Do not underestimate the potential for distraction

Wf change used to be a clearly delineated intermediate step between long phases of continuity and stability, the situation today is exactly the opposite. States of predictability and plannability have become islands in persistently unstable, turbulent operational environments. Whereas in the past, subsequent adaptation to technology, market developments, and the law was enough, "today, the day-to-day management task to be performed is the anticipatory operational adaptation work to presumed future events," says Weegen, referring to the Red Queen from Lewis Carrol's "Alice Behind the Mirrors" to illustrate his words, explaining to Alice: "In this country, you have to run as fast as you can if you want to stay in the same spot."

Sense of change often elusive

And in this race, warns Weegen, "in this necessary strong focus on the future, an essential prerequisite for the success of change processes quickly gets out of sight and under the wheels of the supposedly urgent: the consideration of the psychological always associated with change". And this is so explosive because the neglect of the emotional needs of the workforce during operational changes can, to a clearly underestimated extent, condense extraordinarily quickly and far-reaching into a quite considerable potential for distraction. And so Weegen points to the indirect pointer function in this respect of remarks such as 'Just being able to work in peace again!' or "Just being able to take care of the real thing!". These frequently heard statements clearly express the recurring omission in change processes: for lack of a careful explanation of the necessity and objective of the initiated change steps, their meaning is not grasped "and out of this supposed senselessness everyone longs for a return to the old clear conditions, where 'one could really still work reasonably undisturbed'".

Change management as an ambiguous winning process

For Weegen, in contrast to many an "opinion of the authorities", these statements do not reflect a fundamental inner refusal to accept any changes, "but rather a deadweight loss". Which to him means: "If employees complain that they can no longer work in peace at all, then why and for what reason ever has it been neglected to make it really plausible to them that it can be over very quickly with any form of work if the company doesn't change." Change management, says Weegen, "by its nature is always an ambiguous winning process. To win its future, the company must first win its workforce over to all the activities involved, which are not always easy to digest. If change work is to succeed, it requires careful persuasion. To the extent that this effort, in that the effort to convince of the necessity of something being undertaken, is taken lightly, to the extent that the distraction effect inevitably associated with any change gets out of hand."

Increase employees' willingness to change

And then it can become very critical. Because, "banal, but unfortunately often frighteningly inadequately accompanied in the resulting entraining, guiding and supporting behavioral demands on management: The survivability and success of a company now depend significantly on its ability to change, supported by all." The goal, therefore, cannot be to reduce the number of changes. "With one exception," says Weegen, "there are sometimes managers who change arbitrarily and not purposefully, just to show that they are active. The goal, he says, must be to increase employees' willingness to change in order to reduce the distraction effect resulting from subliminal emotional rejection of change measures.

Namely, he reminds us of "actual self-evident things", through grassroots activities such as.

• the prudent preparation and involvement of employees in the intended change process through clear, unambiguous information, continuous communication and an overall honest effort to convince them;
• the accepting confrontation, free of any condescending disdain, with the people involved in the processes of change.
• and emotions that necessarily arise during the process;
• the open, no beating around the bush presentation of what the workforce expects and what is expected of the employees in the context of the change;
• the factual presentation of the objectives envisaged by the change measures;
• the valid justification of the logic and inevitability of the change processes undertaken and their quality standards;
• the ongoing careful coordination of all parallel change processes to avoid procedural confusion as far as possible.

Mental overload

Where does Weegen see the aforementioned critical aspect of inadequately initiated change processes? Well, he says, "it rumbles incessantly in everyone's head: 'Tomorrow won't go on yesterday. But I don't know how it will, how it should go on!'" That leaves little room for other thoughts under the top of the skull. If the basics of change are taken lightly, it's a decidedly poor basis for focus, careful consideration, and thoughtful action. "You see," he says, "there is a growing resentment of erratic, superficial, overall unsatisfactory action by staff. On the part of employers as well as on the part of customers. There is not only one reason for this. But one certainly does not play a minor role: the increasing mental overload of staff due to changes simply imposed on the business. The considerable distraction factor that results from this thoughtless action explains many a behavioral bump."

Employee loyalty: downward trend

And from Weegen's practical experience, another reason for said displeasure is not hidden in the fog of uncertainty: The deficient inner commitment to the employer. "Workforces caught cold by change processes simply no longer have the nerve for solid efforts for work and customers, in short, the interests of the company." Basically, it wouldn't take the regular pulse measurements of the Gallup Engagement Index in this regard to recognize or get confirmation that the inner bond with the company and with it the unconditional desire for performance have seen better times, says Weegen. Presumably, no employee will be able to identify with everything his employer deems appropriate and necessary. "But to the extent that the actions of one side become increasingly distant from the needs and expectations of the other side, the inner distance from the company also grows - in a more or less openly apparent disinterest."

And the greater this inner distance becomes, the more it reduces the actual effect of corporate restructuring measures; the smaller the unreserved willingness to deal with the new and to get to grips with it. "There is no commitment without a real emotional closeness to what one is supposed to be committed to. And so a lot of things in companies - some serious voices even claim that most of what purports to be commitment does not pass the litmus test of closer scrutiny," Weegen points out.

The "nasty triplets"

Weegen considers it a serious mistake not to regularly check the existing framework of structure and procedure for its expediency. Experience only teaches, he says, "that the hopes attached to its efficiency effect often fail to reach reality because the team that is supposed to turn hope into reality refuses to set out for the reasons explained. This proves another fact of experience almost daily in the business world: the performance of a company often suffers considerably under structures and processes that are in need of overhaul. But it can suffer just as much from the atmosphere that prevails within it. "Where the nasty triplets of uninformedness, uncertainty and insecurity are up to their tricks and are the dominant atmospheric mood-makers in the company, the workforce is inevitably primarily concerned with itself. With the corresponding consequences."

Of course, then the work does not rest. Of course, something would be done. But how? "And for this insufficient 'How?' there used to be a very figurative rebuke: 'You only work with your hands!'" recalls Weegen. And this rebuke was not discrimination against manual labor. "It was a rebuke of the fact, easily recognizable from the outside, that someone was not thinking while working; that a process was simply reeled off without any inner involvement. Just 'only' with the hands, not also with the head. Without any inner involvement."

The devil of disengagement Perhaps most noticeably, this "working only with one's hands", this lack of inner connection with the task at hand, can often be felt in consulting and sales conversations: customers ask something, look for information, are clearly busy trying to get a basis for a decision. And they don't get it. They feel duped because the answer they receive is not information that relates to their specific concern, but a trained suada of phrases. Weegen: "The lack of inner commitment to the company and the task is palpable. It is not the possibly suboptimal structural and procedural organization that makes dedicated consulting or other discussions with customers impossible. The one who has a fatal hand in this is the devil of disengagement. Where he runs the show, there is no heartfelt commitment to whatever."

It is important to pay attention to this Beelzebub to the same extent as to the organizational formality - and not only in change processes. Weegen: "Operational efficiency, superior performance has primarily to do with feelings and only secondarily with formal configurations. The observance of the psychological contract between employers and employees, the fulfillment of the mutual unspoken demands on the other side, the trusting intra-company relationship, that is what 'makes the cabbage fat' and makes one 'go through fire' for the job in the mass brought today."