For this assignment, I chose to interview two colleagues who were directly involved with leading change for digital learning initiatives—one from the private sector (PS) and one from the not-for-profit sector (NS). During my interviews, I kept in mind that there are many approaches and methods for managing change; organizations vary significantly in their structure, systems, strategies and human resources (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 234); and, organizations may measure success based on values rather than the bottom line.

Business Objectives and Outcomes

Two common reasons that businesses spend money on projects are to avoid costs or increase revenue. Although many companies use improving services to justify or get permission for new projects, improving services for customers usually leads to increased revenues and improving services to employees improves morale and reduces turnover, thereby avoiding costs (Russel, 2015, p. 11).

Private Sector (PS)

The PS company provides services to the public on behalf of the provincial government. To avoid financial penalties related to non-compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the PS company directed its Human Resources department (HR) to replace a failed classroom-style training with an online, self-directed FOIPPA training course for employees.

The training would be mandatory for all employees who would need to score 80% on a final quiz to receive a completion certificate. The PS purchased an LMS and hosted data onsite to comply with FOIPPA. It took four months for HR to create the online FOIPPA training and within two months 100% of employees completed the course. The training was available 24/7 for employees to reference and became part of the orientation activities for all new employees.

Not-for-Profit

The NS company develops leadership skills for the not-for-profit sector. To attract more participants to its core program, and thereby increase revenues, the NS company’s Board of Directors instructed the Program Committee to redesign the 9-month core program to appeal to today’s time-strapped workforce. Enrolment had decreased by 50% over four years due primarily to the intensive time commitment required for workings, team meetings, and experiential learning via hands-on grass-roots community projects. Feedback from business sponsors, participants and potential participants indicated that a shorter program with digital learning components (synchronous and facilitator-led asynchronous) would most likely increase enrolment. In addition, closer alignment between the experiential learning components and community needs would increase business support.

Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) research found that “change leaders are people with creative visions, who are able to foresee a new reality and how to get to it” (p. 239). The challenge for the NS’s leadership was that long-time volunteers who were unable to foresee a new reality resisted changes to the program and eventually left the program committee. Attempts to achieve mission- mesh, “the success of combining competing interests in collaborative projects” (Austin, 2001) eluded the NS for several months until new volunteers with a keen interest in developing innovative digital learning options stepped forward.

It took 18 months from the time the Board decided that the core program needed to be redesigned to an agreed-upon design for a four-month blended-learning program.

Change Model/Method

Neither company consciously chose a change model.

Lewin’s Method of unfreeze, implement, refreeze (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 249) fits the PS CEO’s approach. The CEO unfroze the failed face-to-face FOIPPA training by fast-tracking an elearning option; implemented the change and took the training to set an example for others to follow; then refroze the training and directed each employee to take the training until he/she achieved a score of 80%.

Luecke’s Method may best fit the NS’s process as it comprises “joint identification of existing problems and their solutions, developing a shared vision, identifying leadership, implementing change and finally monitoring and adjusting strategies for any problem in the change process” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 250).

Conclusion

Some may argue that only the PS elearning initiative was a success since at this time the impact of the NS’s blended-learning initiative remains unknown. However, the NS interviewee would argue that the NS has achieved success by attracting a new group of volunteers committed to modernizing the core program and responding to the needs of the community. On the collaboration continuum, the NS has developed new “alliances that involve deep mission mesh, strategy synchronization, and values compatibility” (Austin, 2001).

The infographic below outlines key differences between these two projects.

References:

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

Austin, J. (2001, October 1). Connecting with nonprofits [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/connecting-with-nonprofits

Russell, L. (2015). Project management for trainers (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.