A local government agency in New Zealand (henceforth referred to as Acres) set about improving the quality of advice they provided to governance members who were responsible for making important community decisions on the provision of services, infrastructure projects, maintenance programmes and so forth. Local government plays a crucial role in New Zealand in supporting local business and commercial activities that contribute to the economy as a whole. Following an external annual review in August 2014, an internal quality improvement project was created to develop and implement changes that would: (a) improve assessment scores in the following year's annual review; and (b) develop the skill capabilities of staff in the writing of quality advice papers.

The team
The initial team comprised two members, a principal advisor and a programme manager, who proposed a change initiative with two key strands; first, rolling out a series of pre-developed tools; and second, introducing a compulsory peer review process for all advice papers. The approach was to be communicated to all staff via portfolio directors and relevant reporting managers. It aimed to set requirements for peer reviews through the agency's performance appraisal system and, hence, any failure to follow the new process would directly impact on the annual appraisal of individual performance. This idea faced significant resistance from senior staff in the policy team who viewed the proposal as a direct challenge on the capabilities and skills that they had built up through years of experience. The policy team, consisting of five staff, had a combined work experience of over a hundred years and a significant amount of it was gained at central government agencies. Due to these internal tensions the project suffered delays and did not progress.

In late November 2014, the programme manager appointed two new members to the project team which now included a senior advisor and a new policy advisor with experience in change management (whom we shall refer to as Agent). The project team met regularly to try to progress matters but conflicts between the two experienced staff stalled change. However, it was agreed that Agent be given the opportunity to lead the initiative - a big challenge for someone who had just joined the organization. He quickly reaffirmed the main aim, allocated responsibilities for team members and set a clear timeframe for project goals.

Managing change
The next hurdle was initiating the project to ensure positive results were delivered throughout the organization. Agent decided to get the 'voice of the customer' by asking the executive (for whom the advice papers are written) to fill in an anonymous survey. Among other things, the results from the survey provided a clear mandate for proceeding with change and added legitimation to Agent's role in leading change through their clear support. In an attempt to secure wider engagement, Agent initiated a series of workshops across the organization. These workshops not only enabled Agent to gather information about the key issues faced by staff, but also provided important opportunities for generating ideas and in establishing more inclusive conversations. By doing this, staff were made to feel part of designing the solution, of being a collaborative participant in the change. Change was no longer seen as something that was being done and communicated to them but instead, there was acknowledgement of the role of staff in generating ideas and informing the process and outcomes of change. Taken as a whole, the workshops received good attendance and staff who attended were highly appreciative of the project's undertaking and supported this collaborative approach to change.

Wider engagement and collaboration were facilitating change but there were still sensitive issues that needed addressing. Peer review was one of these and Agent approached this by providing training sessions that highlighted illustrative examples of the positive benefits that peer review can have on improving advice papers. The training workshops were designed to enable staff to gain hands-on experience with issues and develop their skills in improving the quality of advice provided in their written submissions. These training sessions, which began in late February 2015, garnered a lot of support and positive feedback from staff and were delivered fortnightly. In addition, nominated champions were identified for each section to further assist staff in developing their skills and capabilities, and the intranet was used to provide an easily accessible resource where staff could have access to all the tools, training material, sample papers and key contacts within Acres.

The aftermath
The change initiative had only been running for four months by the time the next annual review was due. Agent adjusted their strategy and instead of self-selecting and submitting advisory reports for review, they used a selection panel of three different staff who held different positions within the organization to choose 10 out of 20 shortlisted papers. The chosen ten papers were submitted in July 2015 for the review. The results were released in August, showing a significant improvement on the previous year, but the feedback also indicated other areas where further improvements could be made. However, whilst the project team was broken up following these review results, Agent maintained responsibility for leading this quality improvement initiative (without the aid of other staff). Training was upgraded every quarter to assist staff with tools and techniques to help them overcome challenges they had identified in feedback sessions. This continual listening to the concerns of staff gained the trust and support of staff across the organization. Agent's regular interaction with the champions across different sections also helped reinforce a sense of openness and collaboration in working with staff rather than directing them to use an approach designed elsewhere without their involvement. The success of this approach in bringing about change and building staff capability has worked but sustainability in the years ahead remains in question.

 

Questions
What does this case study tell us about communication and change?
Identify reasons for resistance and evaluate the appropriateness of the responses made.
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approach adopted by Agent and what would you have done differently?
Would you see this as a commitment, compliance or collaborative approach to change? Explain why.