Scripts

Unit 3
3.1 (I = Interviewer, AD = Anne Deering)
I: How do you advise businesses which are planning to change?
AD: The two important things to take into account when advising businesses is, first of all, help
them understand what does success look like – what are they going to change, how are they
going to measure that change, and how will they know they’ve been successful?
And I think the second key point is to make sure people are fully engaged in the change, that they
feel this is something they are doing for themselves and not something which is being done to
them.
3.2 (I = Interviewer, AD = Anne Deering)
I: What are the typical problems that businesses face when they’re going through change?
AD: Change is a very difficult process. There are many problems, but I would say the two, perhaps
most important, ones are, first of all, what we think of as change fatigue. Organisations have
often faced wave after wave of change, programme after programme. Organisations become very
cynical about programmes’ ability to deliver real change and change that’s sustained over time,
so it can be very hard to bring people along and create passion, enthusiasm around change when
they’ve seen it again and again.
And the second big area that I see is the ability to get leaders engaged and aligned around the
change, so that leadership speaks with one voice, leadership provides a role model for the
organisation, and very importantly, helps the organisation stay focused on the change throughout
what is sometimes a long and difficult process.
3.3 (I = Interviewer, AD = Anne Deering)
I: Can you give us an example of an organisation that you have helped to change?
AD: We work with a wide range of organisations around the world. One we helped recently was
Nokia and Siemens when they merged their networks business. That was a very exciting change
programme at a time of trying to create better value for the organisation. We helped NSN create
a future for the organisation, so we had 8,000 people involved around the world in a
conversation over 72 hours in which they constructed the values of the future organisation and,
following that, then put changes in place that would make that future organisation a reality for
them.
3.4 (P = Petra, E = Eduardo, M = Mitsuko, W = William)
P: Good morning, everyone, I take it you’ve received the agenda and the minutes of our last
meeting. Does anyone have any comments?
E/M/W: No/OK.
P: Right. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss our smoking policy. As you know, people are
complaining that our staff have been smoking just outside the door of the building and leaving
cigarette ends everywhere on the pavement. That’s not acceptable. Eduardo, you’re a smoker,
what do you think we should do about it?
E: Well, I think we should be able to smoke outside the restaurant, on the balcony. It’s big enough
for plenty of people to sit there, it’s in the open air, and we smokers would be happy. We
wouldn’t bother to go outside the building.
P: Mmm, interesting. How do you feel about that, Mitsuko? Do you agree with Eduardo?
M: Not at all. Our policy has always been ‘no smoking on company premises’. I think we should
keep it that way. Nonsmoking staff often go out on the balcony to relax, they don’t want to
breathe in a lot of filthy smoke. No, it’s not at all—
W: Come on, Mitsuko, I’m not a smoker, but I do think you should be a little more open-minded,
more tolerant …
P: I’m sorry, William. What you say is very interesting, I’m sure, but could you let Mitsuko finish,
please? You’ll get your turn to give your opinion.
W: Sorry for interrupting you, Mitsuko. Please go on.
M: I just wanted to say, I don’t think we should provide places in the building for people to
smoke. It’s setting a bad example, especially to younger staff.
P: William, what do you want to say?
W: I just think we have to try to understand smokers. They’re addicted to smoking, they find it
very hard to give up, so we should provide them with somewhere to enjoy their habit. Or, if we
can’t do that, give them a longer break during the morning, say at 11 o’clock, so they can go to
the park near here and have a cigarette.
M: I think that’s a good idea, Petra. It would show smokers that we want to help them, you know,
that we’re a tolerant, openminded company.
P: Not a bad idea. It’s definitely worth considering, too. But I think we should move on now. Can
we come back to the smoking issue at our next meeting? I want to get the opinion of staff about
our smoking policy. So they’ll be getting a questionnaire about it from our HR department some
time in the next few days …
***
OK everyone, thanks for your comments. To sum up, then, on the smoking policy, we’ll consider
whether we want to give smokers a longer break in the morning. And we’ll discuss the matter
again at next week’s meeting. OK, any other business? … Right, thanks everyone for your
contributions. Have a good lunch.
3.5 (I = Interviewer, SH = Scott Henderson)
I: First of all, Mr Henderson, what was your main reason for the acquisition?
SH: Well, it’ll benefit our group in many ways. Obviously, we expect the deal to boost our
earnings. It’s bound to be good for our bottom line – not immediately, but the year after next,
we’re hoping …
I: Hold on, it sounds to me, from what you’re saying it’ll be bad for your bottom line, won’t it?
SH: Look, like all acquisitions, the reorganisation will involve additional costs, so these will affect
earnings in the early stages – all mergers are costly at the beginning.
I: Mmm, I suppose there’ll be savings as well.
SH: What exactly do you mean?
I: Well, savings in terms of personnel, staff cuts, redundancies …
SH: I’d rather not comment on that, if you don’t mind. We’re in the early stages at present,
nothing’s been decided yet.
I: So what are the synergies? What are the main benefits, apart from boosting earnings in the
long run?
SH: Well, we plan to expand the TV channels, offer more variety and sell more entertainment
products. Also, we’ll import a lot of Australian films for Asian audiences. I want to make our new
group a strong force in Asia.
I: I see. Are you worried about the cultural differences between the two organisations?
SH: Not really. There’ll be some initial problems, no doubt, but our managers have an
understanding of Chinese culture, and don’t forget, I’m a fluent Mandarin speaker. But of course,
the working language in the group will continue to be English.
I: Right. Thanks very much, Mr Henderson. I hope your company will be very successful in the
future.
SH: Thank you.

Case Study
Ros Pomeroy has worked in the UK, mainland Europe and Asia Pacific in a variety of areas
including sales, business strategy and, most recently, human resources and change management.
She specialises in executive coaching and change leadership in both the public and private sectors.
Case study commentary (I=Interviewer, RP= Ros Pomeroy)
I: Ros, how typical are the merger problems faced by these companies?
RP: I think they are fairly typical. The complaints that we've seen from the Asia Entertainment
staff, you know, anything from what is the overall strategy of this business now to… the cook, the
Australian cook, and complaints about the catering, I think are real and they are understandable.
They're understandable because there are people in the business who feel out of control of the
change that is taking place. I think also it's easy to blame the difference in national culture in this
example on the problems that are being faced. Uhm, but in fact, in my experience, although
differences like this can make the situation worse, most companies when they try to merge will
meet resistance and often they will underestimate the level of resistance that they find.
I: How reasonable are the complaints from Asia Entertainment?
RP: I think they are entirely reasonable. The complaints and issues are real to those people and
they will behave accordingly. So, often when people feel concerned by change it will affect
adversely, badly, the performance of the organisation as a whole.
It often can be the case in my experience that senior managers get very frustrated with this. They
can't understand why people are not just understanding what's happening and getting on with it,
if you like. But it is possible to overcome resistance. Resistance to change is natural, but there are
things that the management team could do to make a difference and overcome that resistance.
In fact I would say that the best managers will actively seek the sort of complaints and listen to
them and understand them as a way of helping to overcome them. And the worst situation is
really if management ignores it all, assumes that nothing is happening, doesn't listen, and
pretends that all is well when, in fact, things really aren't well at all.
I: How would you advise the management to improve the situation?
RP: Well I think the management can do many things to improve the situation. But I think there
are three particularly important ones. First one is communication. Second one is about clarity of
the benefits of the merger. And the third one is about involving employees.
So the first one, communication. I think the management team have to build trust. They need to
be seen to be honest. They need to be involving people in their communication. By that I mean
listening to what people have to say and being seen to listen.
The second point, which is about clarity. I think always in change it has to be clear to all and
inspiring to all what the change is for. What is this merger for? What will people benefit from if it
goes through in the way the management team want? And that's not just the financial benefit for
the company but sometimes some very tangible, specific things that will be good for each
individual employee.
And the final thing is involvement. And I think now is the time for the management team to get
groups of employees together in working parties and working groups. Maybe mixing people from
the acquired company and the parent company together and asking them to come up with their
own solutions to the issues that currently exist. And that way I think they stand a chance of
making the integration a success.