There have been many, many research studies that all seem to point out that the meaning and relevance of communication is in the eye of the receiver, not the sender.  In my experience, most business communicators are too focused on sending – their message – not the factors that influence and distort the reception of that message.  In particular, they seem to have a problem with dealing in feelings and emotions.

 I have found that the primary factor influencing the reception of messages is trust.  Is the sender seen as creditable?  Is the message congruent with the way the receiver perceives the environment?  Is there too much cognative dissidence (is the message framed and delivered in a way that fits the receiver’s experience)? 

 If there is one thing I would advise communication professionals in this regard it would be to help mangers understand the value of direct, clear, and emotionally laden communication.  By emotionally laden, I mean that many organizations are afraid to deal in feelings and emotions and end up with sanitized, politically correct, platitudes that don’t help employees.  Said differently, if employees are angry, fearful, and anxious – which most are these days – mangers need to have the skills to acknowledge their feelings.  If they can’t do that, employees shut down and no communication happens.

 The primary factor that blocks organizations from authentic communication is an institutional fear of emotions and a norm of being objective and factual in all communication.  Until organizations realize that employees in pain and anger first need their emotions acknowledged before they are ready to hear “facts and figures,” no true communication will happen.

I once knew a senior manager who, at budget time, asked his staff to “shoot” enough employees to cover for a projected deficit in revenue.  Other symbolic terms for downsizing are “take-out,” or the ubiquitous “terminate” It is not without psychological significance that the language of layoffs is often the language of assassination. One client failed to meet me at the airport and the replacement apologized and told me my former client “went across the river.”  The outplacement firm that handled this organization’s downsized employees was located on the other side of the Ohio River.  

 One reason for the symbolic death language is a deep-seated fear of job loss caused by employees defining themselves not by what they do, but where they work.  If who you are is where you work, your basic identity is threatened when your job is threatened.  

 It is helpful for employees to understand that when employees loose their jobs, they don’t really loose their identity.  In fact, they often find job loss results in a wake-up call and can act as a stimulus for much more meaningful work and a more relevant life.

 Language is powerful and one useful intervention is to help employees and organization see the symbolism in their language around layoffs and downsizing.  One way to start is to simply have organizations stop using the word “terminate.”  It has the wrong symbolic context.

I just returned from Las Vegas where I worked with a group of sales professionals and sales managers.  They work in a very competitive industry and their company culture values loyalty. 

 We had a very interesting discussion over my concept of “cautious loyalty.”  By that term I mean that no-one wants to work for or with a one dimensional mercenary who is loyal only to her or him self.  On the other hand, it is not a good financial or psychological decision to blindly trust that loyalty is always reciprocated by employment security.

 Unless an employee works continually to keep their skills honed and marketable and networks outside their employer they are setting themselves up for big problems because, in the new psychological contract, no employer can guarantee employment security.

 Some HR people and a few managers had difficulty with the concept.  They liked the loyalty idea but not the “cautious” adjective.  Difficult though it may be, organizations can’t have it both ways and it is not fair to ask employees for their trust and loyalty without also cautioning them to hedge their bets.

 Like other paradoxes, “cautious loyalty” requires the ability to keep two, seemingly contradictory ideas alive at the same time.  One way of looking at it is that you can be loyal to your job, your customers, and, to some extent, your career.  You, however, begin to run into trouble when you are loyal only to one firm because, in today’s environment, that is a very fragile and unpredictable relationship.

As I travel from organization to organization, I find it interesting that there are a number of ways to describe the involuntary termination of employees.  Here are some recent examples.  Let me know if you have some others.

                  Term                                                                         Meaning

 I was recently by Total Picture Radio.  I never now how these will come off, but the Total Picture Radio Podcast helps frame the issues and solutions.  It is a good way to learn about how to help heal the wounds both for yourself and for your organization.

 Two other good perspectives can be found on the CNBC Guest Blog I wrote for them and on the article featuring my work on Monster.com

 These media releases can be helpful in communicating to managers and others who need to be enlisted in the process of revitalizing downsized organizations.  Check them out and pass them on to others interested in revitalizing downsized organizations

I recently conducted an informal survey within one organization concerning perceptions of the “deal” – the psychological employment contract. 

 I asked professional, non supervisory employees, and most of them said the deal was to work hard, gain transferable skills, and be ready to move to a new organization when the time came because they were convinced it would come for almost everyone.  

 I asked middle managers and they were confused.  They didn’t know what the “deal” was but the majority said that it was different than when they came to the organization and it certainly was not life-time employment but they were not sure what it really was.  They were defiantly uncomfortable with employees being loyal to their work and profession but not necessary the company but they didn’t have any concrete options.

 I asked the CEO who had been there 35 years.  He said that entry level professionals should work hard, be loyal to the company, not network externally for jobs, and despite the current economic downturn, the company would find ways to take care of good, loyal, hard working employees.  

 So there you have a snapshot of what’s going on.  Different levels and different organizational cultures have very different perceptions of the psychological contract and often send out mixed messages.  So what is your perception of “the deal?”

I learned this deceptively simple phrase from the late Pat Williams, founder of the Pepperdine MSOD program and, over the years, have increasingly come to appreciate it’s relevance when coaching clients going through change and transition triggered by downsizing.  When a client is caught up in a crisis of purpose, competence, and self-esteem; facts, figures, models, 360 degree feedback reports, and flow charts don’t help – in fact they get in the way.  The currency of the realm is feelings and emotions, not facts and figures.  Logical analysis and rational planning may help the coach feel competent, but they will only make the coachee feel worse.  Anyone who has had an argument with a significant other and attempted to defuse their emotional issues by logical analysis to prove that they “shouldn’t feel that way” will understand that you don’t solve a “heart” problem (emotions and feelings) by a “head” (data and logic) process.  In a coaching relationship, the more a client’s “heart” issues are responded to by the coach’s “head” solutions, the wider the empathy gap. What is necessary before helping the client move forward are the basic skills of empathetic listening, reflecting feelings and emotions, and the ability to form an authentic, non-judgmental, helping relationship.  We can often be of more service to our clients by simply giving them empathy rather than our “scientific” tools.

I just returned from three days in New York where I talked to some members of the business press about my book and about layoff survivor sickness. 

Advertising revenue has dropped precipitously in all of the print and most of the electronic media.  The big spenders for advertising: cars, banks, high end consumer goods, travel, are just not placing the ads.  As a result some very good and talented people are being let go.  It is not hard to get the attention of business reporters on the subject of layoff survivors when they fit that profile.  What I found interesting was that some, in an effort to appear businesslike and objective, initially found it much easier to discuss layoff survivor symptoms in the abstract than to use their own situation and feelings as a frame of reference to understand what was happening to others.

I have found this same phenomena with HR people and others who are involved in layoff planning and administration.  At one level, it is an understandable defense mechanism to remain objective and business like.  At another, it makes it harder to face the inevitable reality that layoff survivors in all professions and in all functions need to personally deal with some pretty toxic emotions in order to move on.

I just returned from facilitating a workshop at a hotel in Lake Las Vegas in Henderson, about 30 miles from the strip.  The scars of the economic environment were everywhere – abandoned construction, vacant shops, and a casino with only four other customers at three in the afternoon.  A security guard told me they now close at 10:30 PM.    That’s a sign of the times!

One of the participants, the owner of a small manufacturing business, didn’t buy my advocacy of giving people who were targeted for layoffs as much advance notice as possible.

“They will act out – not work hard – steal our customer lists – and possibly sabotage some of our equipment.”  he argued.  “Far better to not tell them, and when the time comes, escort them out the door quickly.” 

It was his business, his money, and he was a customer, but I could not disagree more.  There is probably some very small degree of risk that some of these things could happen but that needs to be weighed against a far greater risk of mistrust, alienation, and anger.  I know of no research that concludes that withholding information from those who will be downsized is beneficial.  There is, on the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that employees can not only handle this information, but that it gives them a sense of control which leads to a better adjustment and no decrease in productivity.  There is significant evidence that control is a key variable in a time of uncertainty.  If we have control we can handle almost anything and if we don’t have it, we get worse. 

Then, there is the ethical issue.  If we have information that will greatly effect an employees life – like if she or he will have a job in a few months – how ethical is it to not tell them or even, by our silence, give them the impression that they will keep their jobs?  For me it boils down to our belief in the nature of people.  To go way back to Douglas McGregor, do we have theory X assumptions that we can’t trust people and, unless they are carefully monitored, they will “get” us, or do we have theory Y assumptions that people can be trusted and, when empowered, will do the “right” things.   When it comes to downsizing, I think there is great power in being straight with employees and establishing  a theory Y culture.  That will not only help those who will be leaving but also those who remain and, ultimately,  the organization itself when things turn around.