Balancing compliance and honesty
Why effective change communication requires attitude, clarity, and active listening.
Good communication builds trust. And listening is just as important as sending information.
Verena comes from a large corporate environment. What we often experienced there were change processes imposed “from the top” and then executed by leaders: reorganizations, new structures, new roles.
As leaders, we were always at the centre of the storm. How do I communicate what, when, and to whom? What if something has already leaked into the team? Do I lose personal credibility if I hide behind corporate communication guidelines — or do I make myself vulnerable if I don’t?
Once again, communication proves to be key. Verena knows all sides of this equation: that of a leader, that of an employee directly affected by a reorganization, and that of an internal communication manager responsible for developing change communication.
One sentence comes up again and again when preparing communication around reorganizations: “We need good communication.” My hypothesis is: everyone nods but everyone means something different. How do you see it?
I fully agree. Communication is often treated as a given: send out the information, tick the box. In reality, communication is one of the most decisive success factors in change or the biggest lever for failure.
The real question is: What do we actually mean by “good”?
Then let’s start right there. What is good communication for you?
From my experience, you have to look at it from three perspectives.
First, as someone responsible for internal communication, for example during plant closures or openings.
Second, as someone directly affected by reorganization.
And third, as a leader who has to inform the team.
For me, communication is good when it happens as early as possible and as transparently as possible. And “as early as possible” matters because of course there are limits: HR processes, confidentiality, NDAs etc. Every leader knows this reality.
So transparency has limits?
Yes but honesty doesn’t. I prefer to say: “I’m not allowed to comment on that.” instead of lying. And I don’t have to pretend everything is fine. In my opinion that’s the only way to build how trust.
So trust is a central factor?
Absolutely. Good communication builds trust. And listening is just as important as sending information. I’ve often seen leaders avoiding dialogue because they have to withstand emotions they’re not used to: fear, anger, uncertainty.
And on top of that, you have to give it time. You can't just tick off emotions in five minutes according to your agenda and then move on to your daily business. But that's how most managers work, as they are only measured by facts and figures.
That’s a strong hypothesis but I see it the same way. We don’t avoid dialogue because we don’t want it, but because we struggle to endure it.
Exactly. People react emotionally, and leaders need to allow those emotions if they don’t want to frustrate their associates. I'm sure some also shy away from dialogue when there isn't (yet) an answer to everything. But usually, it's enough to just listen and show (honest) understanding.
Timing also plays a role, right? When is the right moment to share information?
Yes, timing is a huge factor. Sometimes short-notice information is better to prevent unnecessary speculation. But follow-up is just as important: creating space for questions, concerns, and involvement.
One point that really stuck with me: communication is often understood as a one-way street when in fact it’s bidirectional.
Absolutely. Especially when it concerns change. Many organizations are extremely strong at sending messages but very weak at listening. Yet listening is where so much happens: concerns become visible, fears, resistance and, yes, emotions.
By the way, even if you don't listen, they're still there. In my experience, active dialogue is a better way of dealing with them than letting them linger “silently.”
And that’s exactly what many shy away from.
Because you have to be able to cope with it. When someone expresses fear or starts crying, there is no PowerPoint answer to that. And many people have never learned how to deal with these situations, neither at university nor in leadership training.
Now a critical point: transparency can also cause harm. I’ve seen situations where information shared too early, still in the design phase, created more uncertainty than clarity.
I completely agree. Transparency without a plan is not a strength, it’s negligent. Especially in complex organizations, you need a clear narrative:
Why is this happening?
What is the goal?
Who is affected?
What is defined and what isn’t?
Let’s switch perspectives. How did you experience change when you were on the receiving end?
What really made me angry was so-called salami tactics. Not because the truth is uncomfortable but because I wasn’t considered capable of handling it. I’m an adult. I can handle the truth. What I can’t handle is the feeling of being manipulated.
Body language plays a role here as well, doesn’t it?
Very much so. People immediately sense whether someone is communicating with goodwill or exercising power. That “I know more than you” attitude destroys the relational level, no matter how well-prepared the content is.
What concrete advice would you give leaders who have to communicate change?
Choose timing consciously: no reorganization surprises at the end of a meeting.
Create space: for questions, emotions, uncertainties.
Don’t be afraid to leave gaps: “That’s still open” is a valid answer – as long as the overall story is clear.
Involve affected people wherever possible. It’s easier to accept change if there are possibilities to co-create.
Be clear about what is set and where there is room for influence.
There is no shame in asking for help: many companies have communication experts who can assist with preparation, implementation, and follow-up.
To close, let’s take a broader view. We currently see a return to control, mandatory presence, and classic performance thinking. Why is it still worth holding on to people-centered leadership?
Because leadership moves in waves (similar to economic cycles) and will change again. And because every leader at any level has their own circle of influence. If no one uses it, nothing changes. If many do, the system eventually shifts again.
That’s what I truly believe.
