Why is your change communication not reaching your team?

Ask someone affected to work through a typical case. What would they do now? Which rule would they use? Where would they need to ask a question? This checks whether the message is understandable without turning it into a knowledge test in front of the whole team. The aim is to improve the work instructions.

In a fictional company, the team is to handle complaints through a shared channel in future. The announcement lists benefits and a start date. However, it does not explain how to handle cases already in progress. If those cases continue to be handled through personal email, the missing transition rule is the specific explanation to examine first.

Record open points in three groups: missing information, contradictory information and decisions not yet made. Only the first group can be resolved with an additional message. Someone has to decide a genuine conflict between objectives. Otherwise, communication is held responsible for a problem it cannot resolve on its own.

A useful starting point covers the reason for the change, the specific change and its practical consequences. What is not working well enough today? What will be different? What will stay the same? Who is affected? When does the rule apply? Where can people ask questions? Answer these from the perspective of each work step as well as that of the project lead.

For change communication, Prosci recommends a deliberate sequence of messages and tailoring them to the different groups affected. The original article explains the connection between the reason for change, personal relevance and implementation: 5 Steps to Better Change Management Communication. The matrix below is our own practical working aid.

Avoid making definite statements about questions that remain open. “The roles are clear” is unhelpful if exceptions are still being negotiated. A precise boundary is better: the rule for standard cases applies, and the escalation route will be decided by the agreed date. This makes uncertainty explicit so that people do not have to fill the gaps with assumptions.

Work backwards from the action required to the information people need. Not every audience needs every message. The service team needs different instructions from senior management, even if both should understand the same reason for change. A short matrix is enough to start with, provided responsibility for each open question is clear.

Add the responsible person and a date internally. Keep the current version in one place. Presentations, the intranet and verbal explanations can offer different levels of detail; the basic rule for what to do should agree. Otherwise, well-intentioned repetition creates further confusion.

Someone may understand a change and still raise valid professional concerns about it. Equally, a person may agree with the goal without being able to carry out the new process. If you combine both in one general question, the next action remains unclear. Separate people's understanding of the situation, confidence in applying it and assessment of the change.

Our own example questions include: “I am clear about what the new handover changes in my work” and “I know where to get support with an exception”. An agreement scale can help organise feedback. These statements are not a scientifically validated diagnostic tool and do not prove that someone can actually carry out the process.

When people raise concerns, ask about the consequences they fear. Which requirement is in conflict? Which exception has been overlooked? Resistance to change looks at how to handle these objections. More explanation is only helpful when an explanation is what is missing.

A clearly identified contact, a case discussion and a confidential feedback channel can serve different purposes. For an urgent exception, the team needs a quick decision. A survey is better suited to capturing recurring experiences. It should not replace immediate support.

The CIPD describes employee voice as an opportunity to express views and concerns and influence decisions. It emphasises that listening and acting are part of a two-way exchange. You can find this perspective in the CIPD Employee Voice factsheet. A channel without a visible response only partly meets that aim.

Define what happens after feedback is submitted. Who brings together questions about the work? Who can change a rule? What answer does the team receive? A short update on the decision made provides direction, even when not every suggestion is adopted. Also explain when a question remains open and when it will be revisited.

Check the assumption behind your action. If a case example was intended to make exceptions easier to understand, look afterwards at the relevant questions and feedback. A higher email open rate would not be sufficient evidence. It describes contact with the message, rather than clarity in day-to-day work.

When comparing over time, use the same statement where possible and record which explanation was provided in between. Look at the distribution of responses and participation, where available, and take other events into account. A changed value is a pointer for the next check, rather than proof that your communication alone caused it.

A useful response might be to try the instructions on another case, decide on an exception or change the chosen channel. If the same uncertainty keeps recurring, examine the rule itself. Measuring the success of change management explores the connection between feedback and operational results in more detail.

Agree who is responsible for updates. If an exception requires a new rule, the change must appear in the current instructions and reach those affected. Otherwise, passing information informally to a few people gives them knowledge others lack, leading to contradictory decisions in the next case.

Close the communication with a practical handover: Which source is authoritative? What has been adjusted since launch? Which questions remain open? New colleagues should be able to find the same version as the existing team. A project archive full of old slides is rarely the easiest starting point.

The overall change process provides the framework for this work. Communication accompanies its decisions. It can provide direction and enable feedback; better wording cannot resolve a lack of resources or incompatible requirements.

With EngageBeat Fokus, you can ask your own questions about how clearly your team understands the change. The short weekly survey gives you feedback on this. Questions rotate, so a selected question will not automatically appear the following week. Change management with EngageBeat shows where it fits; responsibility for communication and action stays with you. Confidentiality explains the framework for confidential feedback.