Anyone who works in the public sector understands the constant movement as politics, goals, policies and people change. This is the crux of system theory, as one part of a system changes, the rest of the system needs to be changed to accommodate (Biech, 2007). Every four years or sooner, we usually have a change of management of what are termed provincial elections. Depending on the results, if the governing party changes, there is a potential for substantial change. If this occurs, there is a guaranteed change in the Ministry. The Minister of Health, Education, etc. too will be replaced with those who follow the views of the party leadership. This often trickles down to affect every level of the system. As the goals change, the majority party might have less confidence in the acumen of the executive leadership or the board of directors of a public sector organization. When these seats are changed out for those who better reflect the perspective of the ruling party, the new board and executive leaders usually substitute the leaders below them for people who they have a history with or who share similar politics. This domino effect impacts divisions, departments and teams in what we call reorgs (reorganizations), where employees shift teams, projects and initiatives to fit the mandate from above.
I have had the pleasure of experiencing three reorgs, and they are never a pleasant experience. The amount of tension and anxiety guarantees a culture of fear. Fear of the unknown, because due to politics and personal agendas, executive leaders often do not or cannot provide any information that can alleviate concern. Instead, the leadership cloisters itself in offices and we are waiting for our destiny
The initial source of the change is not actually driven by a need, a system gap or an improvement, it starts strictly with politics. When people choose their next prime minister and ruling party, their motivations are not strictly focused on health care, but economics, religion, culture, education, etc. all play a role in how Albertans vote. Strictly in terms of the healthcare industry, however, there is no true need fulfilled by the change. This is the first gap in effective change management. In the appreciative inquiry model, change is based on an imagination of the ideal state of an organization (Biech, 2007), but in this case each provincial party generally has its own idea of what the ideal state looks like and therefore can be changed. However, many other models, such as Lewin’s 3-step model, the Wheel Method, the Jick & Kanter Method and Gestalt-Field Theory, the emerging approach to change, Kanter et al.’s “Big Three” Organizational Change Model, Lukas et al.’s Organizational Model for Transformational Change in Healthcare Systems, include the discovery and analysis of why the change appears to be necessary (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Antwi & Kale, 2014).
The second gap is an absence of communication. In a political strategy, retaining information can be a useful tactic, but almost all models of change, such as the six-step CHANGE model, Lewin’s three-step model, Bullock and Batten, Kotter and Lippitt Change Management Models, Hinings and Greenwood’s Change Dynamics Model, Kanter et al.’s “Big Three” Organizational Change Model, Canada Health Infoway Change Management Framework, Pettigrew’ In Kanter et al’s “Big Three” model of organizational change, the role of the recipient of change is the most affected by change, but has the least influence on when and what change takes place (Antwi & Kale, 2014). In the National Health Service Change Management Guidelines,”[ l]eadership enthusiasm is another critical component of success” (Antwi & Kale, 2014, p. 16) and leadership should work hard to ensure that recipients of change are also enthusiastic, but change is hardly exciting when it comes to team disruption / shift, project hiatus and possible layoffs.
The third gap is the implementation of the change. Although change recipients have no say what changes happen or how they happen, it becomes a tough pill which there is no choice but to swallow, and yet the execution generally has no buy-in or short-term gains, just a short deployment phase, quick introductions to new teams, new projects and initiatives and a battle for middle management and teams leads to learning skills and seeing where the best fit is for what portfolios.
As a bleak a picture I am painting, there are some legitimate points in how change is managed. I have interviewed colleagues who have a variety of perspectives on reorgs. One colleague described the previous reorgs as I had, with little or no communication and transparency. The people who had done well, however, were the middle managers. According to my colleague, it was well known that the managers were in the same the situation, with very little knowledge of why the reorg took place, what benefit did it have and how did the executive leads want the portfolio to proceed? With so little direction, management took the reins of a bad situation and inspired actual change management models to create plans that helped the teams cope with the sudden shifts. He had another experience with a previous reorg, which was announced almost a year in advance. This was definitely a positive step, as it would allow time for employees to buy-in and explain the what, why and how questions. Unfortunately, no plans were made and no communications were delivered over the course of the year. Again, executive leadership announced the changes and told employees to contact their direct managers for more information. My colleague describes the possibilities for success if the executive starts slowly as before, but this time the employees are also involved in the discussion process. There should be an easily accessible plan with clear objectives. He also mentioned that celebrations must take place for early milestones to demonstrate the success of the change as described in the Health Infoway Change Management Framework (Antwi & Kale, 2014). He feels that support and resources from all levels should be made available to help ease the transition and perhaps even create excitement among the recipients of change. Coaching, training or even more formal education programs and resources should be made available to enable people to work best in their new roles. After passing through Prosci, my colleague recognizes that for every step of a change plan, a number of tools can be used to make the change more successful. By incorporating a well-thought-out change plan, using change tools for each step and using clear and transparent communication, he feels that future reorganizations will have greater potential for achievement.
A second colleague of mine had a different view. She has a high level of understanding of change management and organizational psychology / behaviour. She recognizes that the reorgs were not well done in the past and were haphazardly thrown together with very little planning. However, she emphasized an empathic lens and asked me, “Why do you think the executive did it (the reorg) in this way?” We came to the conclusion that it takes a lot of time to discuss and involve all stakeholders when changes are to be made quickly. Unfortunately, transparency is not the priority in this situation. However, she stated that the main parts missing from the portfolio to assist with change management were officially state the values, objectives and priorities. Without these, there is no way to see if the changes align with what is best for the team, department or portfolio. Nor will employees be able to contest specific changes, because there would be no particular basis for an argument. If the executive leadership simply says “it aligns with our goals” without setting goals, there is no way to question the decision. This is something we have done recently, and I have worked on it myself. We have successfully identified our values, objectives and priorities. With these, we can determine what future changes align and have a much smoother transition when the next reorganization comes sometime in 2019.
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
Antwi, M., & Kale, M. (2014). Change Management in Healthcare, (January). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4096/8d2ea62c423946f0089aacfb9d3f461035ed.pdf
Biech, E. (2007). Thriving through change : a leader’s practical guide to change mastery. ASTD Press. Retrieved from https://library-books24x7-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/toc.aspx?bookid=22651
Recent Comments