Latest / Fractional Frequency / Beyond the Announcement: Driving Real Change Through Communication and Leadership

Transcript

Beyond the Announcement: Driving Real Change Through Communication and Leadership · Fractional Frequency

• Billie Tienda: Hello everyone, happy Tuesday. Very excited for our guest, Julie Gull, and she is from a change communications advisor and senior change strategist. With more than two decades of experience helping organizations successfully navigate transformation. Throughout her career, Julie has partnered with Fortune 50 companies, global technology organizations, healthcare systems, telecommunications providers, and energy companies to strengthen communication, engagement, and organizational readiness during periods of significant change. Julie combines organizational development, strategic communication, and change leadership to help organizations. Move beyond simply informing employees to creating real adoption and lasting behavioral change. In this episode, we'll explore why communication alone isn't enough, the critical role leaders and managers play during transformation, and how organizations can build trust, engagement, and readiness when navigating today's accelerated pace of change. So welcome Julie. Thank you so much. Wow, bio makes me sound smart. I bet to live up to my up to my bio today. You are, and what a time to have you on the podcast, right? Just with everything that is happening in the world. So it's very, you know, critical to I think for just people organizations just to hear from you. So I guess you can start with what originally drew you to organizational development and change management. Well I feel like I came to this work through an unusual route. My undergraduate degree is actually in theater. So I acted, I directed, I worked behind the scenes, light, stage management. I kind of did it all. But at some point, you know, just to be frank, I was really tired of being poor. So I was like, you know what? I really need like a career. ⁓ because theater was just theater in a, you know, smaller market is not really gonna pay the bills. So I really had to kind of sit back and think like, what are the skills that I'm bringing to the table? What actually, you know, what what kind of career can I look for here? ⁓ and I realized that directing a play is really just project management. You have your opening night that can't move, similar to your go live date. You have limited budget, you have multiple work streams, you have A group of people who are trying to come together around one outcome. You know, it's it's herding cats with costume and lights. That led me. I was at the time I was an administrative assistant at Bank of America and I knew that I could do more than, you know, scheduling meetings and doing expense reports. So I I really sat down, I updated my resume with, you know, skills like coordination and leadership and I finally convinced someone that, you know, directing a play is just like managing a project. And so I was finally hired as a project coordinator. And one of my first assignments was to handle the readiness for user acceptance testing or UAT. And so I spent hours, you know, preparing the training materials and the communications and I will never forget after one of the training sessions, a woman came up to me and said, and I'll just never forget this, she said she'd been really nervous about doing this testing. This was a totally new system. She had no idea what to do, no idea what was expected of her. But after this session, she felt so much better because she understood what she was supposed to do, all the materials she was supposed to reference. And she just said, you know, I was so nervous, but I feel so much better now. And thank you so much for all the work that you put into this. And I will just never forget the feeling that, you know, that Engendered in me that wasn't something that I had experienced at work before. ⁓ it was something that I just really attached myself to and I realized, like, hey, this is a whole thing. Like, people do this for their jobs. And so that really led me down the path. And I got involved with the Association of Change Management Professionals or ACMP. And it was through ACMP that I realized that my alma mater, Queen's University of Charlotte, also had a graduate degree in organization development. And so I went back and got my master's as well. So it's kind of, you know, really set me on this path. And that moment of this woman saying, you know, I was so nervous. And I feel so much better now. Like that moment was really like the impetus for my. entire career because you know from the project's perspective back then they just needed somebody to do the testing but from her perspective we were asking her to do something that was wholly unfamiliar to her she wasn't sure if she could do it and you know those are two of the same different experiences on the same project and I've always been fascinated by that second perspective ever since. So that's what really drew me to the human side of change. I love that. And I especially just love the parallel that you drew between being a director like on set to then doing, you know, a project, if you will, right, with a company, right? Because it's the same, like the organization needs to be clear. You need to be able to be on top of it and see like the the greater picture. So I love that story. Thank you. So given, you know, the 20 years that you've had helping organizations through the transformations, what have those experiences taught you about why people like resist or embrace change? So I love this question. I I think that the biggest lesson that I've learned is that people don't resist change as much as they resist uncertainty. You know, when people push back or disengage, it's often because they don't have enough context. They don't really understand what the change means for them, you know, what they're expected to do differently, what they can do to succeed in the future, you know. I've worked on projects where the plan was just absolutely perfect. The technology worked, the communications went out, but people still weren't adopting the new way. And it wasn't because they were difficult. It it's so easy in in our line of work to say, you know, to kind of blame the people who are the the targets of change. They're being resistant. They they just don't want to change. But it's likely that they're not really being difficult. They just nobody told them. Nobody helped them make sense of what that change was going to mean in the actual context of their work. So when people embrace change, it usually means because someone helped them understand and answer those questions. What does it mean? Why does it matter? What do you need to do? Do you feel capable of doing it? And, you know, then they have a manager who supports them through that transition. You know, resistance isn't often. negativity, it's often just unanswered questions. Yeah. No, I agree. And I think that, you know, when companies make decisions and have to make changes, it's not it's not bad, right? And sometimes sure they're going to be things that not everyone loves, but it it's always the how, right? And that's where companies I think just don't always realize the implications of their actions. And so just having, you know, someone be able to kind of have that lens for them is just so helpful. Yeah. Yeah. I completely agree. Completely agree. And so with, you know, I mean, I think pr part of what you do probably is like, okay, there needs to be some sort of process that's also being embraced perhaps through the transformation. So in addition to you know, the process and the technology, why do the human side of it deserve equal attention? It's because people make strategy real. You know, it technology doesn't make strategy real. You can install a new technology perfectly. You can redesign a process that works beautifully. You can restructure an organization, but none of that creates any kind of value unless the people who need to change actually change what they do. You know, technology will enable an outcome. Processes support them. But in nearly every transformation, somebody has to stop what they've been doing for years and start doing something new. And that's why, you know, I really push back on people calling the people side of change like the soft side of change, because it's actually the side that determines whether or not your investment is going to pay off or not. You know, organizations don't invest millions of dollars to just implement a system. They they invest to achieve an outcome. Whether that's a better service, lower cost, reduce risk, faster decisions. And all of those outcomes require a behavior change. So if you ignore the people side, you honestly you can deliver a perfect project, but it's not gonna produce any of your business results. Yeah. It's just not the people up to do that. It's fascinating that really this is the most important piece of change and somehow it's not always first on an executives list. And so, ⁓ d sort of dovetail on that, Julie, what would you say in in your work have you seen as the biggest misconception or maybe most frequent misconception that organizations have about communication during change? I think that the biggest misconception is that communication equals understanding. I think that's the biggest misconception. You know, organizations will say, we communicated that when what they really mean is that they sent an email. An email was distributed. And you know, maybe a town they checked the box. Yeah, they checked the box. Exactly. But sending isn't well. Sending is communicating, but communicating does not equal understanding. So I think that the biggest misconception is that if the message is delivered, job done. But in reality, the job is just beginning. You know, people need to know what's changing. They need to understand what it means to them. You know, they also have to believe that they're moving in the right direction. They have to know what's expected of them, feel capable that they can do it, and then receive support and reinforcement over time. So A message can create awareness, but that doesn't create change just in and of itself. As you've worked with teams that have done a really good job of achieving the understanding and not just the awareness or the communication at face value, what are some of the behaviors that you see out of those leaders as they're working through the change with their audiences? Leaders need to stop asking, did we communicate that? And start asking, can people explain what's happening? Can people explain what they need to do differently? So I think that that shift can really change everything. It it's it's not it's no longer just a check the box activity. You know, there's a sense of we have to validate that that this is happening. That shift can change everything. So instead of counting emails sent or town halls that you held, leaders should be asking, do people understand why this change is happening? Do they know what's expected of them? Are managers prepared to answer their team's questions? Do we have feedback loops in place so that we know what people are actually thinking? And then what happens after launch to reinforce the new behavior? You know, those kind of five questions I think are really what leaders should be should be asking because awareness is just the starting line, but adoption is your outcome. So again, communication will create awareness, but leaders who understand the distinction that it's not just awareness, they're gonna design that communication in a completely different way. Yeah. And you brought up such a good point about are your leaders, frontline leaders, prepared to reinforce the messaging, to answer questions, to to support the narrative? And so I have to ask a follow-up question about that. What can organizations be doing to prepare their managers to be the front line of communication with employees? Yeah, I think that this is the most underutilized lever in change. I really do. Organizations can spend months building their communication plans and they'll spend minutes preparing managers. Like one manager prep session, not enough. I mean, if you have one, I'll give you credit. I really will if you have one. But you know, the most important thing I think is to stop treating managers as a distribution channel and start treating them like change leaders. So, you know, talking points, great. But they're not enablement. Managers need context. They need to understand the why well enough to explain like unexpected questions from their employees. They need clarity about what's expected and what are the non-negotiables. They need to know what's still open for input and what isn't. That's so important. We want to involve people in change, but sometimes things are just not open for discussion. But they Most importantly, they need a way to feed those concerns back up to the project team. There's a framework that I have used in the work that I have done when we're thinking about preparing managers. And it's a simple acronym called CORES, C-O-R-E-S, like the core, the core of change, core backbone of change. So the first is C, it's for context. So they need to be answer why this change. Why now and why it matters to their team. O stands for objectives. So really clear expectations on what success is going to look like. R stands for rally. So how can we involve people in this change? What is open for discussion? What is not? How can we get people excited about it? E stands for enable. So what are barriers that need to be removed in order to provide support to these employees? And then S obviously stands for sustain. So how do we reinforce those new behaviors after launch? So if you have all of those things in place and managers can explain context, objectives, rally, again, how can we involve people, enable and sustain? And then under all of that is empathy. Because there are going to be feelings about change. I think that ignoring the fact that, you know, people are going to have feelings and approaching those feelings with empathy, I think that's a really critical, really critical skill for managers as well. It's not a soft extra, you know, it's kind of the operating standard. So when managers have those five things, they're not just distributing information. They are helping people navigate change. I am just envisioning what it would feel like to be a mana manager, managing through a change when that whole course framework is is deployed well. And I think like I would imagine feeling like I could reinforce anything. And I'm thinking back to early, you know, frontline manager jobs that I've held in my career and trying to navigate changes where it's like I'm sitting in front of an employee, I'm like, Yeah, I just found out the same time you did. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Doing that feels I know that feels so uncomfortable. Like I beg if people hear this, like just do one thing differently. Just prepare your managers first. Yeah. Just a tiny edge. Give them a second to digest and prepare. They'll feel so much more empowered. Exactly. But thank you for walking us through that. I and I've got I've got kind of a you know, a a follow-up question to my early question about when you see this done well and and you have Consulted across a range of industries from tech to healthcare to energy, you name it. And so what is the common pattern, despite all the differences that those environments may have? What is the common pattern that you see when change goes well? Yeah. I I think that there's a few things that I consistently see. So number one, leaders are really clear about the outcome. not the just the implementation. They're they can answer what are we trying to make better and what will people have to do differently in order to get there. So there's like different questions that they ask. You know, it's not, is my technology going to be ready on time? It's being able to say, why am I putting this technology in? Second, I think that they involve people early enough so that they can actually influence something. Like there is a huge difference between asking for feedback after every decision is made and inviting people into shaping how the change comes to life. Now, on that point, as far as involvement goes, I I do want to mention, you know, I have worked for companies that have hundreds of thousands of people in 50 plus countries. I know that it is impossible sometimes to involve everyone, but It is better to involve some people on the decisions that are up for discussion than to involve no one. And tell people the who you involved. Let them know that their peers were involved. Don't just keep it as a secret. Hey, we did this, but nobody knows that we did this. You know, involve people when you can. Because I understand that when you're at a huge company, it might be impossible to involve everyone. So just putting that out there. ⁓ but going back to your question, I think the third thing is that they identify who really matters. Like sometimes the people who can make or break a change isn't actually the senior executive. It's that frontline manager, it's the scheduler, it's that respected employee that everybody asks, like, hey, what did you think about this? You know, that's really done through a really thorough. You know, stakeholder analysis to understand who are the people who can influence this change. And then finally, going back to my point about managers, the people who do it well prepare managers. I think that's the biggest differentiator. Organizations that equip their managers to have real conversations with their teams, they are the ones who are more likely to succeed. And those that hand them a deck and expect the best, they're gonna struggle. So the pattern, I think, is. really consistent. It's organizations that treat people that treat that people side of change just as seriously as as the tech side. Yeah. And I I love what you said about identify your influencers. And you might be surprised about who they are. ⁓ but they can make or break whether other others are looking to them, right? And modeling after their behavior and the precedent that they set. So such a good point about that. Maybe kind of one more wrap up question from my perspective as as you've seen changes go well. And we've talked a little bit about the, you know, the the obviously the signal about is are people adopting whatever the change is, are there other signals that you look for, ⁓ especially maybe early in the in the adoption, ⁓ that tell you it's going well and it's going to stick? Yeah, you know, I I think I have to kind of flip that question just a little bit because I think what I see are are more like the warning signs because when things are going well, it's quiet. That's that's kind of the signal that things are going well. It's it's really quiet. So it's so much easier to kind of see when things aren't going well, but it's things like people. Are saying, hey, what what are we doing again? What is this? Why are we doing this? You know, when I really want to kind of trace that line all the way through. Like, can people explain the change? ⁓ do they understand what they're gonna need to do differently? ⁓ because it's entirely possible to implement a project successfully and still miss that, you know, business result. But I also look at whether or not the new way is actually being sustained. Like, is it happening six months later? Has it stopped depending upon, you know, the did the project team have to keep it alive? Are managers reinforcing it? Are new employees learning it? Hey, this is how we do things. Like, was this included in onboarding? You know? but I'm also really careful to be honest. about what I personally measured versus just things that I observed because as a consultant, I'm not always on the project six months later. You know, sometimes I have to hear things, you know, through hearsay, catching up with with past clients, but I'm I know what those leading indicators look like. So can people explain the change and what they need to do differently? Are they actually doing it? Are barriers being addressed? Are leaders and managers consistently reinforcing it? Because that's the evidence that matters. You know, that's much different than did we hit our milestone? But to me, that's the evidence that matters. Totally. And I think too, you know, if companies have time, because they don't always have the necessary time, but it goes back to like Can this change be executed thoughtfully and not be rushed in a way where then it's like you do all this work and then it isn't adopted ultimately. And so what did we just do this for? And it goes back to like how much time did you give to bring the right people in, identify your influencers, like did you prep the managers, right? I just think there's so much more that goes into it, you know, if a company is lucky enough to have time to do so. They should really take advantage of that, right? Yeah, I agree. I'm so glad, Jenna, that you brought up that point about do you have time? Because I feel like you're gonna spend the time no matter what. You either can spend it before or you're gonna spend it after. But if you really want your return on investment, you've got to spend it somewhere. So now that's a good call. What you know what I'm saying? And don't get me wrong, I have spent on projects where there wasn't time. And they're what you know, you're putting something in from an emergency. And so yeah, it's it's com do it after. Yeah. That's fine. Do it after if you have to, but you know, it's you're gonna spend the time no matter what. So if you spend it before, please do so. You'll have happier employees. Yeah, it'll be better in the long run. Yeah. So switching gears a little bit to just looking ahead and This question's kind of ironic just given the recent news of the AI leaders saying we need to slow down. But with AI, right, and digital transformation and the pace has been nothing but accelerating. How do you think ⁓ the way organizations approach, you know, change leadership needs to evolve with what is happening nowadays? A couple of things. I think first of all, what got us here won't get us there. You know, we're taught as leaders to manage change. And, you know, that was sufficient at a four percent disruption. You know, I think Accenture's global disruption index, it was at four. And now we're at 200% disruption. So today's environment requires us to think that our leaders have to learn to lead change. Yeah. Active sponsorship, presence doing the internal work on themselves, you know? ⁓ because they, you know, it's that whole thing, you know, put the mask on yourself before you can lead anyone else. But, you know, there's prioritization and and pivoting. But I think it's just so important that we have to stop treating change as an interruption between periods of stability because there's not a point where we're gonna finish transformation and go back to normal. That changes what change leadership means because it's less about getting people through one particular change. And it's more about building the capability to navigate change constantly. I think that with AI, specifically, the temptation is really to make the technology the story. But employees are asking really different questions. You know, I know I am as well. You know, we're all facing this. AI transformation together, but what does this mean for my job? Will I still be responsible for what I was responsible for before? What skills do I need? Can I trust this? You know, trust is, I think, a big one. So those aren't technology questions, those are those are human questions. So I think the leaders who will succeed are those who are going to provide direction without pretending to have every answer. who create conditions for change for people to make sense of change rather than just receive it and who build organizations where people are confident that they can navigate whatever comes next, not just be compliant with the latest initiative. So I think it's a shift from managing change or leading change to building change capability. Yeah, I agree. And I think that like you said, everyone's going through it at the same time and No matter what, like the ship has already sailed, so everyone either has to get in or we have the Titanic all over again, right? So we have to figure out how to ride with it because it's not going anywhere, like you said. No, it's not going away. Just evolving and I think everyone's like we said is learning as we go. I feel like every manager one on one, I have some sort of AI question. ⁓ wait. Yeah. What model are we using now and what? Which are we using and where do I keep my chats then 'cause it's not going anywhere. It just I mean, even with like even with friends, right? Having them over for dinner and it's just AI is the topic. You know, my husband will be like, Are you just interviewing people right now? I was like, what do you mean? This is just like on the forefront of what's happening, right? It is. It is. Yeah. It was It just it just it's it's there, so it just comes up. Yeah. It ⁓ it always does, yeah. And you know, there was it was so common, I think, even six months ago for people, especially in a communications sphere, I've heard a lot of resistance towards AI in general. You know, I have to write this, I have to have my human interaction. And I agree. I completely agree. But it's not going anywhere. We have to figure out how to work with it as communications professionals. You can't turn a blind eye to it. We have to. We have to figure out. Totally agree. Yeah. So as we wrap up, what we do is something known as a quick hit advice. And you've given a lot of advice already throughout this podcast, but there's a little bit more like rapid fire with these ones as well. All right. So the first one is what's one communication habit you wish every leader would adopt during periods of change? Repeated clarity. You're gonna get tired of saying it long before your organization has heard it. Leaders often communicate a message once, maybe twice, and they assume that everybody's absorbed it and understand what it means and what they have to do. So the habit I'd recommend is find ways to repeat your core message. Why this change, why now, what is expected, and do that through conversations. Lead within Ask managers what questions they're hearing. So clarity is a process, not an event. I agree. So for leaders that are about to walk into a major transformation, what's one practical piece of advice you'd want them to keep in mind? You don't have to be perfect. I think so many leaders really feel pressure to have every answer. Yes. Communicate flawlessly, manage every emotion. But that is not what people need. People need authenticity. They need you to say, here's what we know, here's what we don't know, and here's when I'm gonna come back to you. They need to see you listening, adjusting, staying committed to the outcome, not pretending that the journey is going to be smooth. Don't pretend. And please remember, people don't resist change as much as they resist uncertainty. And as a leader, your job isn't to eliminate the uncertainty. It is to help people build confidence that they can navigate it. So I think that that is a much more realistic and more inspiring definition of change leadership. Thank you so much for today, Julie. This was awesome. My pleasure. Thank you so much for having me and letting me talk about this topic. I'm very passionate about it. So thank you. Yes. And Julie, if anyone wants to find you, ⁓ either your business or just connect, where can they do that? Yeah. So you can find us at meaningfulchangeconsulting.com. ⁓ and you can find me on LinkedIn, Julie Gall. Thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you.