry Bovet, in her article “CEO Serves as Chief Communicator of
TQM Program,” reported on a discussion held by a panel of three CEOs at The Confer-
ence Board’s Seventh Annual Quality Conference held in New York City. The three
CEOs on the panel were Lawrence A. Bossidy of Allied Signal, Inc., Paul R. Staley of
PQ Corp., and David R Whitwam of Whirlpool Corp. All of the speakers stressed
employee relations and the communication of the TQM process at all levels of the
workforce as keys to success. They also discussed the need to involve customers in a
“constant dialog and to keep shareholders and members of the board of directors
constantly attuned” to the TQM process. “TQM is strongly grounded in person-to-person
relationships, meetings of workers from all levels of the company, team-building and
feedback mechanisms. Leaders need skills in presenting and communicating, as well as
listening, to be successful at TQM.”

Reengineering and Total Quality Management are two ways in which managers
seek to create positive changes, i.e. changes that seek improvement within the company
for the welfare of all — employees, shareholders, and customers. Other organizational
changes such as downsizing or mergers, can create a great deal of fear and negative
attitudes among employees who feel that they are being kept in the dark about their
futures. These types of changes will now be discussed.

Downsizing

Downsizing, in its simplest terms, refers to massive layoffs, usually in the quest for
lower costs, higher productivity, and fatter profits (The Economist, 1994). An article in
The Economist cites a study conducted by the American Management Association,
reporting that two-thirds of the companies it studied had undergone three or more
episodes of downsizing in the past five years. In addition, only a third of the downsizers
reported higher productivity. So why downsize? Proponents of downsizing claim that it
does work. They claim that American unit-labor costs fell by an average of 6.4% per

16

year between 1985-1993. In addition, downsizing is a way of freeing labor and capital
for growing sectors to absorb. In addition, they feel that major industries such as the
automotive and computer industries needed a “trip to the health farm.”

Opponents see downsizing as a manager’s lack of imagination: “it may be easier to
increase returns by cutting assets or jobs rather than by raising profits” (The Economist,
1994). They also see a common theme among companies where “serial shrinkage has
become a substitute for strategy”: battered employee morale. In the past, employees
were told to “do as you’re told and you’ll have a job for life.” Nowadays, companies
cannot always keep that promise, and employees’ trust in the organization becomes a
major casualty in the downsizing effort. In addition, with middle management also
falling victim to the downsizing effort, yet another level of communication disappears.
The article suggests keeping employees “happy” by demonstrating why there must be
change, but how to communicate this, especially to employees who are in eminent danger
of losing their livelihood, is not discussed. Public relations techniques, such as employee
surveys, could be of great assistance companies in determining employee opinion, and
help to provide clues as to how to improve attitudes.

Corporate Mergers/Acquisitionsl'l‘akeovers

In the case of corporate mergers and takeovers, communication with employees
tends to be a low priority, and takes a back seat to the process of determining what the
“final product of the merger will look like” (Purser, 1988). Management meetings to
deal with the situation tend to occur behind tightly closed doors, with managers emerging
with even more tightly closed mouths. These practices tend to erode employee trust and
fuel the rumor mill, with employees generally assuming the worst-case scenarios. As in
the case of downsizing, employee surveys could help determine attitudes, and allowing
someone in management to communicate honestly with employees, without necessarily
revealing any “secrets,” could go a long way toward improving the situation.

In reviewing the literature dealing with reengineering, Total Quality Management

l7

and other forms of organizational change, the experts all seem to discuss the various
points that must be communicated. However, what they do not cover is how to
communicate them effectively, which is perhaps at the heart of successful implementa-
tion. Many experts agree that the lack of success in producing effective changes can be
traced back to poor communications strategies. Perhaps their goal is to omit this crucial
information so as to create a need for their consultative services!

To cite but one example, Hammer and Champy’s book Rmineen’ngjhe
Wan, cites several case studies discussing tangentially some of the
communication processes that came about. However, there is very little actual informa-
tion on strategic communications planning during the reengineering process. In fact, the
word “communication” is not even listed as an index topic. To attempt to shed some
light on this area, the next section of this thesis examines various communications
strategies in regard to organizational change proposed by communications consultants
and others in the field.

A HANDFUL OF “EXPERTS”

The lack of empirical data related to the topic of communication strategies in regard
to organizational change, coupled with the lack of guidance fi'om the creators of some of
the change methods, led to a review of the related popular literature. A plethora of
“experts” from the field of communications has emerged with their own theories, models
and “necessary” steps toward effective communication strategies during times of organi-
zational stress. The consultants run the gamut from current and former public relations
or communications directors, to public relations consultants, to Ph.D.’s and even maga-
zine editors. An overview of the more relevant (to this thesis) of these preachers of
effective communications strategies reveals many similarities between their respective
doctrines. However, most seem to have been developed from personal experience in the

field, and not necessarily empirical experimentation. The following were chosen

18

specifically for their inherent support of, or general relevance to, the issues discussed in
this thesis.
Stuart M. Klein

Stuart M. Klein (Klein, 1994) was a corporate manager of basic personnel research
at a large multinational firm during sweeping organizational changes. His experiences
showed him what should have been done in reference to communicating with employees
during the process of change. In his article, “Communication Strategies for Successful
Organizational Change,” he relates the following advice: “Organizational changes often
flounder because not enough strategic thought is given to communicating the rationale,
the progress and the impact of the change. Communications are important as changes are
planned and carried forth. Many difficulties that are associated with the change can be
more easily dealt with if there is strategic thinking about what and how to communicate.
The process should be based upon a good grasp of some principles of communication
together with an understanding of the change process.” Throughout his writings, Klein
refers to “studies which support” his propositions, but it is assumed that these studies
were for internal purposes only and may not possess external validity.

Nonetheless, Klein proposes several noteworthy theories, in that they involve both
the techniques and the tools of public relations as previously discussed. Klein bases his
strategy on the Kurt Lewinian three-tiered model of change, i.e. unfreezing, changing,
and freezing. The objective during the unfieezing stage is to prepare employees for the
change. Communiques from the CEO as well as meetings to allow questions and
feedback would be used to convey the reasons for the changes. He advocates the
“multimedia and redundancy” principles of advertising as further means for conveying
these messages during this first stage, as well as during the subsequent “changing” and
“refreezing” stages. He does not, however, emphasize employee surveys, which he
admits would have benefited his firm in its original strategy-making. When these surveys

were employed at a later point in the change process, they revealed poor attitudes.

l9

Klein’s “Key Principles of Organizational Communications” include the following:

1) Message redundancy is related to message retention

2) The use of several media is more effective than the use of just one

3) Face-to-face communication is a preferred medium

4) Information that is consistent and/or reinforces basic values and beliefs is

effective in changing opinions and attitudes
5) Personally relevant information is better retained than abstract, unfamiliar or
general information.

Overall, Klein does provide comprehensive advice, but it will probably benefit most
a company that employs a communications professional who can back up the tools and
techniques proposed with the expertise of the appropriate wording and mood.
Gary Grates

Gary Grates is president of a New York City based public relations and communica—
tions firm and lecturer on management issues facing cormnunications professionals and
corporate management. In his article, “The Subtlety and Power of Communications in
Corporate Renewal Initiatives,” (Grates, 1994) he proposes his “winning formula for
senior managers” who are involved in the adoption of a new strategic direction in their
organizations. His formula includes the following:

1) Fully understand what you are getting yourself into

2) Involve communications experts at the outset (internal and external)

3) Coach people to understand change, not fear it

4) Know the company structure

5) Have a system for getting feedback

6) Be consistent in what you say and do

His advice to involve external communications experts, as this “formula” is not
comprehensive enough to assist any manager in managing change, is somewhat suspi-

cious, as he himself is a candidate for that role. Grates does, however, make many other

20

provocative statements in his article. For instance, he proclaims that effective
communications is not about newsletters, meetings, memos, etc. “These are nothing
more than the tools that can be used to help people understand, identify and experience
the process of change.” Instead, effective communications is about influencing and
changing human behavior. This could be seen as coming dangerously close to the
one-way communications strategies that are part of the worldview of public relations.
His claim that “before implementing any new initiative, management should call on
communications professionals to help develop and support the process” certainly
supports the propositions of this writing, but again is based on his personal experience
and not empirical data.
Alvie L. Smith
Alvie L. Smith (1990), a public relations consultant emphasizing organizational
communication, feels that the “90’s is the decade of the employee.” In his article,
“Bridging the Gap Between Employees and Management,” Smith claims that the key is
to effect a basic change in management attitudes. “Management must see two-way
communication... as a fundamental means of helping to release the creative genius of
employees bottled up in organizations by authoritarian management styles.” His six-point
system for pursuing a planned process of professional communication is as follows:
1) Communications must be a fundamental component of the management process,
with internal communications on par with external
2) A clear statement of commitment by top managers must be repeated often and
used as an example in their own personal conduct
3) Communications must be a planned process, with both public relations
professional and key management people involved in the formation of short-
and long-range strategies
4) All managers should be responsible for being key conduits and catalysts,

with regular flow of important information (this could require special training)

21

5) Priority business issues should be the core content of the communication
program through various channels of communication
6) The communication process should be evaluated regularly to prove its worth
and to direct improvements — the more scientific the research, the better

Smith’s ideal is to “get communicators to think, plan and execute like managers.”
Unfortunately, as was earlier discussed, more often than not the communications profes-
sional is not sufficiently trained for effective execution of this function. Still, his claim
that the public relations professional can make a significant contribution to the goal of
“bringing all employees into an understanding, cooperative and committed team for
maximum levels of achievement” also supports the propositions of this thesis.
John Purser

John Purser, a specialist in public affairs and communications management, pro-
poses a ten step process for developing and implementing a comprehensive merger/
acquisition communications program (Purser, 1988). His article, “Straight Talk at
Merger Time” cites the following strategies, which are included in his ten step process:
getting an early start with a task force that bases its situation analysis on research, not
hearsay; conducting a confidential employee survey immediately following the an-
nouncement of the proposed organizational change, assessing concerns as well as the
corporate culture; coordinate all communications so that they are consistent internally
and externally, and communicate on a regular basis. Once again, Purser lends support to
the ideal of two-way symmetrical communications as a means of easing the organization
through a merger or other type of organizational change.
Mary Lou van Schaik

According to Mary Lou van Schaik (1992), face-to-face communication is the most
important public relations tool, especially with the teamwork theme of total quality
management. She feels that conversations directly influence much of our daily work,

and that day-to-day expectations that aren’t clearly defined and agreed upon are the

22

“most frequent cause of annoying minor crises.” She discusses some strategies for more
effective communications, such as intensive listening and clearly defining expectations.
She then goes on to define the role that the corporate communications officer can play in
nurturing constructive conversations by helping managers plan communication strategies.

Van Schaik cites critiquing the daily communication plans of managers as an
example of how the communications officer could be involved. She goes on to warn that
this could be a dangerous route unless the communications officer is specifically asked to
perform this task. She also suggests teaming up with the human resources department to
deliver effective coaching and learning programs for face-to-face communications skills
for both managers and employees. This could also be a tool for future changes that may
affect the organization and would make for a provocative research study. Van Schaik
discusses no research to support her propositions, nor does she propose much in the way
of other communications media. However, her recommendations are in support of the
two-way symmetric communications that is the hallmark of proper public relations.

Jane Easter Bahls

According to Jane Easter Bahls (1992), a free-lance writer, the total quality move-
ment has “fundamentally changed American business” over the past decade in terms of
becoming more dedicated to complete customer service, vowing continual improvement
of their products, processes and controls (Bahls, 1992). She feels that it would behoove
public relations professionals, both within and without, to understand the principles of
total quality management. And, rather than merely promoting the new standards, they
need to be able to help a company meet them.

In her article, “Managing for Total Quality,” she claims that companies shifting to
TQM, even if only adopting a few of the movement’s methods, are making great changes
in the way they think and do business. Coordinating everything requires a great deal of
communications efforts to bring everyone on board. Through her interviews with public

relations firms, company officers and other practitioners, Bahls concludes that the ideal is

23

to recognize the “differing needs of the company’s different audiences, a skill a
competent public relations professional should be able to handle well.” She suggests that
practitioners could also be of assistance in the area of anticipating and defusing employee
resistance. Further, once a company has a quality process that results in better products
or services, it can then take that message to its external publics. Bahls proposes some
interesting points, but, again, these are based on interviews with other so-called experts,
and, like most of the other “experts,” there is no empirical data to back them up.

James R. Lamb

James R. Lamb (1991), former director of public relations for Xerox Corporation,
and currently a communications consultant, interviewed various companies to discuss
their communications strategies whether during organizational upheaval or under more
normal circumstances. Two-thirds of the companies had their employee communications
function subsumed under a “unified communications or public relations function,” while
the remaining companies made it a part of the human resources function. According to
Lamb, companies are not making investments in employee communications because it
“feels good.” Rather, “quality principles tell us that corporations need their employees to
participate in the business intellectually. Companies need their employees’ ideas, and
they need employees to accept the strategy, even when it causes pain. And only in-
formed employees can participate in this way” (Lamb, 1991).

Lamb cites Ford Motor Company, IBM, and other major corporations that are
investing heavily in closed-circuit television systems to broadcast meetings and other
information they feel is important to communicate to employees. “The idea of telling
employees the bad news as well as the good has to do with credibility issues. With
companies that are in the public eye, management would prefer that employees hear the
bad news from the inside first, with management’s explanation, rather than hearing it
from the mass media” (Lamb, 1991).

Lamb feels that an important principle is that “communications is a two-way street.”

24

He advocates the idea that meetings and other formal programs must enable employees to
talk back. In his article, “Tell Employees the Bad News, Too,” (Lamb, 1991), he again
cites IBM, Kodak and Xerox, who all have formal programs that enable employees to
communicate with executives. What really works, he claims, is management commit-
ment to open communications. Unfortunately, Lamb leaves out any tangible advice to
management or even communications professionals as to how to communicate. It is all
well and good to be Open to communications, but management should have some guide-
lines for what to do with these open lines of communication as well.

Les Landes

Les Landes, of Landes Communications, in his article entitled, “Down with Quality
Programitis” (Landes, 1992), initially seems to be proposing a viewpoint that is contrary
to the TQM hOOpla. He sees the number of companies struggling with TQM far
outnumbering those that are succeeding with it. The biggest problem, he claims, is that
communications professionals at these companies are suffering from “programitis,” that
is, “making quality improvement imperatives into a program of action against which
employees rebel.” Landes contends that “if you want quality to work, it has to be invis-
ible.” In other words, the quality imperative must be woven into the fabric of day-to-day
business. Otherwise it goes against the “way we do things around here” syndrome, and is
bound to fail. He feels that many organizational communications professionals are
playing a large role in creating and perpetuating TQM “prograrnitis,” and are ultimately
undermining the efforts they are supposed to be supporting.

As with the other “experts,” Landes has his own checklist of advice to
communications professionals to aid them in their quest for implementing TQM, but the
main point he makes is that quality must be part and parcel of the way in which
employees conduct business. It cannot stand out or it risks rejection. He includes the
following words of wisdom for communications professionals: Avoid the “show” i.e. the

banners, logos, themes, campaigns and other things that make it seem like just another

25

“program-of-the-month.” Eventually, the show has to end, and it will need to be trans-
formed into “just the way we do things around here.” Landes is doubtful that this sort of
transformation can be made and feels it is best to simply avoid the “show” altogether.

Another reason for avoiding the show, according to Landes, is that it sends a

message that employees cannot be trusted to embrace the new methods to improve
performance without being seduced into it. As he explains, “instead of rallying the
troops, management comes off looking like they have a Mary Poppins complex, treating
employees like children, trying to slip them “a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go
down.” What communicators should strive instead to do, according to Landes, is as
follows:

1) Measure employee actions in response to communications, not just their
knowledge, which serves as a better gage of the impact of communications.

2) Accommodate employee preference for face-to-face communication
whenever possible, providing direction and support to supervisors for this role.

3) Avoid the “quality communication” trap, i.e. make all communications related to
quality straight talk instead of hype. For instance, don’t capitalize the ‘Q’ in
quality in mid-sentence, no quality mission statements, no quality pep rallies,
training, councils or task forces, no themes, logos, banners or coffee mugs,
and especially, no program-related themes, slogans or acronyms like TQM.

4) Keep communicating about quality in a way that it is a part of ‘just the way we
do things around here.” Break out of the reporter/promoter/apologist paradigm
and set your course for a comprehensive, strategic role based on commitment to
truth and knowledge, not to persuasion in general. Company publications should
be full of the things people are doing to make improvements, but there should not
be a publication devoted exclusively to these things. Task forces should be
created to tackle specific problems. Everyone should have a coffee mug, but one

that has the company logo, not some made-up quality-theme logo.

26

Landes’ ideas have a great deal of merit, but again, there is no empirical data to
back them up, nor does he cite any case studies. He does, however, go into a great deal
of detail concerning how the communications professional should be communicating, not
just which media he/she should be using.

Robert Heath, Steven Leth, and Kathy Nathan

Robert Heath, Steven Leth, and Kathy Nathan, in their article “Communicating
Service Quality Improvement,” (Heath, et. al., 1994) seem to agree with many of the
points made by Landes. “T 0 meet the TQM challenge, public relations has to abandon
glittering generalities and avoid routine publicity stunts. Approaches and tactics are
required to foster a culture that empowers employees, informs them of achievable quality
goals, and gains their compliance to increase quality.” They feel that the service
industry’s public relations practitioners can increase the speed with which the quality
messages work their way throughout an organization, as well as communicate with
outside publics that the company is serious about improving quality. “Whereas the
absence of variation is the hallmark of TQM efforts in the manufacturing sectors, the
theme of the service industry should be variation as needed to meet customer
expectations and increase satisfaction” (Heath, et. al., 1994), and the public relations
professional should be communicating this message.

The authors cite three stages of successful management efforts that can serve as
focal points for implementing desired changes, along with what the communication
specialist can do at each stage. The first stage is “Direction Setting and Planning,” where
the organization develops and implements plans designed to increase customer service.
The public relations person could determine what can be said and to whom to achieve
and reinforce employee and management efforts to make personal and organizational
changes. Stage two involves “Service Team Improvement,” which focuses on defining
and empowering quality teams that are able to put forth maximum effort on behalf of

satisfying customers. Public Relations professionals can be providing information that

27

helps teams understand service management, to reinforce their commitment to it, and to
motivate efforts that enhance the team process.

Stage three is “Service Quality Integration” which focuses on having all units
“viewing themselves as integrated into a cohesive partnership for quality improvement...
Because it views the organization as a single entity needing a sense of integrated commit-
ment, public relations is a cornerstone to this integration.” The authors claim that the
public relations message should go to internal publics in the form of encouragement to
managers to hire and/or train people to be vital members of the service team, and to
external publics to demonstrate the company’s commitment to improved quality.
Throughout the article, the authors suggest challenges and advice to both management
and the public relations professional to achieve each of the stages, but as with many of
the other “experts,” there is little empirical data to back this up.

Summary

Throughout this journey through the popular literature, it has become quite obvious
that little empirical data is available to support the conclusions the experts purport.

While it is evident that there is much overlap in the recommendations that they propose,
there are also some very provocative statements, such as Landes’ treatise to not make
TQM a “program-of-the-month.” It seems that many of the experts effectively agree that
organizational change efforts, especially in the areas of improved process or quality
efforts, is best done in more subtle, less dramatic methods.

Each of the so-called experts cited in this thesis proposed various strategies based on
their own experience, or in some cases on others’ experiences. Perhaps it is a matter of
each case being tmique to the particular organization and its particular situation. To
explore this notion, a small sample of case studies fi'om the popular literature will
subsequently be examined, followed by a discussion of the limited empirical information

found to be related to this thesis.

28

CASE STUDIES

Deborah Hauss (1993) discusses six case studies of companies in which “timely
communications play[ed] a major part in quelling employees’ fears.” Among the compa-
nies cited were Time Warner, Inc., struggling with a hostile takeover, Empire Blue Cross
Blue Shield, facing scandal over its financial management and personnel changes at the
top; Boeing handling massive layoffs; and Northwest Airlines facing cost and wage cuts
as well as a public court battle over fares with a major competitor. All of these compa-
nies were facing crises that strongly affected a significant number of employees.

Northwest Airlines communicated with employees every day via an internal on-line
service, as well as bimonthly via an employee newsletter created by the communications
department. They also encouraged managers to be out among the line people in an
attempt to encourage other employees. Through several special editions of the company
newspaper, their “best communications vehicle” according to Jeff Smith, Director of
Internal Communications, the progressive wage reduction program was outlined in full
detail, and potential employee questions were addressed. Also included was a three-page
letter from the CEO which outlined the restructuring process. Northwest was able to
effect an average 11% pay out which affected every single employee. Employee
attitudes, whether studied or not, were not discussed in the article; nonetheless low
employee attrition was reported.

The other companies cited utilized various tools of public relations with positive
results. Like the Northwest case, few techniques of strategic planning were reported, i.e.
no employee surveys utilized, for instance. Most of the communication was one-way,
and therefore does not conform to the definition of public relations being used for this
thesis. Time Warner was the only exception, where senior executives of each division
held a series of meetings to answer employees’ questions and to allay their fears. In
addition, individual managers held meetings with their own employees, but these efforts

were not coordinated through the central office, and therefore were more of a tool than

29
an actual technique of public relations.

IBM United States’ manager of strategic communications, Adrianne Singer, claims
that a dynamic communication process builds understanding between management and
employees (Bahls, 1992). “Through focus groups, surveys, and talking one-on-one, the
company discovers what employees value while communicating its corporate culture.
To achieve employee buy-in, you have to understand their values.” IBM United States
communicates with employees through its own television network, newsletters and
videos. The division also encourages two-way communication through face-to-face
meetings between executives and lower-level employees, electronic surveys and interac-
tive television programming. An “Exec Link” computer program allows employees to
ask questions of the appropriate executive, and receive prompt replies. According to
Singer, “what we do is all linked to the voice of the employee. We try to give them what
they need.” Singer claims that these tools of public relations used have gone a long way
toward facilitating IBM’s quality improvement efforts. It would be interesting to survey
employees to obtain an index of their attitudes based on the communications efforts
employed.

When the Kansas Power and Light Company integrated with the Kansas Gas and
Electric Company to become the new corporate entity, Western Resources, Inc. during
1992, the success of the merger was attributed to highly empowered employees, accord-
ing to Thomas Sloan, Ph.D., Director of Corporate Communications (Sloan, 1993). This
was an instance where corporate communications officers from the both sides, alongside
top management, worked together to devise a strategy to smooth the transition.
Together, they instituted an extensive employee-directed integration process through the
use of 52 “integration transition teams based on functional responsibilities,” with
representation from both entities working together.

“Each team initially examined the corporate cultures of the merging entities,”

explained Sloan. “This approach meant that those employees who were responsible for

30

specific work analyzed and developed the best strategy to not only integrate the
companies, but to improve the functional performance of each work group.”

Communication strategies conveyed to employees who were not members of one of
the teams that the merger was not “being dictated from the top. The communications
department developed a special newsletter to provide timely merger-related information,
which was distributed in several ways, depending on the urgency of the information. At
times, issues were distributed through the regular interoffice mail system, sometimes to
employees homes. Very little was held back from employees — from new organiza-
tional charts as they were finalized to notices of regulatory approvals received. Sloan
claims that “employee feedback... indicated that employees and their families appreciated
the content, timeliness and intent of the communications during a high-stress period.”
And although officers and managers of both companies were not able to allay all
employee fears, having given communications such as high priority resulted in fewer
rumors sweeping the company.

Indeed, merger-related communications did not cease with the receipt of final
merger approval. Thereafter, a single monthly tabloid was used to introduce work
groups to other employees and organizational charts with photographs were published,
all helping employees get to know one another in the new corporate environment. Sloan
comments on a great lesson learned through this merger — “once a conceptual scheme
for the overall corporate structure has been determined, implementation should be left to
those who will have to live with the results.”

The above case study is an excellent example of what can be achieved when top
management teams up with corporate communications officers to determine the strategy
of communication and implementation during major organizational change. As was
discussed earlier, neither of these two functions usually has the expertise to handle both
the management aspects and the communications aspects of organizational change.

By having the two sides working together to effect change, along with maximum

31

involvement on the part of employees, Westem Resources, Inc. was able to facilitate
what could have been a difficult merger.

These cases illustrate what a few select companies are doing to facilitate organiza-
tional change, but mainly from the perspective of management. The following empirical
research is intended to shed some light on how employees perceive communications

effectiveness in the face of change, as well as middle managers, and then CEO’s.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

A study sponsored by the Council of Communication Management, and discussed in
the Public Relations Journal (1994), surveyed 705 employees in 70 companies ranging
from Fortune 500 firms to smaller organizations, asking whether or not companies are
doing enough to communicate change. Ninety-eight percent of those surveyed felt that
understanding their company’s future direction helped them perform their jobs better, but
only 39% said they received enough information to achieve that understanding. Eighty-
nine percent agreed with the statement “My company is making changes that are neces-
sary to compete effectively,” implying that employees were not necessarily against
9 change, they simply wanted to be better informed about the reasons for, and results of,
the changes. Other comments included: “My company is negligent about any communi-
cations... I usually read about things first in the newspaper” and “[the company] needs to
work on clear and timely communications.”

The results of a study on employee involvement issues, conducted by Industry Week
magazine, in conjunction with Wyatt Company, an international management-consulting
firm, were discussed in an article entitled, “Is Industry Ready for Adult Relationships?”
(Moskal, 1991). The study sought to determine if employee involvement programs are
just another management fad, or if they are actually representative of a fundamental
paradigm shift in American business. Not a lot of detail was provided in the article

concerning methodology; however, it was apparent that a survey questionnaire was used,

32

and reportedly 845 line managers responded.

Seventy-eith percent of respondents reported that their companies were involved in
employee involvement efforts, with 44% considering their companies to be “deeply
involved.” 55% of respondents felt that “El” represents a fundamental shift in how they
do business, as opposed to being just another management program. However, only
about half of all respondents felt that their company had established an environment in
which employees have the freedom to speak freely or are treated with respect. Roughly
75% of respondents felt that “E1” is key to the future success of their own company, with
30% claiming that it is critical to success in the 90’s.

Overall results of the survey revealed that many companies are moving toward
employee involvement initiatives for a number of reasons, not just for the benefit of
employees. Improved quality, productivity, customer service and cost reduction were
cited as big motivating factors for companies actually shifting the way in which
managers deal with employees. Other reasons cited for embracing employee involve-
ment principles included increased employee commitment, encouraging innovation,
pushing accountability downward, improved employee retention, and reduction of
management layers. As a result of the “El” initiatives, managers reported increased
personal job satisfaction (57%), improved quality (5 9%), and 30% reported that there has
been a return on investment of El initiatives.

These results are very optimistic; certainly, it would have been better to know more
about the methodology employed so as to better evaluate the results. An interesting
study based on this information would be to determine if the companies that claim a high
level of involvement in “El” efforts maintain these efforts in the face of a difficult
organizational change, such as a merger or hostile takeover. Certainly these types of
efforts could go far in helping to promote other initiative such as TQM or a reengineer-
ing effort, as employees would already have more faith in management to begin with.

Another noteworthy study was conducted as part of a master’s thesis project, titled

33

“Assessing the Bottom Line Impact of Effective Public Relations Programs from a
Corporate Leader’s Perspective.” It was accepted by the University of Maryland’s
Graduate School faculty in 1991, and summarized in an article appearing in the Public
Relations Journal (Campbell, 1993). A qualitative study, the data was collected through
the use of “elite interviewing,” a technique that involves a type of one-on-one interview-
ing conducted with anyone who is given special, non-standardized treatment, and is often
used with “well-informed or influential people.” The research involved over 22 hours of
elite interviews that were conducted in the offices of the 18 CEO’s that participated in
the study. The CEO’s represented companies from a variety of different industries,
company sizes, and geographic region. All were males, with various cultural back-
grounds represented.

Each CEO was asked four open-ended questions, as follows:

1) How do CEO’s define effective public relations programs?

2) How do CEO’s differentiate between public relations programs with little impact

and effective ones?

3) What examples do CEO’s give of excellent public relations programs?

4) How have the effective public relations programs contributed to the bottom line?

The results revealed that many CEO’s consider public relations and marketing as the
same discipline, and that they rarely consider public relations when it comes to the
strategic management of the company. Definitions ranged from “anything the organiza-
tion does that involves public contact” to “the relationship with the public” to “showing
the company as a good citizen in the community.” These comments seem to represent
the previously discussed worldview of public relations. None of the CEO’s interviewed
reportedly mentioned internal publics or employee communications as part of public
relations.

To define “effective public relations programs,” the CEO’s cited 10 elements that

would need to be included for a program to be effective. These are listed in descending

34

 

Exhibit 3 - Ten Elements of Effective Public Relations Programs

1. Taking a long-term approach toward developing public relations strategies.

Insisting on full honesty and integrity on the part of the CEO and others in
the organization.

3"

Involving senior managment in the decisions about public relations strategies.
Developing a targeted approach to the process of public relations

Including research as part of the public realtions planning process.

Having a company truly understand its publics.

Knowing the organization’s identiy or image.

”N99?!”

Achieving an appropriate balancein how much and what type of public
relations is practiced.

9. Having an internal person designated to manage the public relations fimction.

10. Placing the public relations function close to management within the
organizational structure.

From “Does Public Relations Affect the Bottom Line?” Catherine B.
Campbell, APR. (1 993)

 

 

 

order of importance in Exhibit 3. Points 3 and 6 are particularly interesting, in that 3
relates to involving senior management in the decisions about public relations strategies,
with no mention of involving public relations in the decisions about strategic manage-
ment of the company. Point 6 does not define who the company’s publics are, only that
there should be a good understanding of them.

To differentiate between “effective” public relations programs and those that are
not effective, the CEO’s interviewed were generally vague, claiming to just “know
instinctively.” “Effective” was defined as programs that were “heard, listened to, and
followed,” or that produced positive results for the company. Quantity was also equated

with quality when effectiveness was considered. When asked to give examples of

35

“excellent public relations programs,” the Tylenol tampering case and the Pen-tier
contamination case were cited most often. The level of visibility by senior management
during crises was seen as being the key to effectively handling the situation and
“winning some points with the public.”

Finally, the majority of the CEO’s interviewed believed that public relations had a
significant impact on the bottom line, although many admitted to not having consciously
tied the two together in the past. According to Campbell, it seemed that many of them
were considering the concept for the first time. Some went on to comment that public
relations, like all other company functions such as accounting or information systems,
contribute in some way to the bottom line. Only two of the 18 CEO’s interviewed did
not see a connection between public relations and the bottom line. Although they did see
public relations as having been of great value to their companies, they did not feel that
public relations was measurable.

While the results of this study are in no way representative of all CEO’s perceptions
of public relations, it does reemphasize the fact that the worldview of public relations
remains quite pervasive, and that the discipline still has a long way to go before it is
considered as part of the strategic management function. According to Campbell, it is
the responsibility of the public relations professional to show senior management the
value that this discipline can have in the effective operation of the entire organization.

No other empirical data was found to be related to the topic of this thesis. As stated
earlier, the discipline of public relations is somewhat young, and many curricula do not
include formal research. Most public relations journals contain literature geared toward
the practice of public relations as it relates to external publics rather than internal, and
were not found to be very helpful in supporting this work. This fact does, however,
highlight the need for more research to be done in this area, and, in that respect, supports

the general purposes of this thesis.

36

SUMMARY

As has been demonstrated throughout the literature review, public relations is rarely
seen as much more than a function of the communications or marketing department, and
internal public relations is hardly recognized at all. Senior management does not gener-
ally take into consideration the effects of strategic planning on internal, and sometimes
even external, publics, and therefore does not even conceive of the necessity for commu-
nications officers to be a part of the strategic planning. In addition, due to lack of formal
management training on the part of communications “professionals,” these people tend to
be ill-equipped to be effective in the process of strategic planning.

When it comes to organizational change management, whether voluntary in the case
of reengineering or implementation of TQM, or involuntary, in the case of a hostile
takeover, little is discussed in terms of communicating changes to employees. It is
simply assumed that senior management already knows how to communicate with
employees, or that communicating the changes are secondary to the act of carrying them
out. However, many of those who have gone through some of these changes stress the
need for employee “buy-in” in order to achieve a positive outcome, no matter what the
form of change.

The advice of a number of communications experts was reviewed, with several
common themes encountered. For instance, the need for employee “buy-in” was high-
lighted, as well as the need for strategic management of the communications methods
employed. Communications was seen as a “two-way street” by many of the experts,
emphasizing the symmetrical nature of true public relations as was defined in this thesis.
Various public relations tools were cited, such as face-to-face communications, use of
corporate newsletters or closed-circuit television; however, not a lot of detail was
provided as to how to use these media most effectively. In many cases, it would seem to
be necessary to employ the services of a communications consultant to assist in the

smooth transition of whatever organizational change the company is facing. But how do

37

corporate executives feel about using communications consultants during these times?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

This question and others led to the following research questions:

1) What do corporate executives perceive as the most significant change, if any,
occuring in their organization, that affected a large number of employees? This question
will provide some insight into the frequency with which the major types of organiza-
tional change, i.e. reengineering, TQM, downsizing, mergers, etc., occur within the
sample population. It will also serve as an indication as to how corporate executives
perceive these changes as affecting all or a percentage of employees.

2) What was the level of employee participation in the change process? Were
employees the initiators of the change? Did top management decide on the change and
allow employees to participate in the implementation? Or were employees told only
after the change occured? This question will provide an indication of the environment in
which the change is occuring, i.e. one that is open or closed to employee involvement.

3) How often did the organization communicate with employees before, during and
after the change, and which public relations tools were used during the process of
change? Again, this is meant to provide an indication of the environment surrounding
the change. Respondents will additionally be asked to indicate their perceived level of
success of the tools used in terms of employees attitudes.

4) Was a communications professional involved in the communication process
during the change? This question will provide insight into how beneficial the sample
population perceives the use of communications professionals to be. For those who
indicate having involved a communications professional, additional questions will probe
their perceptions of the effectiveness of this person’s role.

Demographic information related to educational background will also be collected.
Resondents will also be provided with an opportunity to express any additional com-

ments related to the study.

38

To answer the above questions, corporations that have gone through some form of
significant change will be examined. The term “public relations” was purposely
downplayed in the questionnaire so as not to create confusion in light of the pervasive-
ness of the worldview of public relations, especially as it relates to internal publics.
Instead, the term “communications” was used.

The purpose of this study is to shed some light on how actual corporate executives
are managing employee relations during periods of major organizational change. As was
previously discussed, many times, public relations functions are actually being per-
formed, although these acts would not necessarily be considered as public relations by
those performing them. This study seeks to determine if this is the case when communi-
cating during change.

The following sections will describe in detail the methodology used in this explor-
atory study, the questions posed, and the empirical results. Qualitative results will also
be considered, in the case of open-ended questions, and outlying cases that might lead to
further research. Finally, the implications of this research will be discussed, along with

recommendations for future, related research.

METHODOLOGY

Many interesting questions are raised from the examination of the topic of public
relations tools in the facilitation of change management. For instance, how do top-level
managers perceive the success of internal communications during periods of organiza-
tional change? Do they consult with communications specialists, whether a company
employee or an outside consultant? Because of the lack of empirical data concerning the
topic of communication strategies and organizational change management, an explor-
atory study was conducted to gather more information in this area. A questionnaire was
chosen as the instrument of this study in order to gather a great deal of data from which
to analyze and suggest additional areas of study.

Referring to the aforementioned study by the Grant Thorton Consulting Firm, which
reported that 95% of the country’s mid-sized industrial companies claim to have
reengineered at least part of their operation, and 30% say they have reengineered their
entire business within the last three years (Kinni, 1994), it would seem logical to narrow
the population parameters for this study on industrial firms. Also, because there is a
marked difference in the way service companies define TQM efforts (variation for the
sake of the customer), and how manufacturing firms define TQM efforts (lack of varia-
tion for maximum good product), it again seems logical to narrow the focus to industrial

companies.

39

40

By narrowing the focus thusly, the population under examination will be more
homogeneous, and the results of the study might allow valid insight into at least this
sector of business. While this group may not be representative of all US. firms, it does
represent a significant segment where significant organizational change has been shown
to be a frequent occurrence. New technological advances, changing management styles,
dynamic business cycles and other external forces have a great influence on industrial
organizations, and can lead to significant internal changes. How these organizations deal
with those changes can provide insight into the ways these and other types of firms might
be able to successfully deal with organizational change.

PROCEDURE

To collect data for this study, a ten-question questionnaire was mailed to 700 top-
level managers from various industrial organizations randomly selected from a database
collected by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) (see Appendix A for a
complete copy of the survey). The total SME database contains over 600,000 names. A
list of 2,470 names was extracted from the main database. The selections for the list
created the following parameters:

- Firms within the continental United States

- Firms with 150 or more employees

- Corporate executives with job titles that include the word “president” (i.e. presi-
dent or vice president)

The list of 700 was extracted from the original list of 2,470 by computer-generated
random sampling (see Appendix B for list rationale).

The questionnaire was mailed via first class postage, along with a postage-paid,
return envelope that was provided for ease of return. An introductory letter, printed on
Michigan State University letterhead, was also included to explain the reason for the
study, to provide a time frame for response, and to obtain informed consent (see Appen-
dix A). In addition, if the subject so desired, he or she could provide a mailing address

41

for study results to be forwarded to him/her. The questionnaire was approved by the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) prior to being
mailed so as to ensure ethical research was being conducted.

Questions were of both a qualitative and a quantitative nature, and sought to find
answers to the following general questions:

1) How many corporate executives surveyed perceive some kind of major

organizational change in the past five years?

2) What form of organizational change is most prevalent among the study group?

3) How do communications strategies change during various phases of

change — before, during and after?

4) How do such things as educational background and use of communications

consultants affect the use of public relations tools by corporate executives?

5) How does the use of public relations tools affect the perceived success of the

change in terms of employee attitudes?

5) How does the use of communications consultants affect the perceived success

of the change in terms of employee attitudes?

In general terms, this study was conducted with the intention of providing further
insight into the effectiveness of various communication strategies during change
management. Other questions may be answered by this study as the results are analyzed.
Conversely, other questions may come up. The subjects’ perceptions, i.e. those of the
top level executives surveyed, concerning the effectiveness of various communications
strategies, were used as a measurement of effectiveness, as further study would be

required to poll employees from each of the companies surveyed to determine their

perceptions.

RESULTS

Of the 700 questionnaires mailed, 127 responses were received, a response rate of
approximately 18%. Of the 127 responses, 105, or 76% of the respondents indicated
some type of organizational change in the past five years, with 22 respondents (17%)
indicating that they perceived no change within the past five years. Subjects who
checked the box corresponding to the response “My company has not experienced any
significant change in the past five years,” were asked to skip to “Question 7,” which
asked for demographic information. The following results are based on the 105 cases

where change was perceived unless otherwise indicated.

TYPE OF CHANGE/NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AFFECTED/EMPLOYEE
PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING

Table 1 summarizes the results to Question 1, which asked respondents to indicate
the “most significant change that your company experienced in the past five years that
affected a large number of employees.” Of the 127 cases recorded, the largest percent-
age of response was in the category “Reorganization/Restructuring/Reengineering,” with
37 responses, roughly 29% of total response. The second largest group of respondents
indicated that “Implementation of Total Quality Management” was the most significant

change experienced by their company in the past five years. Together, these two changes

42

43
Table l - Most Significant Change Experienced by Your Company in the

Past Five Years
Type of Change # Responses % Responses
Reorganization/Restructuring/Reengineering 37 29.1%
Implementation of Total Quality Management 16 12.6%
Downsizing 13 10.2%
Corporate Merger 7 5.5%
Wage Cutbacks 1 0.8%
Hostile Takeover 1 0.8%
Image Crisis 0 0.0%
Other Major Change 30 23.6%
No Change perceived 22 17.3%
Total: 127 100%

accounted for over 40% of the response rate. These results are somewhat consistent with
what was seen in the literature review section, which revealed that reengineering is the
latest management concept, and therefore, currently the hottest, followed by the TQM
movement. The “Downsizing” and “Corporate Merger” categories also rated somewhat
highly, which also appears to be consistent with current business trends.

Thirty respondents checked the box corresponding to the category “Other Major
Change.” Nearly half of those described some form of rapid growth as the significant
change that their company experienced. Increases in production, work force, sales
volume, number of plants or divisions were cited in the verbatim responses (For a full
reporting of verbatim responses to the “Other Major Change” category, please see
Appendix C).

A surprising 22 respondents (17% of total response) indicated that they did not
perceive any major change in the past five years. This would seem somewhat high

considering the tumultuous business conditions of the past five years. It is possible to

44

speculate that perhaps changes were taking place that the respondent did not perceive as
significant, or that did not affect a large number of employees. Certainly, it is possible to
have had no significant changes in the past five years. It would be interesting to follow
up on these 22 companies to determine if any major changes had actually taken place.
However, as this was a blind study, with no identification requested, it would not be
possible to do so).

When asked what percentage of employees were affected by the change, over 70%
of the respondents indicated a percentage of 75% or higher. Table 2 summarizes the
percentile distribution of these results. In very few instances was the percentages below
50, indicating that most respondents perceived that the change experienced by their

company affected the majority of employees.

Table 2 - Percentage of Employees Affected by the Change

Percentile #Responses % Responses
1-25% 1 1 10.8%
26-50% 17 16.7%
51-75% 1 1.0%
76%-100% 73 71.5%
Total: 102 100%

Table 3 shows the average number of employees affected by each of the changes
listed in Question 1. It is interesting to note that in the cases of Total Quality
Management and Reengineering, not all employees are necessarily affected, perhaps due

to the fact that many times, these changes can affect only a few departments. Mergers,

45
Table 3 - Average Percentage of Employees Affected by Each Type of Change

Type of Change Average % of # Cases
Employees Reported
Affected
Corporate Merger 100% 6
Wage Cutbacks 100% 1
Implementation of Total Quality Management 88.7% 15
Re-organization/Restructuring/Reengineering 73.3% 37
Downsizing 64.2% 13
Hostile Takeover 50.0% 1
Other Major Change 80.0% 29
Total: 102

predictably, were perceived to have affected a larger number of employees. It is interest-
ing to note the lower percentages in the categories of “Downsizing” and “Hostile Take-
over,” as it would be assumed that these actions would affect everyone in an organiza-
tion. It could be hypothesized that the corporate executives that responded to the ques-
tionnaire thusly did not perceive these actions as affecting their entire company, only
perhaps the small segment of employees that were displaced by the change.

Question 3 asked respondents to indicate that which best described their company in
terms of “the level of employee participation in your organization’s change.” The largest
percentage (46%, or 47 of the 105 cases) of respondents indicated that management
“decided on the need for change, and employees were involved in the implementation
process.” Nearly 27% (26 cases) indicated that “management decided on the need for
change and developed strategies to implement the change.” Fourteen percent of respon-
dents indicated that a joint team of employees and managers initiated the change, as
opposed to nearly 10% where employees were told about the change only after the
change occurred. Interestingly, 5% of respondents indicated that employees initiated the
change.

46

§soo3 3

£5.ch v

3.3: _
o
3.3: _
3.563 N
o

3.3a N
owes—5
05 .3:

Sea. fiche—nan.—

3.83 am

3.33 e

c

o
3.38 e
3.2 c m
3.3 c m
3.38 e

329:: 32
Some—nan.—

eaeese an:

3.8: R
3.05 S

e
o
o
3.3: e
3.th :
3.93 8

329::
Some—mam

3023—. 2:»:

3.8: E

3.23 n

e
3.3V _
o
e
3.3 _
3.9ch

3.3:..—
2E2.

3.8: m

3x38 m

o
o
e
3.33 _
3.3.9 _
o

635::—

Some—mam

me

an

2
@—
nm

880*

”30,—.

oweaau .852 5:5

.859? H 058m
3855 awe?

comb—z SEoEeU
managem—

zote eeeseeaaafi
manganese

omen—.0 he 23,—.

coca—Luge be .961— .E owe-ED he 25,—. L w 03:.

47

Table 4 summarizes the results when the “level of participation” variable was
cross-tabulated against the “types of change” variable as described in Question 1. The
results reveal a somewhat predictable pattern. For instance, in the cases where
downsizing, corporate merger or hostile takeover were indicated, employees were either
not involved in the strategic process of the change, or were not told about it until after the
change occurred. 57% of those indicating a joint effort between management and
employees were in the reengineering or TQM categories. 66% of those indicating that
“management decided on the need for change and employees were involved in the
implementation decisions” were in these categories as well. It was interesting, however,
to see responses in these two categories that indicated that management decided on the
need for change and did not necessarily involve employees in the implementation strate-
gies, as these two areas seem to necessitate employee involvement at the implementation

level.

PUBLIC RELATIONS TOOLS

When respondents were asked to indicate “which public relations tools did your
company use to communicate change to employees” during the change process, nearly
80% only indicated only one of the tools listed. The results for each individual public
relations tool are listed in Table 5.

The results indicate that the most popular methods of communicating change were
through the use of meetings, whether “regularly scheduled meetings” (62.9%) or
“specially scheduled meetings” (78.1%). Roughly 40% of the respondents indicated that
the corporate newsletter was used, and 40% indicated communiques from the CEO.
Almost 10% of respondents indicated using the more “high-tech” methods of communi-
cation such as electronic mail or closed-circuit television. For those responses in the
“Other” category, respondents described such methods of communication as team meet-

ings, opinion surveys, special employee luncheons/meetings with the president or CEO,

48
Table 5 - Distribution of Use of Each Communications Tool

Communications Tool # Responses % of Responses
Corporate Newsletter 43 41.0%
Special Edition Newsletter 13 12.4%
Regular Corporate Communiques 21 20.0%
Special Corporate Communiques 28 26.7%
Regularly Scheduled Staff Meetings 66 62.9%
Specially Scheduled Meetings 82 78.1%
Letters/Memos from the CEO 46 43.8%
E-mail Messages 7 6.7%
Closed-circuit Television Messages 3 2.9%
Other Responses 22 21.0%

training sessions, company-wide meetings and one-on-one meetings. A complete
reporting of the verbatim responses can be found in Appendix C.

Subjects were then asked the follow-up question of “how successful would you say
the communication process was in terms of employee attitudes based on the communica-
tions methods used.” Response was based on a scale of 1-100 with 100 indicating the
most successful. Of the 102 responses to this question, ratings ranged from 20-100, with
an average of around 70. 7% of respondents indicated a score of less than 50. 52%
indicated a score in the 50-75 range, and 41% indicated a score of 80 or above. For those
who indicated having used more than one of the tools listed, scores were predictably
higher, typically in the 75-100 range.

FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATIONS
The next section of the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the frequency of
communications in terms of “communication from the top level down,” before, during

and after the change process. Table 6 summarizes these results. Responses in the

49
Table 6 - Frequency of Communication

A. Before the Change Occurred

# Responses % Responses
Daily 15 14.6%
Several Times Per Week 17 16.5%
Weekly 15 14.6%
Monthly 29 28.2%
Other 27 26.2%
Total: 103 100%
B. In the Midst of the Change

# Responses % Responses
Daily 24 23.5%
Several Times Per Week 28 27.5%
Weekly 28 27 .5%
Monthly 14 13.7%
Other 8 7.8%
Total: 102 100%
C. After the Change

# Responses % Responses
Daily 18 17.8%
Several Times Per Week 20 19.8%
Weekly 24 23.8%
Monthly 26 25.7%
Other 13 12.9%

Total: 101 100%

50

“Other” category often described a tendency toward erratic communications (“as needed”
“random” “seldom”). There was also a large number of responses indicating that com-
munications were quarterly (see Appendix C for a complete listing of verbatim responses
to the “Other” category in each of the areas indicating frequency of communications
before, during and after the change process).

The results seem to indicate a tendency toward communicating more often during
the course of the change, as evidenced by the lower percentages of “daily” and “several
times per week” responses in the category “before the change occurred.” The percent-
ages in these same subcategories increased for the category “in the midst of the change,”
indicating that the frequency of communications tended to increase during this period,
while many of the companies responding tended to go back to pre-change levels of

communication after the change occurred.

USE OF COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT

Of the 105 cases, only 15 reported having used some type of communications
consultant to assist with the strategic communications during the change. Because of this
low response, these companies will be considered on a more qualitative, case-by-case

basis after consideration of the remainder of the quantitative data.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Respondents were asked to indicate how long they had been in their current posi-
tions. Taking the entire sample into consideration, the results indicate that respondents
had been in their current position an average of 9.5 years, with a range of from 1 to 49
years. Approximately 75% of the respondents had been in their current position for 10
years or less, and approximately 44% had been on the job for 5 years or less.

For the 105 companies who indicated some form of organizational change in

Question 1, 104 responded to this question, indicating an average of 8 years with a range

51
of 1 to 45 years, roughly equivalent to the results for the entire sample. Nearly 50% of
the respondents indicated having been on the job for 1-5 years, 25% between 6 and 10
years, and another 20% had been on the job for more than 10 years.

Of the 22 respondents who had not perceived any kind of change, the average
number of years at the current position was 15.8%, nearly twice that of the respondents
who had perceived change. The range of response was approximately the same, at 2 to
49 years, although 20% in this group indicated that they had been at their current position

for at least 30 years.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Table 7 shows the distribution of educational level for the entire sample, the 105
indicating change, and the 22 indicating no change. The majority of respondents possess
some type of higher educational degree, while only 13.5% possess only a high school
diploma. Once again, the results for the “change” group are close to that of the total
sample, due to the fact that this group represents the largest percentage of the total
sample population, although in this case, the distribution for those indicating no change is

very close to the total sample as well.

Communications Training

Respondents were then asked whether or not they had had formal training, such as
seminars or coursework, in any communications areas. Specifically, they were asked
about the following: Public Relations; Interpersonal Communications; Organizational
Communications, or General Communications Courses. Table 8 summarizes the types of
training indicated by the respondents of the 105 companies who had experienced change
in the past five years.

According to the results, the lowest percentage of training was in the area of

public relations. Of course, based on the general, worldview of the definition of public

52
Table 7 - Level of Education

7A. Total Sample

Degree # Cases % Cases
High School Diploma 17 13.5%
Bachelor of Business 30 23.8%
Other Bachelor Degree 26 20.6%
Master of Business 32 25.4%
Other Graduate Degree 21 16.7%
Total: 126 100%

Table 7B. Respondents Indicating Change

Degree # Cases % Cases
High School Diploma 14 13.5%
Bachelor of Business 23 22.1%
Other Bachelor Degree 25 24.0%
Master of Business 25 24.0%
Other Graduate Degree 17 16.3%
Total: 104 100%

Table 7C. Respondents Indicating No Change

Degree # Cases % Cases
High School Diploma 3 13.6%
Bachelor of Business 6 27.2%
Other Bachelor Degree 1 0.05%
Master of Business 7 31.8%
Other Graduate Degree 5 22.7%

Total: 22 100%

53
Table 8 - Communications Training for Respondents Who Indicated Change

Type of Training #Responses % Responses
Public Relations 20 19.0%
Interpersonal Communications 57 54.3%
Organizational Communications 50 47.6%
General Communications Courses 49 46.7%

relations, a significant amount of training that could be defined as public relations may
have taken place. In fact, interpersonal communications could be part of the subset of
public relations training. Perhaps adding the question “How would you define public
relations” would have added an interesting facet to this study. Nonetheless, a significant
number of respondents did indicate some type of formal communications training.

Respondents were then asked the open-ended question, “Have you had any other
training or experiences that you feel has helped you manage organizational change
effectively ” Fiftey-seven percent or 60 respondents replied. Most respondents cited on-
the-job training, including working their way up in the company, working in other
companies that have experienced change, or just general work experience. Others cited
formal training such as TQM training, Dale Carnegie, various seminars, and meeting
with other executives in other companies. A full reporting of verbatim responses can be
found in Appendix C.

A cross tabulation analysis was examined for the variables of educational level and
public relations tools used, as well as communications training and public relations tools
used. However, these results were not significant due to the fact that most respondents

only indicated one type of public relations tool used, and will not be reported.

54

COMPANIES THAT USED A COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT

Because of the small number of companies indicating use of a communications
consultant, these cases were given special consideration. Overall empirical data will be
examined, followed by an exploration of several noteworthy cases.

Of the 15 cases in which respondents indicated having used a communications
consultant, one-third also indicated reengineering as the major change experienced by
their company. TQM implementation was the next highest category with four responses,
followed by one each for merger and downsizing. The remainder of the cases were in
the “other” category. Over half of those responding to Question 2 perceived the change
as affecting in the range of 90-100% of employees, although the average was only 72.5%
due to several answers in the 25-30% range. When asked about employee participation
in the change process, the results were approximately evenly distributed between the five
responses. Four of the fifteen companies used only one type of public relations tool as
indicated in Question 4, and, similar to the full sample, communications seemed to
increase “in the midst of change” and to decrease after the change occurred.

One noteworthy case indicated “organized labor” as the change that was experi-
enced, affecting 100% of the employees, and where it was indicated that employees had
initiated the change. The “communications consultant” cited in Question 6 had the title
of “Corporate Attorney.” The respondent rated this person’s involvement level as 90 out
of 100, but only indicated a rating of 40 out of 100 when it came to rating the importance
of this person’s contribution to the success of the change program. This was another
instance where irregular communications were perceived before and after the change,
with weekly communications occurring during the change. Public relations tools used
included special corporate communiques, regularly and specially scheduled staff meet-
ings, and letters from the CEO or other Officer. An overall rating of 40 was given to
indicate the successfulness of the communications process in terms of employee attitudes

based on the public relations tools used.

55

In another case, the person considered to be a communications professional had the
title of “Administrative Assn’t.” This person’s level of involvement was rated as 80,
with a success rating of 75%. This was a case of reengineering that reportedly affected
100% of employees. Six different public relations tools were indicated, including
corporate newsletters, regular and special corporate communiques, and regular and
specially scheduled meetings. The success rating for the public relations tools used was
85. Frequency of communications went from “weekly” before the change to “daily”
during the change, and to “several times per wee ” after the change. The respondent
indicated possessing a Bachelor degree other than a Bachelor of Business, along with
formal training in all categories of communications areas. It could be speculated that the
respondent already had a significantly high skill level in the area of public relations tools
and techniques, and was the actual “communications professional,” with the administra-
tive assistant carrying out the actual communications functions under his/her tutelage.

In the case in which “Downsizing” was indicated as the change, the respondent
claimed that only 40% of employees were affected. The commmrications professional
was an outside consultant, who received an involvement rating of 60 and a success rating
of 60. Only regularly scheduled staff meetings were indicated as the communications
tool used, with a success rating of 55. Frequency of communications went from monthly
before the change to weekly during the change, and then returned to monthly levels. In
the merger case, similar responses were indicated. The communications professional
was an outside consultant whose involvement rating was 70. No rating was provided for
this person’s contribution to the success of the program. Only specially scheduled
meetings were indicated for communications tools used, with a 50% success rating.
These two cases would seem to indicate that the propositions of this thesis are
unfounded. Perhaps it is only in cases where the organizational changes are somewhat
negative, as in these two cases, is it difficult to perceive any communications efforts as

being positive.

56

Several other cases examined do seem to support the propositions of this thesis. In
one of these cases, the respondent indicated reengineering as the change, affecting 25%
of employees, and initiated by management with employees involved in the implementa-
tion decisions. The consultant used was a company employee with the title of
“Specialist, Corporate Communications.” This person’s involvement in the
communication strategy-making process was rated as 100 out of 100, and his/her
importance to the success of the change program was also rated 100 out of 100. Before
the change, communications were reported to have occurred several times per week, but
this increased to daily in the midst of the change, and continued to occur daily even after
the change phase. Six of the ten public relations tools were employed, including special
edition newsletters, regular and special communiques, regular and specially scheduled
meetings, and letters/memos from the top, with a success rating of 75 out of 100.

Another case in support of this thesis reportedly had an outside consultant assist in
the communications strategies during a period when Total Quality Management imple-
mentation was affecting 30% of employees. According to a verbatim response to the
question, “Have you had any other training or experiences that you feel helped you
manage organizational change effectively?” the respondent indicated “extensive training
by our consultant.” The respondent gave the consultant a rating of 85 out of 100 for his/
her level of involvement, and a 95 out of 100 rating for this person’s importance to the
success of the change program. Interestingly, the respondent indicated only one type of
public relations tools used, that being specially scheduled meetings, with a success rating
of 85 out of 100. Communication frequencies was perceived as being relatively constant
at several times per week before, during and after the change. Most of the other cases in
which a communications consultant was used shared similar results.

In only one case did the respondent rate the importance of the communications
consultant at less than 60%. The company change indicated was reengineering, with

100% of employees affected. The communications consultant was the company’s

57

Manager of Communications. The respondent rated this person’s level of involvement at
80, but felt that his/her importance to the success of the change program only rated 40.
The respondent did include additional comments at the end of the survey which perhaps
explains these ratings: “Communications are important, however, success of any change
is most dependent on management’s actions — not words.” Also noteworthy in this case
was the indication that the change was initiated by a joint team of employees and manag-
ers, which could be an indication that there was already a significant level of employee
“buy-in” in place before the change went into effect. Also noteworthy in this case is the
indication that frequency of communications was on an “as needed” basis before, during,
and after the change, with no apparent regularity. Communications tools used during the
change were mainly in the form of staff meetings and letters from the top, possibly
indicating that little strategic communications were necessarily needed.

The results discussed in this section do show some interesting trends. The next
section of this thesis will explore the significance, if any, of the results reported, and will
suggest further research that could be of value.

DISCUSSION

Although the 18% response rate to the questionnaire was somewhat low, the results
yielded some interesting information. And, although the study does not necessarily have
external validity, it certainly suggests a few hypothetical relationships between variables
that could be the basis for other research projects.

For instance, nearly a quarter of respondents indicated some type of significant
change other than those discussed in the literature review section and subsequently listed
in the questionnaire. Even though it was the most often cited response in the “Other”
category, none of the literature encountered by this researcher addressed the issue of
communications during rapid growth, and so it was not originally considered as part of
this project. A case study on one of these companies might reveal some trends that could
lead back to another empirical study, this time on the communications strategies of
companies dealing specifically with this type of change. This could be compared with
similar studies of companies dealing specifically with the other types of change, such as
reengineering or TQM. Taking all of these results into consideration might allow for the
possibility of an experimental study, whereby a certain variable, for instance use of
special corporate newsletters to communicate change, might be tested for its success
rating as perceived by CEO’s. This would allow the possibility of external validity, and

be a step closer to creating a more valid model of successful communications strategies

58

59
than those proposed by our “experts.”

As reported in the “RESULTS” section, 17% of respondents claimed to have
experienced no major change in the past five years. These people were also found to
have indicated the highest average number of years at their current position. It could be
speculated that these corporate executives simply did not see significant organizational
changes, such as mergers, downsizing, or even restructuring, as having an effect on large
numbers of employees, and responded thusly. On the other hand, it is possible that their
companies truly did not experience any major changes. Again, it would make for an
interesting study to follow up on one of these companies in order to survey the
employees to determine if their perceptions differ from those of the corporate executive
responding to the questionnaire in this study.

As Question I asked for respondents to indicate a significant change that affected a
large number of employees, it would logically follow that most responses would be in the
higher percentiles. However, it was surprising to see that in the category of “Implemen-
tation of Total Quality Management,” the average number of employees affected was
88.7%. According to Deming, everyone in the organization should be involved in the
quality improvement initiative. One could speculate that this might be a factor in the
difficulty many companies are experiencing in their attempts to implement TQM. A
study into the implementation processes of these companies might reveal whether or not
lack of participation on the part of every employee was thus a factor, as opposed to lack
of strategic communications on the part of management.

In the categories of “Downsizing” and “Hostile Takeover,” again it was interesting
to note the lower percentages of employees affected by these changes. As in the case of
reengineering, it could be speculated that a downsizing action might only affect one
division or department. However, this action would certainly have some kind of effect
on employees in other departments who might now fear for their jobs. Again, a study of

employee perceptions at these companies might reveal very different results.

60

It was refreshing to see that nearly half of respondents indicated in Question 3 that
although management decided on the nwd for a change, “employees were involved in
the implementation process,” and that 14% indicated that the change was initiated by a
joint team of employees and management. Of course, this again is the perception of the
corporate executives who responded to the questionnaire, and is not necessarily represen-
tative of the way employees actually perceive the situation. Employee involvement in
the implementation strategy is a rather vague concept, and could be construed as indicat-
ing that employees were involved in the implementation process merely because of the
fact that they worked for the company affected by change. Perhaps a numeric rating
indicating the level of participation would have added a interesting dimension to this
question.

When the “level of participation” variable was cross-tabulated with the “type of
change” variable, as discussed, the results were fairly predictable. The cases where the
change involved downsizing, merger or takeover revealed the least amount of employee
involvement, whereas reengineering and TQM involved the highest levels of employee
involvement. Again, there were many instances in the latter two categories that indicated
that employees were not involved in the implementation process. This again might be a
factor as to why so many companies seem to be struggling with these two processes.

When the survey turned to methods of communications, or “public relations tools,”
the results revealed that most companies relied on meetings to accomplish the task of
communicating change. According to van Schaik, face-to-face communications is the
best tool; however, these meetings don’t necessarily allow for employee feedback. In
addition, as evidenced by the low percentage of companies using communications
consultants, it is conceivable that those leading these meetings are not necessarily using
good public relations techniques to communicate. As many of our “experts” would
agree, the more media used, the better the effects of the communications (of course

provided that a communications professional is involved). Perhaps this explains the

61

relatively low average success rating (70) of the communication process in terms of
employee attitudes “based on the communications methods used.” It is possible to
speculate that if more of these “public relations tools” had been used, under the supervi-
sion of a communications professional, the results might have been higher. Perhaps a
study that focuses more closely on this aspect would be in order.

Of course, a significant number of respondents indicated some type of communica-
tions training, whether coursework or seminar, which could indicate that those leading
the meetings discussed above might have been effective in their communications. Again,
the relatively low success rate suggests that perhaps a more seasoned communications
professional might have been more effective. Nonetheless, as Bovet proposes, the best
person to do the communicating is the CEO whenever possible to lend credibility to the
communications. And based on Campbell’s research, there would seem to be agreement
among CEO’s.

In the section of the questionnaire concerning frequency of change, it was interest-
ing to note the trend of increasing communications during the period of change, and
returning to pre-change levels after the change occurred. This would seem to indicate
that many companies do see the importance of increased communications during times of
organizational stress, but not during “normal” times. Perhaps if communication levels
were higher before implementing a change such as reengineering or TQM, companies
would have an easier time effecting that employee buy-in attitude that appears to be the

most important factor to successful implementation.

CONCLUSION SIRECOMIVIENDATIONS

Throughout this journey through public relations and organizational change, many
interesting facets have come to light. For instance, the term public relations is, in gen-
eral, so misunderstood that even this researcher utilized other related terms so as to avoid
the potential confusion that might have resulted fiom its use in the questionnaire. A
more theoretical definition of public relations was proposed so that readers of this thesis,
at the very least, would be enlightened to the possibilities inherent in the discipline.

An examination into the state of education revealed that public relations students are
generally not receiving the management training needed to prepare them to play a part in
the strategic communications of an organization, whether during periods of organiza-
tional change or otherwise. In addition, business students are not receiving the training
they need to become effective communicators in their role as managers, nor do they
necessarily appreciate the importance of effective communications. The study conducted
in relation to this project seems to support these notions, in that the majority of the
corporate executives surveyed used meetings as their primary method for communicating
change information, with only mediocre success. In addition, companies are tending to
communicate on an “as needed” basis, increasing the amount of communications during
times of high organizational stress, and downplaying the importance of communications
during periods of low stress.

Various forms of organizational change were examined, but it is obvious from the

results of the study that those examined are only the tip of the iceberg. In truth,

62

63
corporations are dynamic entities, with some changes occurring daily, other changes
occurring weekly or monthly, all contributing to major changes that happen over the
course of many months or even years. The simple fact is, very few companies look the
same now as they did five years ago. Employees have come and gone, departments have
grown or downsized, products or services have changed to keep up with the ever-
changing marketplace.

The “experts” proposed their respective “laws to live by” during periods of major
organizational change, but none of them advised improving the communications process
long before the change process was begun. Denring’s Fourteen Points seem to come
closest to the ideal form of improving employee relations while at the same time
improving quality, but companies seeking to implement the principles seem to ignore the
internal public relations aspects and instead concentrate only on the business aspects.

Of course, this is not necessarily the wrong approach, but it could be seen as the least
efficient approach. As was seen in the case of the Western Resources, Inc. merger, the
incredibly high level of employee involvement certainly seemed to facilitate what could
have been a more negative situation.

This study did not reveal as many insights into the use of public relations tools and
techniques as was hoped; however, it does suggest many other, more provocative
research projects in addition to some of those noted above. For instance, a study of
public relations tools and techniques used during a specific type of organizational
change, such as reengineering, along with their relative success ratings, might help to
shed light on what other companies faced with this type of change could be doing to
improve their chances of succeeding.

Case study research seemed to be more prevalent than empirical, suggesting that
perhaps this type of information is best considered thusly. This researcher, however,
would prefer to think that there are ways to collect more extensive empirical data so as to

show trends pointing to successful tools and techniques that could be applied to other

64

companies. However, both corporate executives as well as employees of the companies
claiming success would need to be surveyed to determine if the perception of success is
truly valid, or if it is only perceived by one group or another within the organization.
Certainly, more research is needed to determine the true effectiveness of public
relations in the area of organizational change, although this project does suggest a
correlation. It is the hope of this researcher that the information presented here will lead
another researcher (or perhaps myself again!) to attempt one of the related research
projects suggested in this thesis so as to further the cause of public relations both within

the halls of academia as well as without.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

65

May 10, 1995

Dear Corporate Executive:

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University studying communication
methods during periods of organizational change. Your assistance would be greatly
appreciated, as you have much insight as to how change may have affected your own
company. Please take five minutes to fill out the following lO-question survey, and
mail it back in the envelope provided by May 22.

All responses to this questionnaire are for the purposes of this study only and will
be held strictly confidential. Your participation in the study is completely voluntary.
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this
questionnaire.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Amy M. Brandais

66

1) Please indicate the most significant change that your company experienced in the
past five years that affected a large number of employees:

2)

3)

4)

000000000

Downsizing
Re-organization/Restructuring/Reengineering
Implementation of Total Quality Management
Image Crisis

Wage Cutbacks

Corporate Merger

Hostile Takeover

Other Major Change (please describe):

 

My company has not experienced any significant change in the past five years.
*Please skip to Question 7.

What percentage of employees in your company would you say were affected
by this change?

Which of the following statements best describes the level of employee
participation in your organization’s change [check one]:

00000

Employees initiated the change.

A joint team of employees and managers initiated the change.

Management decided on the need for change, and employees were involved
in the implementation decisions.

Management decided on the need for change and developed strategies to
implement the change.

Employees were told about the changes after the changes were made.

During the change process, which of the following communications tools did your
company use to communicate change to employees [check all that apply]:

0000000000

Corporate newsletter
Special edition newsletters

Regular corporate communiques

Special corporate communiques

Regularly scheduled staff meetings

Specially scheduled meetings

Letters/memos from the CEO, president or other corporate officer
E-mail messages

Closed circuit television messages

Other (please describe):

 

 

On a scale from 1 to 100, with 100 indicating the most successful, how successful
would on say the communication process was in terms of employees’ attitudes
based on the above communications methods used?

67

5) How often does/did your organization communicate with employees

6)

(from the top level down):
A. Before the change occurred
Cl Daily
0 Several times per week
0 Weekly
Cl Monthly

 

D Other (please describe)

 

B. In the midst of the change
0 Daily
Cl Several times per week
0 Weekly
Cl Monthly
0 Other (please describe)

 

 

C. After the change
0 Daily
Cl Several times per week
0 Weekly
0 Monthly
Cl Other (please describe)

 

 

A. Was a communications consultant or other communications professional used by
your company to help during the change process? [circle one]

Yes NO (If no, please skip to Question 7)

B. What was this person’s title?

 

C. Was this person an employee of your organization or from outside? [circle one]

Company Employee Outside Consultant

D. On a scale from 1 to 100, with 100 being the most involved, please rate the level
of involvement this person had in the communication strategy-making process.

 

E. On a scale from 1 to 100, how important do you feel the communications
professional was to the success of your change program?

 

APPENDIX B

LIST SELECTION

68

7) How many years have you been in your current position:

 

8) Please indicate your highest level of education:
Cl High School Diploma
CI Bachelor of Business Degree
D Other Undergraduate Degree
0 Master of Business Degree
CI Other Graduate Degree

9) Have you had any formal training (coursework, seminars, etc.) in the following areas:
Cl Public relations
13 Interpersonal communications
Cl Organizational communication
D General communications courses

10) Have you had any other training or experiences that you feel has helped you manage
organizational change effectively? Please describe:

 

 

 

Please use the space below for any additional comments you would like to make:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you again for your participation in this study. If you would like to receive the
results of this study, please provide your name and address below:

 

 

 

 

69

SME LISTS SYSTEM
SUBSET SPECIFICATIONS LIST
RUN DATE 05-03-95 12:37

BASIC INFO:
SUBSET NUMBER 7020
USER'S NAME AMY BRANDAIS
OUTPUT WANTED LABELS
SUBSET PURPOSE SUBSET WILL BE USED FOR A SCHOOL
PROJECT (THESIS).

OVERALL LIMITATIONS:
GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS:
COUNTRIES:
USA

SELECTION #1
JOB TITLE KEYWORDS:
PRESIDENT
PLANT SIZES:
100 - 249
250 - 499
500 - 999
1 ,000 - 2,499
2,500 - AND OVER

NOUIbU

APPENDIX C

VERBATIM RESPONSES

70

Question 1 - Please indicate the most significant change that your company
experienced in the past five years that affected a large number of
employees.

OTHER RESPONSES:

- 80% increase in production due to new contract
- Shop floor control/training

- Significant growth — doubled size in 2 yrs.
- Starting new company

- Growth (2)

- Rapid growth 600%

- Business was increased over 400%

- Divestiture and acquisition

- Growth 30 to 250

- Ownership change

- Rapid growth & TQM

- Company was bought by a competitor

- Rapid growth

- 50% increase

- Organized labor

- Technology changes

- Building a new plant

- Plant expansion

- Market place changes

- Establish new company w/asset purchase from bankrupt company

- Became an all-salaried workforce (N on-union manufacturing work force that previously
punched a time clock)

71

Question 1 - Please indicate the most significant change that your company
experienced in the past five years that affected a large number of
employees.

(continued)

- Began a new division

- President/CEO resigned (forced by parent co.)

- Has increased volume 920% sales employees 380%
- Acquisition by 4 Managers

- Purchased a new company; looking for another one

- Employee teamsfmvolvement

72

Question 4 - During the change process, which of the following communicatiom
tools did your company use to communicate change to employees?

OTHER RESPONSES:

- Team meetings

- Special committee meetings

- Everyone was envolved [sic], beginning with training on through to implementation
- Presentation/question & answer session by president & CEO

- opinion surveys (feedback); special employee (5-6) luncheons w/president; same type
lunches w/V.P. Ops. Gainsharing and safety committees

- Personal meetings

- Task forces involving all levels and weekly presentations by these teams to all employees
- Total employee involvement throughout the whole process

- Training all types, all groups, all along

- Direct meetings with employees and customers

- In skilled trades it’s crisis training and communications on the floor and in mang. mt.

- Irregular management communications

- One on one!

- meetings with groups of employees & CEO

- Open forums with all employees

- Meetings with all employees

- Specially scheduled supervisor meetings to gather input & later train for implementation
- Voice mail

- Meetings at all locations with all employees

- Training sessions involving all employees

- Company wide meeting

- Employee training

73

Question 5 - How often does/did your organization communicate with employees
(from top level down)

A. Before the change occurred

OTHER RESPONSES:

- Every other month

- Random

- Quarterly (4 responses)

- Periodic

- 1-2 times/year in feedback sessions

- Infrequent (2 responses)

- Don’t know, before my time

- As needed (2 responses)

- When convenient

- Seldom

- “As-needed” basis

- As required

- 4 times a year

- Weekly executive, monthly staff, monthly employee groups, quarterly everyone
- As dictated by the magnitude of the change

- Other than daily walk-through — alomost semi-annualy
- As necessary

- I don’t know I was not here

- Monthly to quarterly

- When I got to it

74

Question 5 - How often does/did your organization communicate with employees
(from top level down)

B. In the midst of the change

OTHER RESPONSES:

- Periodic

- As required

- Weekly executive, monthly staff, monthly employee groups, quarterly everyone
- As dictated by the magnitude of the change

- As the need dictates!

- Quarterly

- Once

- As needed

- Quarterly co-wide meetings; montholy senior staff meetings; bi-weekly team meetings

75

Question 5 - How often does/did your organization communicate with employees
(from top level down)

C. After the change

OTHER RESPONSES:

- No regularity — probably quarterly
- Periodic

- Our changes are ongoing

- When convenient

- As required

— Ongoing

- As dictated by the magnitude of the change
- several times/day

- As the need dictates!

- Not communicated after the change
- Monthly to quarterly

- As needed

- Quarterly co-wide matings; montholy senior staff neetings; bi-weekly team meetings

76

Question 6 - Was a communications consultant or other communications
professional used by your company to help during the change process?

[If yes] What was this person’s title?
- Administrative Assn’t

- Part of consultant team — no title

- At the corp. level

- TQM Specialist

- Consultant

- Specialist, Corporate Communications
- Corporate attorney

- Consultant

- Mgr — Communications

- lst was Conway Group then a facilitator

77

Question 9 - Have you had any other training or experiences that you feel has
helped you manage organizational change effectively?

Please describe.

- 24 years of work — working at each job in the plant, working up the ladder to the top
- Work cells, scanlon, Jackson Gainshare plan, problem solving

- TQM training self directed work team management coaching/managaement training

- Just on-the-job-training of dealing with company organizations

- Formally in my own business; invloved for this corp. almost 10 yrs in various capacities
- Avid reader of current business focused publications and books

- 29 years of management OJT

- Involvement in and responsibility for restructuring and reengineering of other operations
- 8 yrs plant operations experience

- Contracted local university to help in the continual change process

- Several years ago I was in charge of a [sic] operation which shared a facility and union
workforce during a period when the other 2 division [sic] were shut down with union
seniority into my division.

- Exposure to troubled or “tumaroun ” business situations

- Key issue is the emotional & intellectual reaction of people — consequently, most social
experiences (school, family, neighborhood) contributed.

- 35 years of experience

- Having started with the company 26 yrs. ago as a machinist training and been its presi-
dent for the last five years, I understand the need employees have to be informed and
involved in what their company is doing. By visiting other companies and looking at
what they have done through TQM programs convinced me of the needed change and
how to get started.

- Re-engineered two companies prior to the one which is currently in the midst of change.
- Attending customer programs; Books, articles
- On the job experience; training — synchronous mfg.

78
- Graduate level organizational development classes at Bowling Green State University

- Consulting in operations management

- Many years of experience in managing change

- Extensive studies of Dr. Deming’s teachings & management methods
- Previous mangement of Chapter 11 company

- Grew company from 100 to 4000 people in $8MM sales to $350MM

- Yes. Communicate formally with the manufacturing executives on a monthly basis
including visits to their facilites

- Always open to new ideas & approaches. Look forward to changes.
- I care about people for they are the heart of the company.
- Former supervisor & human resources department

- Vice President Engineering; Vice President Sales — Communication #1 tool for both
jobs; President — most irnporttant asset is the ability to communicate

- Numerous courses and seminars. Personal library of over 100 tapes and videos on
leadership, organizing change, assertiveness, etc.

- 30+ years of management (15) years in executive mgt including 10 as CEO
- OJT

- Human resource experience

- Dale Carnegie

- Tool & Die apprentice training & worked 12 yrs in the skilled trades

- Yes - 30 yrs managerial experience

- “On the job” is still the best teacher of all!

- Changes in other, earlier organizations of which I was a part. Discussions with other
CEO’s on change dynamics.

- 40 years of experience

- American Management Assn Courses & Presidents Round Table; Family (as father &
husband); Volunteer in church and community

- Was plant manager of a 90-person manufacturing branch where organizational change

79

was quite common
- 20 years of success; 3 years in army
- Extensive training by our consultant
- Person who tried to change has been dismissed
- Sales mgmt training, information technology & business reengineering training
- Have Doctor of Law & Doctor of Law in international business

- Public speaking, seminars, legal training and experience in several legal fields, directing
long-range planning, serving in professional lobbying organization, working in a number
of team efforts in large corporations.

- Have gone through several downsizings and at least 3 mergers.
- TQM training
- Human resources degree + experience

- Experience on the job, learning from mistakes, benchmarking others, TQM processes &
practices
- Several seminars over the past several years

- TQM; Organizational behavior; Team effectiveness training; leadership training; Skills
measurement and assessment training

- Peer seminars; past experience

- Conway Quality Method; A lot of association meetings with fellow business assoc.

80

Question 10 - Please use this space for any additional comments you would
like to make.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

- Management is simply irnplimenting [sic] fair, proper and respectful direction. If this
simple rule is followed, much can be accomplished.

- Change usual [sic] effects [sic] the company culture which is most difficult to control and
is the longest to achieve.

- Never go bankrupt for protection. The lawyers kill you with fees. They are only looking
for the $.

- Ideal with reath w/respect to people and their talents/limitations, I avoid all contempo-
rary thinkingin terms of relationships with people, and employees, I use no contempo-
rary language or terms and maintain a standard to which they must perform. Common
sense, old-fashioned values and no interference from my ego permitts [sic] good ideas to
flow and take root. That’s why w/no tech. education, and a Poly Science degree, I can
own an engineering co. doing 1.5 mill/yr.

- Work very hard. It generally pays off.
- Open honesty is the only way to communicate.

- It was not a planned change — more gradual and more of a new philisophy than a
strategic action.

- A good administrator must be a good listener at all legals

- Whenever consultants are used, the problems are worse and the outcome is never as
planned.

- Communications don’t change attitudes, actions change attitudes. Management must
“walk the talk.”

- In 1979, we had 2000 employees. By 1983 we had 125 employees. The company was
acquired by 4 Managers in 1988 & we have had as many as 325 employees since then
with ups & downs due to the market which we serve.

- Communications are important, however, success of any change is most dependent on
management’s actions — not words

- Having started from the ground floor and worked my way up to CEO/President has been
very helpful. Reputation is very important — it follows you wherever you go especially
if you stay in the same industry.

- It takes time 3 years for us but it works getting our employees involved.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahls, Jane Easter. (1992) “Managing for Toal Quality.” Public Relations Journal,
(April): 16-20.

Baskin, Otis W. (1989) “Business Schools and the Study of Public Relations.”
Public Relations Review, (Spring): 25-31.

Bemays, Edward L. Public Relations (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press,
1952), 84.

Bitter, John. ( 1986) “Public Relations’ Identity Crisis.” Public Relations Quarterly,
(Spring): 12-13.

Bovet, Susan Fry (1994) “CEO Serves as Chief Communicator of TQM Program.”
Public Relations Journal, (June/July): 16-21.

Campbell, Catherine B. (1993) “Does Public Relations Affect the Bottom Line?”
Public Relations Journal, (October): 14-17.

Carrington, Judith. (1992) “Establishing a More Strategic Role in PR Practice:
Why, How and When?” Public Relations Quarterly, (Spring): 45-48.

Caudron, Shari. (1993) “How HR Drives TQM.” Personnel Journal, (August): 48B-480.

Deming, W. Edwards. 9113mm (Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced
Engineering Study, 1986).

The Economist (1994) “When Slimming is Not Enough.” (September 3): 59-60.

Grates, Gary F. (1994) “The Subtlety and Power of Communications in Corporate
Renewal Initiatives.” Public Relations Quarterly, (Spring): 40-43.

Grunig, James E. and Hunt, Todd. W (New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1984), 36-37.

82

Gnmig. James E- W
111m (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989), 17-44.

Hammer, Michael. (1994) “Hammer Defends Reengineering.” The Economist,
(November 5): 70.

Hammer, Michael and Champy, James. W (New York, NY:
HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1993).

Hauss, Deborah (1993) “Giving Employees the Bad News.” Public Relations Journal
(December): 18-21.

Heath, Robert L., Leth, Steven A. and Nathan, Kathy (1994) “Communicating Service
Quality Improvement: Another Role for Public Relations.” Public Relations Review
(Spring): 29-40.

Kinni, Theodore B. (1994) “The Reengineering Rage: Powerful New Improvement
Process or Pet Rock?” Industry Week, (February 7): 11-16.

Klein, Stuart M. (1994) “Communication Strategies for Successful Organizational
Change.” Industrial Management, (January/February): 26-30.

Kendall. Robert. WWW (N cw York. NY: HaIPchOmnS
Publishers, Inc., 1992).

Lamb, James R., Jr. (1991) “Tell Employees the Bad News, Too.” Industry Week,
(December 2): 70—72.

Lemons, Bob. (1994) “Communications is Key to Quality Program.” Marketing News,
(August 29): 21, 29.

Landes, LCS L. (1992) “Down with Quality Program-ids.” [ABC Communication World
(February): 29-32, 60.

McKenna, Joseph F. (1990) “Smart Scarecrows: The Wizardry of Empowerment.”
Industry Week, (July 16): 8-19.

Moskal, Brian S. (1991). “Is Industry Ready for Adult Relationships?” Industry Week,
(January 21): 18-25.

83

Palmer, Graham M. and Burns, Sherrill G. (1992). “Revolutionizing the Business:
Strategies for Succeeding with Change.” Human Resource Planning, (January): 77-84.

Pincus, J. David; Rayfield, Bob; Ohl, Coral M. (1994) “Public Relations
Education in MBA Programs: Challenges and Opportunities.” Public Relations
Review, (Spring): 52—68.

Public Relations Journal (1994) “Companies Fail to Communicate Change,
Study Shows.” (October/November): 10.

Public Relations Journal (1993) “Study: MBA Students Graduate with Little
PR Training.” (June): 6.

Purser, John R. (1988) “Straight Talk at Merger Time.” Industry Week, (June 20): 78-79.

Sloan, Thomas J. (1993) “Empowered Employees Fuel Successful Merger.”
Public Relations Journal, (October): 14- 17 .

Smith, Alvie L. (1990) “Bridging the Gap Between Employees and Management”
Public Relations Journal, (November): 20-21, 41.

Stanton, Steven, etal. (1993) “Reengineering: Getting Everyone on Board.”
I .T. Magazine, (April) 22-27.

Steward, Hal D. (1987) “Is Public Relations the Art of Deception for Fun and Profit?”
Public Relations Quarterly (Spring): 7-13.

Stewart, Thomas. (1993) “Reengineering: The Hot New Management Tool.” Fortune,
(August 23): 41-48.

Van Schaik, Mary Lou (1992) “From Small Talk to Real Talk.” [ABC Communication
World (July): 26-29.

Winokur, Dena and Kinkead, Robert W. (1993) “How Public Relations Fits Into
Corporate Strategy.” Public Relations Journal, (May): 16—23.

"nthuliiliit