Why employees sometimes hear about reorgs sideways before leaders say anything clear

The initial indication of a reorganization usually doesn’t come in the form of a highly polished announcement issued throughout the organization. Instead, it comes in small pieces, such as a different ownership of the meeting, a new executive joining a set of weekly calls for no apparent reason, or an internal partnership team indicating that reporting lines could change. People start seeing the structure in motion even if there isn’t an official communication regarding it.

That’s when the discrepancy between the process and its communication occurs, and uncertainty develops. Employees have to rely on incomplete information in order to understand what’s going on within their organization. Based on data gathered by Gallup, a company’s organizational culture greatly impacts how uncertainty is perceived by its employees. Namely, the lack of trust within an organization leads to the assumption that information is withheld.

There is no standard procedure that is applied to all companies’ organizational transformations. For example, leaders frequently start by modifying the operating system. Responsibilities, budgets, and collaborations among teams change in advance of the official announcement. This way, senior managers can observe how well the new structures will work in practice.

The breadcrumb before the briefing

Practical interruptions will always be observed by employees long before any strategic reasoning is provided. One project now needs the approval of a new leader instead of the old one; hiring processes get stalled without any explanation at all; and different departments that used to have completely different agendas start to overlap and work together.

According to the research on workplace communication done by Gallup, it is evident that employees always need more ongoing communication with their managers than is provided in many working environments. Under conditions of uncertainty, silence turns into another signal, and workers start to seek answers to their questions through unofficial channels.

That does not necessarily mean that leaders are being deceptive. Organizational shifts are complex and sometimes can take place while all necessary approvals have not been received yet. Yet the practical changes should happen regardless of how complete the story is told to the audience.

Why information travels sideways

There is another way through which reorganization becomes known. Modern organizations have a network-like structure, and employees communicate with each other constantly, not only inside departments but also with external suppliers and superiors. Despite the fact that the upper management tries to make decisions and announce them in secrecy, it is impossible not to reveal the slightest changes within the company from the workers' perspective.

SHRM reports about a new trend of “quiet cutting” when responsibilities change, or jobs evolve without any explanations. This situation is caused by certain features of the organizational context. Sometimes companies change people and focus areas without completely understanding why they should do it.

Then the employees start making assumptions on their own, analyzing why some projects are canceled, why budgets become smaller, and why certain decisions are made somewhere else.

What employees often get wrong

On the other hand, not all strange encounters or organizational changes are indicators of reorganization. Workers may misconstrue the situation, particularly in organizations that have been experiencing layoffs or financial turmoil.

A better strategy will be for employees to take note of consistent structural changes in an organization rather than relying on rumors. Who among the various groups is gaining ownership? Who among the leaders are more visible? What changes are there in the organizational processes? These are the things that are more important than hearsay.

The broader economic uncertainty has also contributed to the perception of workers about uncertainty. According to recent statistics from Canada, people perceive the level of their job security differently in uncertain economic situations. In addition to what is happening in the organization, employees are interpreting events against the background of a larger environment.

This is because workers interpret both their surroundings and their organizations at the same time.

What can leaders and employees do differently?

It is tough for leaders to communicate during reorganization precisely because they do not know all the details yet. However, people prefer to be told upfront that there are uncertainties rather than not being informed at all.

Transparency alone can limit speculations. It is often better to say that the conversations are happening and to outline what has not changed yet rather than to remain silent until everything is clarified.

In terms of employees' behavior, the optimal response is grounded curiosity rather than panic and spreading rumors. Asking about the processes and priorities is much more helpful than trying to learn something about office politics.

Here is an example of how such a discussion can begin: "I see some decision-making and ownership trends changing. What should I expect will not change in this situation, and what may shift in the future?"

Such an opening enables managers to talk about what they can responsibly disclose without committing to any immediate decisions. In reality, employees are correct about one aspect: they can observe the changes taking place even before anyone officially explains them. In most cases, it means that the organization's structure shifts before its story changes.