Traditional lines of communication get thrown out the window in times of a crisis. Coronavirus-induced pandemic has exposed systemic fallibilities that now threaten to culminate in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression between 1929-30. Globally, as investors rush to find safety and liquidity, the tightening financial conditions expose several vulnerabilities. In these times, traditional communication must be replaced by crisis communication. Crisis communication focuses on mitigating damage to the business and reaching out to the employees at the same time.
This crisis has created a devastating macroeconomic shock that continues to strain every sector severely. Organizations around the world are scrambling to stay afloat and continue their operations. In these turbulent times, it is essential to tell the employees that the organization stands with them. In the flurry of layoffs, it is easy to ignore the uncertainty that the retained employees would feel. Several articles and thought leadership posts have, to combat this situation, emphasized that communication is key to employee retention.
We asked industry leaders for their opinion on a good communication strategy and to maximize the efficiency of crisis communication. The questions we asked centered around
- Survivor’s Guilt
- Minimizing the Pain of Layoffs
- Lifting Employee Morale
- Managing Privacy in a Communication Plan
- The vulnerability of the Leadership in Communication
The answers to these questions here are an extrapolation and a gist of the answers the leaders have given. All of them have expressed a desire not to be represented on behalf of their companies because the views expressed here are personal opinions.
Survivor’s guilt is a very real part of employees not laid off. How should organizations address that in their communication?
This question focused on one end of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX Theory) spectrum. The idea was that employees could have survivor’s guilt because some higher-up vouched for them. The seemingly-inherent nepotism could hurt inter-colleague relationships, especially when business closure is fast becoming a reality that all organizations have to face. As Pavan, a CEO in the private sector, said, “Mature organizations have a clear process where an identified business that is not performing well will have to close or change hands. This will become even more real as businesses try to avoid a larger amount of redundancies. “
These strategies are essential to take stock of what is working well and what isn’t. Who will remain with the organization for how long is uncertain. Retained employees can’t be sure how long their employment will continue. It is essential to find out ways to survive without hoping the organization will take care of them.
Most employees don’t fully realize who, if at all, saved them from being laid off. LMX theory argues that since employees managed to blossom under a mentor, there are higher chances that they stay in the manager’s good graces. For that, as some argue, the survivor’s guilt is not real. But even if there were survivor’s guilt, the best way to handle them is through effective communication.
As Rahul, a Manager in L&D, says, “When you’re firing employees, are you being respectful of the contributions of those who have stayed back? Have you managed your communication in a way that tells employees that there was no other way? You need to be able to give the employees the ability to navigate the story because getting fired could be a matter of shame.”
Layoffs cause immeasurable pain to the employees. How should your communication plan be structured so that the pain is mitigated?
Personal guilt isn’t something that the organization can help with because employees deal with it at their own pace. Mitigating guilt that spills over to affect productivity depends on how constructively you’ve managed to do the layoffs. You need to ensure that there is soft-landing in the layoffs. As Akhil, a partner with a consulting firm, said, “There are emotions attached to any role. People join to stay for a long time. Eventually, they’ll build dependencies. It will be hard to let that go if the management does not exercise tact.”
Pavan’s concern was also that most businesses are run without a deep commitment to the cause itself. In his words, “Many businesses are on the precipice of failure because they are in the business of serendipity.”
Effectively, when everything is fine, their way of running the business could still be sub-optimal. But when a crisis strikes, that performance worsens. This aggravates the possibility that the sub-optimal performance could translate into unleashing the pain on someone.
During Crises, organizations incur substantial investment to improve employee morale and motivation. Do you think that could be cut down to save some jobs?
The point of this question was to understand whether it was better to be a stoic company that does nothing but doesn’t lay off or a company that lays off but invests in employee morale and motivation. Straight off the bat, Asish, a manager with a credit management company, said, “It does not make sense to cut jobs just to increase the budget for employee well-being.”
Great companies with immaculate control over finances and balance sheets find a way to maintain the well-being of employees without having to lay them off for this purpose. Madhu, a manager with a consulting and advisory firm, commented on how the situation was actually the opposite of the question asked — most companies don’t have enough to spend on motivation and engagement.
In her words, “The challenge is how to keep employees motivated using non-monetary experiences or exposure in a virtual context.”
Pavan, on the other hand, said, “No matter how much money organizations cut down from internal promotions, it won’t be enough to save some jobs. Firing jobs is a much larger issue. There isn’t a huge cost element involved in internal promotions and motivation.” Essentially, the expenditure on internal promotions is not comparable to saving jobs. This leaves an important question — how do you motivate the retained employees without spending on them?
It’s essential to keep employees engaged, but at what cost? Every team and their growth can’t be aligned with the organization’s view. As Rahul pointed out, “You should give your employees the freedom to choose their professional growth.” It is the little things that validate the organization’s commitment to its stakeholders and its employees. In his view, employee motivation can be something as simple as a leadership Connect or strategic communication management for just a couple of hours.
Organizations prescribe that leaders reach out to their employees to find out how they deal with the crisis. In such forms of communication, the lines between privacy and concern can get blurred. At what point do questions about well-being constitute a breach of privacy?
Organizations have evolved. As Kalyani, an AD with a consulting firm, pointed out, “I think, for those leaders who have always had an open and honest communication style, and have shown empathy and interest in conversation with the team are the ones likely to navigate this type of communication better. Trust is the key.”
But, most leaders we’ve interviewed said that privacy depends on the context and the culture of the organization. The ideas of sensitivity and privacy are, and will always be, evolving. The question here is understanding what the other person is sensitive or touchy about. In essence, there is no need to demarcate between privacy and the questions of concern. The lines will always remain grey. ‘Leaders should ask open-ended questions’ according to Rahul, Kalyani, Kameshwari (Recruiting Manager), Ratna Sri (Project Manager in ITES), Suresh, Akhil, and Madhu. They should let the employees navigate the conversation.
It is also impossible to understand what a blanket ‘private’ means. Leaders should give employees the option of saying, ‘I don’t want to talk about that.’ If leaders can portray honesty and genuine concern, employees will understand that leaders mean well and are not trying to overstep.
Leaders need to appear grounded and reassuring. But, there’s a difference between being reassuring and falsely optimistic. How should leaders portray a reassuring and grounded approach while showing the right amount of vulnerability so as not to appear falsely infallible?
The answers from every leader we’ve interviewed read the same: strategic communication.
There are different kinds of leaders, and how they choose to engage in communication depends on the culture they foster. Professionals who take critical decisions must communicate the situation clearly. They need to induce confidence in the leadership. The key is communication — a lot of it. They should lead from the front, showing the path ahead clearly. They must know how things are better than most people in the organization.
If someone is falsely optimistic, they are not giving employees the right messages. That is an individual failure. You won’t get the right commitment, especially when you have to pick it back up. Good leaders must be fully aware of and in touch with reality. They should help their employees understand the situation while trying to maintain a semblance of normalcy might be important in some cases. For example, even if you don’t plan on giving hikes, go through with the performance evaluations. The choice of words and the level of honesty determine employee engagement.
Conclusion
Brain Chesky’s message to the hosts of Airbnb and the staff of Airbnb is largely considered exemplary communication. As the crisis unfolds, businesses realize the need to adapt. Crisis communication will keep changing as organizations adapt. All of this is a work-in-progress learning experience.