I read David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto’s article “Change Through Persuasion” (February 2005) with great interest. Having lived through a very bloody two-and-a-half year restructuring as a result of the collapsing technology bubble, I witnessed firsthand the positive and negative effects of varying approaches to critical change.

During the course of our company’s retrenchment, many things could have been done to smooth the transition, some of which were touched on in Garvin and Roberto’s article. The most obvious factor that could have been improved upon was the amount of up-front time devoted to developing and clearly communicating a strategic vision that supported and defended the impending change. That vision also needed to be aligned with the long-term values, goals, and mission of our organization.

This is something that Paul Levy, the CEO described in this article, understood very well and took pains to ensure happened at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC). In our case, however, a major impediment to developing and implementing this important strategic step was an incumbent leadership team that had a vested stake in the success of the policies that we were now trying to overcome. By contrast to the Levy example, our ongoing leaders were, at least in part, a root cause of the need for the massive restructuring effort.

Quickly shifting competitive and financial pressures, especially in a publicly traded corporation, can sometimes compel leaders to embrace poorly defined survival-at-any-expense approaches to change. The speed at which our restructuring began did not allow for the careful planning or execution of a strategy consistent with our values, vision, or goals. What it did do was create a meat-ax approach to tactical cost reduction as an on-the-fly proxy for a targeted strategic plan. This approach, in fact, eventually led to the elimination of some positions and locations that would later, upon more careful thought, be seen as strategic to the renewed organizational pursuits.

Levy’s use of a turnaround proposal as the framing device for helping the BIDMC employees understand the journey they were about to take is an excellent example of the thoughtful use of and critical need for clear communication. By “reiterating its points at every opportunity,” Levy reinforced a consistent strategic message, which is a concept of paramount importance for any organization regardless of the perceived notion or need for change. In fact, I would suggest that relentless and thorough communication with an aligned adherence to the organization’s values, vision, and goals might have reduced or even eliminated the very need for restructuring in the first place.

Bob Woodward