It arises when communication during change is too slow.
A case from our consulting practice: We are sharing it because many organizations get stuck at this very point in ongoing change and strategy processes, and because a few simple, consistent shifts often have more impact than the next communication campaign.
The problem
The official employee information channels are well established: intranet posts are well maintained, emails are clearly worded, and the slides look good. Official information on interim change and strategy progress is getting through. And yet it often loses its power and impact!
It seems to happen time and time again: as soon as a message is out, you hear a sentence like, “They planned that months ago.” Or, “The truth is quite different.”
A second reality emerges: the shadow organization. Not as a counter-movement, but rather as a by-product. Those who work in uncertainty seek an image that enables them to act. And when official communication comes late or is so polished that it allows no friction, the system fills in the gaps itself: with interpretations, rumors, backward calculations.
This is reinforced by the pace: the strategy group works out interim results, refines them, coordinates, prepares them for communication... and only then are they published. The result is high quality, but delayed. In the meantime, the informal network has long been in full swing.
Our hypothesis
The system would make significant progress if... the demand for perfect, “well-rounded” change communication were to decrease and, instead, communication about the ongoing strategy and change process were to be more frequent, earlier, and visibly imperfect.
Informal networks are not a disruption, but an early warning system: they indicate where a vacuum is emerging. And this vacuum arises especially when official communication is too late or too smooth: it answers questions that no one is asking anymore and avoids those that are really on the table.
Our solution and intervention
We work with a principle that quickly gained a name internally: radical transparency. Not in the sense of “everything out,” but as a consistent practice of communicating interim results and uncertainties before speculation fills the void.
Specifically, this comprises several building blocks:
- Publish interim results. Including ambiguities!
Not only when everything is finalized, but when something is in motion. This explicitly includes the statement: “We don't know yet.”
What you add next is crucial: What options are being considered? What is certain? What is still open? When will the next update be available? This way, uncertainty does not become a flaw, but a framework.
- Strategy group as official “status communicators”
All members of the strategy group are made visible as approachable individuals: officially introduced, accessible, able to provide information. Not as spokespersons with prepared statements, but as people who can explain the current status of the strategy and change process and are allowed to name limitations (“We can't say anything about that today because...”).
This reduces “half-truths” because information is no longer only provided indirectly.
- At the end of each meeting: “What do we tell people back home?”
Each meeting ends with a brief clarification: What is the status we are communicating to the outside world? What wording do we use? What misunderstandings do we expect?
This mini-alignment routine may seem insignificant, but it prevents ten smart people from carrying ten different versions of the same interim status into the organization.
- Collect rumors and questions and answer them together
Office gossip is not moralized (“Stop that,” “That's not true!”), but taken seriously: What questions are currently circulating about the strategy or change process? What rumors are circulating? Which of these are understandable?
The strategy group tries to find a common answer internally, making it clear that problems are not being swept under the rug. Not every answer is possible immediately, but every question is addressed.
The result
The effect is less evident in “quiet corridors” than in a noticeable shift: official channels gain credibility because they no longer pretend that everything is clear – and because they are quicker to keep pace with the ongoing strategy and change process. This reduces speculation, not because people suddenly talk less, but because the vacuum becomes smaller.
The system calms down as soon as it realizes that nothing is being hidden. Even unfinished strategies and target organizations are communicated, paving the way to a desired future! And if something is open, it is stated openly, along with the next date.
