Don’t lose key talent by keeping schtum during organisational change, warns Susanne Jacobs
A friend of mine left her job today. She loved her job, had been recognised by her industry through professional awards and was highly valued by her organisation. A couple of months back she had no intention of leaving, in fact was looking forward to imminent promotion. She was respected, engaged and achieving some of the highest financial returns ever experienced by her firm. But now she has handed in her notice.
Why?
Her organisation had been acquired eight weeks earlier by a larger corporate firm, something that had come as a complete surprise to her and her colleagues.
Despite her good working relationships with the directors they had said nothing. They hadn’t asked for opinions and did not provide any information.
Instead the announcement was made, her benefits changed, her office moved and a new manager was appointed to run her department.
In her resignation conversation with the senior director of the corporate, who had driven half the breadth of the country the next day to speak to her, she was told that she was a key asset and had been identified as such in the due diligence. He asked what they could offer her to stay. My friend told me that while flattering in its desperation, the conversation was too little too late.
When they asked her what they could have done differently, her reply was clear. “It could have been different if they had just talked to me, heard me, recognised that this decision affected my whole working environment and that I have valid and valuable insight and ideas about the design of it.”
We are social creatures and look to belong and connect to a group. Social sciences show the clear survival benefit to this need as it gives our relatively puny physical selves a chance to work as a unit for the safety and success of the individuals involved. To remain part of that unit every person plays a valuable role, for which we seek recognition.
To be heard, have our opinions count and our skills valued provides us with neurochemical reward that feels good and deepens our intrinsic motivation to perform. But being shut out has the opposite effect – exclusion, a lack of voice and reduced significance of our position within the group activates a strong threat response in the brain because the neuro interpretation is that these factors represent a threat to our survival. After all, back on the plains of Africa to be kicked out of the tribe would have meant an almost certain death. While this level of threat to our existence is no longer as true, when we face these issues in our workplaces the neurochemical response is the same. The consequence can be demotivation, disengagement, reduced performance and organisational risk.
In change, leaders often skirt around, actively avoid or unintentionally forget to recognise the need to include and hear from all those involved allowing them wherever possible to play a part in their futures. During any merger and acquisition process the emotional response of the employees is the single most valuable insight to be had from any due diligence and, is why M&A’s often end up devaluing the very capital they sought to leverage.
In the case of my friend her organisation’s failure to just talk and hear her, whilst of course being cognisant of legal and regulatory confidentiality, has led to their loss which I suspect will shortly be someone else’s gain.