Organisational Behaviour - Describe Elizabeth Best as a leader.

The subsequent key to success however did not lie in the inherent quality, validity or perceived need for these initiatives (which were necessary but not sufficient conditions) but rather in the way she secured top level support for the most pressing item on her list - the development of “the budget needs of the division (…) for the following year”.

To win over the secretary of the Department of Environmental Affairs as part of a “powerful guiding coalition”, according to Kotter one of the key steps to organizational transformation, Elisabeth applied a two tier strategy. As the first tier she presented the secretary with a list of possible change initiatives, in the end leaving him little choice but to decide on the budget-topic which they both perceived as the most pressing. Although she had already established a certain degree of trust through a previous display of political loyalty to the secretary, the final decision for her to go ahead depended on the second tier – influencing the secretary’s decision network. She had identified the top advisor whom she convinced of the merits of her initiative, hence creating a favourable “network climate” for her agenda and finally tipping the scale in her favour in the long run.

With the top down backing and buy-in secured she now had to address two more challenges in order to obtain the budget for the department. She had already pinpointed the weaknesses in terms of revenue collection and supply infrastructure but needed to quantify the specific personnel and equipment investment needed to improve these shortfalls. Secondly she needed to sell the necessary investment to Internal Affairs in charge of budgets.

The former challenge was very much in line with Elisabeth’s strengths and she managed to compile an analytically sound and consistent case for the investment in both infrastructure and collection-personnel. Her ambition and willingness to work hard in the end allowed her to pull together the information necessary to compile the budgets on time. However she did not delegate any of the required tasks but rather took on several roles in order to “get things done”. During this process, her initial networking also paid off, as she collected preliminary budget information from the department directors and staff offices which would have most likely been less forthcoming had they not known her and might have perceived her initiative as a threat. In addition, without the backing from the top she would have probably not been as successful in compiling the necessary data.

The success in the second part depended on several factors, namely a combination of luck and her wide network. The undersecretary assigned to the budget appropriation process was not only a person who shared a similar intellectual capacity and working style with Elisabeth, hence being open to her arguments, but also happened to be an acquaintance from her previous engagement. With this strong personal connection Elisabeth managed to successfully sell the idea and get the budget.

“A tremendous victory in a year of tight budgets”, yet the case does not reveal whether the actual implementation of the required changes, which relied on organisational rather than economic incentives within the department were as successful as the process of obtaining the funds.

Explain the causes of her problems at the end of Case C and recommend how she might proceed

Using a mix of Kotter’s 8 step model for transformation and the ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) best practice for change, which we superimposed, we will analyse the change management process. Our analysis will focus on the initial steps necessary for transformation, particularly the lack of awareness, urgency and desire to change - all hurdles the project is failing to take. Furthermore we will look at the application of these theories along the hierarchy-axes upwards and downwards from Elisabeth’s perspective, taking into consideration the stakeholders on both ends of the process. After identifying the breakdowns and omissions that have left the project in danger of collapse, we will combine these insights with ideas on remedial action, focussing on how Elisabeth may steer the project clear of failure in the six months remaining until the deadline. These recommendations are made in form of an action plan at the end of the analysis.

Awareness of the need for change within the department might be present but there seems to be no clear idea of its implications and hence a sense of urgency, the first crucial step in an organisational transformation, does not seem to exist. Best is referring to the necessary change simply as a “task” which is not likely to increase the urgency level and her chances of “getting through” to the directors within the Environmental Standards Division. In addition, her not knowing the internal workings and hidden agendas within the department will further reduce the probabilities of her successfully getting the message across.

First, Elisabeth missed the opportunity to contact the outgoing undersecretary in order to find out his reasons for departure and to gain a better understanding of his previous leadership style. Second, due to her subjective sense of urgency, she failed to take the time to get to know and build a network among the department heads and inspectors. Since her success in the past had relied heavily on these networking and influencing skills the “lets get right to work” approach was likely a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Looking up the “stakeholder chain” a different picture emerges. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs shares Elisabeth’s painful concern for the negative image that would fall back onto the department, should it fail to produce the necessary input for the new legislation in time. Best is hence on the right track to forming a “powerful guiding coalition” for the change effort, the second step in Kotter’s theory, but fails to build this working relationship with her subordinates. This top level support will be crucial for some of our more “aggressive” recommendations should they be put into action.

Given the interrelated nature of the situation it is useful to also consider the lack of Desire to participate and support the change (step two in the ADKAR model). Not surprisingly 4 months into the project Elisabeth Best has no clear idea of the Directors’ motivations for “stonewalling” her change initiative. There are two types of possible causes, on the one hand related to her as a change-agent and on the other hand based on internal factors frequently associated with a typical civil servant setting. Both lead to a reluctance to participate and support change.

Due to her lack of authority, expertise, gender, status and seniority, Elisabeth may not have the change-agent credibility necessary for driving the initiative. Conversely moving down the hierarchy-ladder the majority of the stakeholders either hold a “Civil Service position, or (…) received the position due to a strong reservoir of political support”. With little risk of losing their jobs, and a prevailing organisational culture driven by politics rather than objectives and by lacklustre attitude rather than results, the directors and staff will be need a much stronger push to be driven out of their “comfort zones” than Elisabeth Best had initially anticipated and exercised. Looking at Bests’ management style of democratic leadership and consensual goal setting, her initial approach to get the directors “to move” does not surprise, but nevertheless fails to meet the requirements for initiating change in this case.

Considering the past track record of the department, namely that of little or no concern for the quality of the audits, it seems logical that there is an enormous lack of Knowledge on how to implement the change as well as the Ability on how to handle the subsequent day-to-day tasks properly. On the part of the inspectors this means that they need to know how to “do an audit right” (third and fourth steps in ADKAR), they hence need to be empowered to act on the changed environment. Clearly without the right tools and lacking relevant expertise, none of the inspectors will be likely to jump onto the change bandwagon.  Similarly the directors are not likely to have faced such a large scale change in direction recently (K) and may furthermore be alienated by the fundamentally different leadership style and by Best being a “woman in a position of authority”. Furthermore the directors will not be excited by the idea of taking on any responsibility for a project which they do not know how to handle properly (A). Hence Best’s approach to “give the director and his two assistants the responsibility for supervising the inspections and ensuring that they took place effectively” was bound to falter. In essence both stakeholders have a strong need for education and coaching, a requirement which is not adequately addressed by Best. This is an unfortunate oversight as it may pose one of the highest barriers to change.

Since the change process is failing during the initial phases, little information is available on problems stemming from in the last steps in the change process which stress Reinforcement or as Kotter puts it the “Consolidation of Improvements” and the “Institutionalisation of the New Approaches”. These initiatives are hence included in the overall action plan but do not appear as part of the analysis.

Awareness to change – Sense of Urgency  

… by using more X-Type motivation methods, setting more concrete goals, deadlines and direction on how to achieve these goals, in effect signalling that the necessary changes are “serious business”

… by pushing the subordinates out of the comfort zone with the credible threat of outsourcing the Pollution Monitoring and Control department to an “outside” service company.

… by putting up a noticeboard which counts down the “days to new law”

… by publishing the “top five inspectors” of the department which have done successful audits

… and a last resort she may try to work with the secretary to relocate or at least float the idea of relocating the non-performing directors to another position within the Division

Desire to participate and support change

… by changing corporate culture and introducing performance based evaluation and possibly bonuses

… by creating short term wins, and setting auditing goals on a monthly rather than overall basis

… by sidelining the cynics and ones refusing to change, creating a positive momentum among the people willing to support the new direction

Knowledge on how to change / Ability to implement change on a day-to-day basis

… by hiring consultant(s) which will show the inspectors on how to do an audit right and empowering them to do the work expected of them in future properly

… by institutionalising a Monday morning meeting where all inspectors can vent their frustration on the problems within audits, but can also brag about the little victories.

… by coaching the directors (using external consultants) on the requirements and standards that need to be met under the new environmental law.

… by teaching the directors on how to manage a successful auditing and control process.

Reinforcement to keep change in place

… by institutionalising the publication of audit results in local newspapers or newsletters

… by continuing to improve quality and by starting to work towards an auditing certification such