According to Lewin (1951), there needs to be a clarification of the present situation during the unfreezing process and once the awareness of the need for change is shown via management meetings etc, then a gradual readiness for change can be brought about. In this case the resistance to change (Lipitt, Watson, Wesley 1988) was from both internal and external factors. The external drives hindering the process were from governmental guidelines that proposed that the service had to work within certain financial parameters. These had a direct effect on the nature and extent of the services that could be provided with the workforce in place. The internal factors included applying for the same financial monies to set up the addition to the service, from other internal departments. A case therefore needed to be made for its input into mainstream service.
As a democratic leader, I used situational theory of Hershey and Blanchard: telling, selling, participating and delegating and created a relationship between the leaders (councellors, service management and followers my supervisees and for those for whom I had line management responsibility).
I used transformational leadership style (Bass 1985), (Wright 1966: 213) to raise critical level of awareness aswell as the consciousness about the value of this change to the general marginalised young people from the BME in the area. This, I believed would allow the participants to “let go” of their own interest, for the interest of the common goal.
As Lewin suggests, I devoted time and energy to unfreeze as this was an important factor in managing change factors so that they do not conflict with the existing behaviour. Lack of consistent leadership, de-motivated staff kept in the dark, lack of capacity, budget cuts are four factors for failure in management change.
At each phase staff and line management were encouraged to actively seek disconfirming evidence and were presented with a series of possible research outcomes and were then asked, what decision should be made, given the set of possibilities. Would this new evidence affect their decision? As a catalyst for change or change driver, the staff were assisted in developing a low level risk approach to change. The staff were allowed to maintain a level of control over the change, which helped to overcome any fear of change, whilst the change agent (myself) provided support. When the re-freezing was complete it was important to provide feedback periodically on the change. It was important that I was not seen as the source of the change but a supporting actor in the change itself. I was aware that this could create managerial problems later if this was the case. The potential case load increase for the staff was seen as an “active resistance” point, even though in the long term, the cases would be divided by more staff. Hence each number would spend less time per case. This was not received very well as it was difficult for the staff to see the long term benefits.
Eventually the feedback over a longer period of time embedded in the mind of the workforce, a personal benefit aswell as an overall benefit for the team.
I needed to know that if this solution did not work out, then I needed to find alternative solutions and feasible solutions. It was important at this stage to juxtapose two possible solutions and then allow participative approach to problem solving, looking at the macro and micro pros and cons, so that the decisions that are made, are collaborative but have been driven by myself through this collaborative approach. Numerous research (Lawler and Hackman 1969) show that participation helps in many situations and French, Key and Meyer (1966) showed that participation in goal setting by a subordinate manager increased the likelihood of successful change by that manager.
Bass (1977) found that when teams used a consultative approach to task management and change, they were likely to be more successful having developed their own plans.
Monitoring and evaluation of the process was established so as to check the progress of the change, again this entailed setting up meetings, questionnaire type exercises in conducive environments. For example I organised an ‘away day’ where good food and exercises were used to allow the workforce or stakeholders to relax. This created a more participative environment that allowed less active resistance and more passive acceptance of the process of change. During and at the end of the process it was important to feedback and summarise the success or failure and the possible reasons for both. Positive feedback at this stage tends to refreeze the change.
There was some negative feedback and some of the comments were “I need more time at home, not less”, “If it is such a good idea why do the department not put more resources to put more workers on”, “Why cant these young people use the resources already there”, “It will all change again anyway so why bother”. The more positive feedback was on the lines of “It is a good service and we should have provided this a long time ago”, “As long as it means more young people are seen per month in schools then, I’m happy”.
I feel the pressure for change (a driving force) in this case lead to a need for change albeit slowly and through many sessions of participative consultation.
The next step apart from evaluation is to process and communicate this throughout the organisation.
The group understood, by doing the analysis, that the initial trigger for change ie the pressure for change is usually from the top but it can be from the workforce aswell, when people take pride in the organisation they work for and believe in the ethos and philosophy of the projected change.
To this end, Atkinson, S and Butcher, D (2001) say that “it is accepted wisdom in the corporate world that important changes should be driven from the top”. Plant , R (1987:18) recognises that although the process of change, its strengths and weaknesses and is mid/post evaluation processes are through top down invitation, but its resistance to change (for example; fear of the unknown, lack of information, misinformation, historical factors, threat to core skills threat to status, no perceived benefits, fear of failure/looking stupid are important to recognise and hence to manage positively.
It is recognised that change needs to be underpinned by a positive culture of the organisation so that it can be effective. After all research has shown that change is a major cause of stress and stress is a major negative driver.
In this case, I found that, staff respond well to challenges as long as they are furnished with adequate information so that they feel they can accomplish the task and thus own it. These “workforce motivators” include pride, happiness, responsibility, recognition, security, success and most important money.
When given the capability and opportunity to participate in leading change and improvement programmes, it is often employees who find the greatest cost savings and efficiency improvements. And infact, in this case, the stakeholders including the employees came to the realisation that the services to young people could only be provided if the administration time given centrally be taken away and instead used for the administration of the new project. The staff feel that they were able to perform these tasks themselves if in the long run, they had smaller caseloads.
This was a case of shared vision but this vision and change was not ‘sold’ as a way of accelerating progress, and agreement. It is understood that implementation for ‘selling’ change is not a sustainable strategy for success as it does not give a time picture or give the reality. In this case, I wanted the same whether:-
- the people agreed with the change
- they understood the need for the change
- they understood and agreed how the change will be managed
- that they will be involved in the implementation of the change
These sensitive aspects of change needed to be communicated face-to-face as emails and written notices tend to be weak at conveying and developing understanding.
Workshops were used to achieve understanding as I feel it is my role to communicate, interpret and enable and not to simply instruct and impose.
Finally change management principles include the involvement and agreeing to support from the staff (people) within the system thus (system = environment, process, culture, relationships. behaviours etc). Understanding where you are and where you want to be and what processes need to be put in place to get there, need a development plan which is sensitive and appropriate to all the stakeholders. These measurable processes need to be staged so that they can communicate, involve, enable and facilitate.
Kottler, J (2002:4) summarises these steps as (paraphrase) the increase in urgency to inspire people to move, make objective, real processes, get people in place who have the right commitment. De clutter communications, give constructive feedback and re-inforce the value of successful change, all the while being as sensitive to the stakeholders as possible.
REFERENCES
Asprec, E,S (1975) The Process of Change. Supervisor Nurse
6(10), 15-24
Atkinson, S and Butcher, D (2001) Trust in managerial relationships: workshop
on trust with organisations. Amsterdam
Atkinson, S and Butcher, D (2003) Friends in high places people management.
January p44-46
Bass, B.M (1985) Leadership & Performance: Beyond
Expectations: Free press: New York
London
Couillard & New (1981) Guidelines for introducing change. Journal of Nursing admin 11(3), 17-21
DoH (1995) Delivering race equality in mental health
care: An action plan for reform inside and
outside services and the Governments
response to the Independent inquiry into the
death of David Bennett.- site accessed
3/12/07
French, Key, Meyer (1966) Participation and goal setting in leading
Change.
Hershey, P; Blanchard, K.H (1977) The management of organisational
Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, N. J:
Prentice Hall
Lawler and Hackman (1969) Participative approach to change
Lewin, K, (1951) Field theory in social science.
New York. Harper
Lippett, R; Watson, J & Wesley, B (1958) The dynamics of planned change
New York: Harcourt, Brace
National Institute for Mental Health in Report: Inside Outside
England www.nimhe.org.uk
Plant, R (1987) Managing change and making it stick:
London Fontana p18
Sharples N (2007) Change Management Theory (Handout)
Sullivan ES; Decker, PJ (2005) Effective leadership management nursing
6th Ed. International Edition
Tappen, RM; Weiss, SA; Whitehead, DK The essentials of nursing leadership and
-
management. 2nd Ed
Weihich, H; Koontz, H (2005) Management. McGrew-Hill
APPENDIX ONE
SWOT ANALYSIS
