why information = reduced stress

In December, I was walking from Kings Cross station to the British Library. As I walked up Euston Road, I also passed the long, snaking line of miserable people, pinched with cold, desperately waiting for a seat on Eurostar.

The amount of snow in London, of course, was unprecedented – and certainly the transport network was caught unprepared. None of this was of interest to the queues of shivering tourists and business people, simply wanting to get to their destination. As I walked the long, long line, there were train staff keeping people on the pavement, and preventing people from jumping the queue – even on the second day, handing out coffee. The one thing that wasn’t being handed out was information.

Press coverage of the event showed travellers angry and upset that they had been left in the dark and that they felt abandoned.

So why might information have helped? Customer announcements would hardly have melted the snow, or taken the ice off the rails.

Information is necessary for people to make choices. In the case of these travellers, even a little information might have enabled them to decide to stay in the queue – or to stay in a hotel for the afternoon. And it’s not so much the depth of information, it’s about the sense of power that having the information gives. In situations of uncertainty, more information gives at least the option for more choices. Without it, people are caught in a dilemma made even more difficult because of a lack of rational data to help them move from one place to another – and in the case of Eurostar, this place was physical as well as emotional.

It struck me, working on a change programme after Christmas, that stress for employees is often because of the same problem - a lack of information. There are plenty of good reasons why management may keep information about their future plans from employees – further consultation is required, plans aren’t finalised, the markets require it.

But there are also plenty of bad reasons that management keep quiet about their plans. These include sins of omission - management not considering that it’s necessary, or not even recognising that it’s important, or history (this kind of information has never been released in previous change programmes). They also include the less forgivable reasons, for example, management cowardice, or a paternalistic attitude towards employees that implies that they can’t cope with the “truth”.

However, my experience is that by withholding information, management make employees into children by disenfranchising them from the choices they might have. For example, knowing truthfully that a reorganisation is going to result in headcount reductions – even if you don’t know how many and where - may enable people to make their own minds up about what they want. This might mean hunkering down for the wait, or starting to look for a job elsewhere, even start a new career. It will certainly mean discussions with family, partners and friends, and those discussions about what, and when, and how – all give people a sense of power and self-direction. It will also enable them to start finding the resources and support they need to take action – whatever that is.

My guess is that management don’t do this because they fear an exodus of their best people and that “business as usual” won’t be possible as people consider their options.

I have news for them – for anyone going through large scale change, business is anything but usual.

But the benefits could be considerable.

If management is prepared for this, this may not simply mean an exodus of the best people. It might mean a more adult, informed, and frank debate about the future. It might mean more prepared and resilient employees who feel they have some control and some choices. All of which are steps towards reducing the stress of the people caught in the middle of the change.

www.corporatemagnetism.com