Informal conversations between supervisors and their team members can be more influential in preparing a workforce for change than official communication alone, according to new research which highlights the critical role line managers play in change management.

The study found that formal, top-down communication, such as emails, town halls and newsletters, which often comprises most change programmes, showed no significant direct link to whether a team collectively felt ready for change. However, supervisors’ unscripted conversations did. Published in the Australian Journal of Management, the research has important implications for leaders designing a communications plan for the next restructure, system rollout or merger.

The study pinpoints how communication can build collective readiness for change within organisations. When supervisors discuss the intended change with employees outside official channels, teams are more likely to perceive the overall communication process as more distinctive, consistent, and supported across management levels. This, in turn, predicts whether a group feels ready to change.

Official memos don’t move the team

The paper, A mediation model of change communication and collective readiness for change, is authored by Dr Phong Thanh Nguyen, lecturer from RMIT University, Ho Chi Minh City, together with Associate Professor Alannah Rafferty from Griffith Business School and Professors Karin Sanders, Gavin Schwarz, and Amirali Minbashian from the School of Management and Governance at UNSW Business School.

Dr Nguyen said the study was prompted by a gap in understanding of how teams and workgroups, rather than individual employees alone, respond to organisational change.

“While previous research has shown how manager communication shapes the readiness of individual employees, we know much less about how communication influences the readiness of teams or workgroups. In this study, we wanted to better understand what helps groups become collectively prepared for change, and the role managers play in that process.”

Learn more: Why team dynamics determine the success of organisational change

The researchers surveyed 402 employees across 48 work groups in five organisations in Vietnam, spanning retail and manufacturing businesses, and education and public service organisations, between February and July 2020. Responses were analysed using hierarchical linear modelling, a statistical technique that separates individual-level from group-level effects. Some of the changes under study were unfolding alongside early responses to COVID-19.

The study tested whether formal, top-down communication from management (via official channels such as emails, newsletters, town halls, and written announcements) is linked to what the researchers call collective readiness for change. This differs from individual readiness. An employee can feel personally prepared for a restructure while still believing, after talking with colleagues, that the team (as a whole) is not ready.

The result challenges a common assumption in change management. Manager-official communication showed no significant link to collective readiness for groups, though it was still linked to a stronger overall communication process. Higher group readiness was instead associated with supervisors discussing the change informally with their own teams and helping employees interpret official messages in their local context.

The unofficial conversation that counts

Unofficial supervisor communication, including conversations that happen outside town halls and email chains, in corridors, on the floor, over a coffee, was positively linked to collective readiness for change. This happens, the researchers argue, because line managers translate abstract change announcements into a team’s daily work: “as supervisors devote effort to communicate change outside official channels, they help translate the change into group-specific language and/or tailor how the change will influence specific tasks and roles in their groups.”

The study measured what they call the strength of the change communication process: whether information from management stood out from everyday noise, stayed consistent over time, and reflected agreement among decision-makers. When supervisors held unofficial conversations with their teams, employees perceived the overall communication process as stronger, and this perceived strength (rather than the informal conversations alone) explained the increase in collective readiness.

“Organisations need to recognise that line managers are not simply passing on information,” Dr Nguyen said. “They help employees interpret what a change means for their team and their daily work. New line managers, in particular, should be trained and properly briefed so they can play this role effectively.”

Official manager communication was linked to a stronger communication process. A follow-up analysis found that this relationship ran partly through supervisors: official messages appear to gain traction once line managers pick them up and carry them into unofficial conversations with their teams.

Consistency beats volume

The strength of the communication process was the clearest predictor of collective readiness in the study, ahead of either communication channel on its own. The researchers describe three factors: distinctiveness (the change message stands out from routine business noise); consistency (the message does not shift week to week; and consensus (managers at different levels are seen to agree with one another). A high volume of contradictory or inconsistent communication will not necessarily reassure employees.

The authors drew on signalling theory, an economics framework that explains how one party conveys credible information to another under uncertainty, to explain why this matters. Employees generally know less than management about the reasons for and timing of a change. Communication that is loud but inconsistent is a weak signal, easily produced and easily doubted. Communication that costs managers real time and effort, and holds together across levels and over time, is harder to fake.

"Organisations need to recognise that line managers are not simply passing on information"

PHONG NGUYEN

Consider an organisation implementing an organisation-wide artificial intelligence project. Senior leaders can make the change distinctive by personally explaining why the organisation is adopting the technology, what will change, and what will not. Managers can then reinforce the same message consistently across communication channels and through their own behaviour. Employees should also see genuine agreement among senior, departmental, and line managers on the project's purpose and direction.

“Employees do not judge a change message only by how often they hear it,” Dr Nguyen said. “They also look for consistency between what different managers say and what those managers actually do.”

Practical takeaways for business leaders

The findings point to a specific role for line managers in change programmes. The paper states that “line managers and supervisors need to consider the importance of their communication efforts with employees outside official communication channels when seeking to enhance  change readiness within groups.” Organisations investing heavily in top-down messaging while leaving supervisors under-briefed may be missing where the real influence sits.

The second takeaway concerns discipline over volume. Rather than adding more announcements, the research points to conveying information “in a distinctive, consistent, and consensual way”: equipping supervisors with the same facts as senior leaders, checking that messages have not drifted between departments, and confirming that leaders at different levels are visibly aligned before communication goes out.

Subscribe for the latest research, analysis and insights from UNSW Business School

The study draws on Vietnamese organisations, so its findings should not be assumed to generalise to every market. The authors note other factors, such as the type of change and an organisation’s change history, that were not tested and could also influence team readiness.

Despite these limitations, the overall message for leaders from this study is that they should not abandon official communication, but they should recognise how and where it becomes meaningful. A town hall, email or carefully prepared announcement can establish the organisation’s direction, but employees still need someone they know to explain what the change means for their team, their work and the decisions immediately ahead.

The most effective change communication, therefore, does not end when the official message is delivered. It continues through supervisors who are properly briefed, visibly aligned and able to translate strategy into the everyday realities of work.

Five recommendations for industry professionals

1. Senior leaders should explain the purpose, scope and timing of a change before wider communication.
2. Line managers should discuss official messages with teams and connect them with roles and tasks.
3. Internal communication teams should check that messages remain consistent across management levels.
4. HR teams should prepare new supervisors with briefing material, questions and escalation paths.
5. Project leaders should assess team readiness rather than relying only on email views or meeting attendance.