From the Self-Directed Teams Case Study below answer the following question

3. Discussindetailswhatotherformats canleadersusetoempowerstaff?

Self-DirectedTeamsCaseStudy

Organizationalcontext

The organizational context for this change was a large mental health and development services agency,serving the lifespan (infants to seniors) of the client population. It covered a large urban and ruralregion, and multiple office sites. The organization was government-funded by several health and socialservice ministries and was facing increasing accountability to provide detailed quarterly and annualfinancial and service reports. The organization collaborated with a wide range of community servicepartners, such as healthcare, education, justice, child welfare, employment, and housing. This was atraditionalorganizationwithahierarchicalstructure andculture, andwell-established policiesand

procedures (O'Connor & Netting, 2009). It was governed by a board of directors from the professionalcommunity.Theseniorleadershipteamincluded anexecutivedirector, adirector ofclinicalservices,and a director of operations. The middle management team consisted of program managers and clinicalsupervisors for each area (developmental, children's, adult and senior's mental health). There wereinterdisciplinary teams for each area (20 staff each), with ranging professional capacities: mental healthworkers (master's level social workers/therapists), family support workers (child and youth workers),crisis workers (nurses, social workers), developmental service workers (BA level), consultingpsychologists and psychiatrists. This organization had undergone continuous changes, including amerger, multiple program expansions, and team/service restructuring. There was a new executivedirector and director of service, who were both inexperienced in these positions. These directorsintroduced a new mission, vision, values, and strategic directions for the organization, including staffempowerment and the creation of self-directed teams. An external consultant trained all staff on havingdifficult conversations with one another, to increase staff's sense of safety and comfort in providingfeedback to the organization. This initiative was not followed through, and staff feedback indicated theywere feeling dissatisfied and mistrustful of management. Specifically, they requested improvedcommunicationandmoreinvolvementin decision-making.

OrganizationalIssue

The executive director and director of service decided to introduce a rapid shift in children's services.First, the children's mental health (CMHS) staff and the developmental services (DS) staff wereintegratedundertheDSmanager,who became thechildren'sservices(CS)manager.ThisCSmanager

was new to the supervisors and staff in CMHS, and this change coincided with the departure of the long-time CMHS manager. Second, the CMHS team was changed to a self-directed team model. This changewasbasedonapilotproject withDSstaff,wherea self-directedteamformat hadbeenintroduced.

Thesechangeswereundertakenquickly,overatwo-monthperiod.Supervisors'roleswerechanged

significantlyduringthisprocess.The formerDSsupervisor,whohadnotworkedinCMHSpreviously,had

their role extended to oversee two children's mental health teams (over 50 staff). Supervision shifted toa peer consultation model within the new self-directed team format. The two former CMHS supervisors,who were both experienced (over 20 years each), assumed lead responsibility for service programs anddevelopment. Supervisors' titles were not modified with these role changes, and they did not receiveanytrainingtoimplementthese changes.

CentralStaffInvolved

The middle management and front-line staff were primarily involved in this change. The new CSmanager, together with the DS and two CMHS supervisors, was responsible for implementing thischange. As noted above, while these individuals were experienced in their former roles, they were newto their proposed roles, and they did not receive mentoring support. The front-line DS staff (over 20)and CMHS staff (over 30) were also directly involved in this change. As noted above, the DS workers hadsome experience with self-directed teams as a pilot project, while the CMHS workers were new to thisprocess. These staff did not receive any training about this change. Indirectly, the executive directorenvisionedthischangeandthedirectorofservicewasresponsibleforoverseeingthis change.

Actions/rationaletoAddressIssue

The executive director and director of service were aware of the change management literature. Theydeveloped a template for organizational change, which they shared with the middle management teamduring a leadership training. However, they did not use the template to develop a formal changemanagement plan for self-directed teams. Nor was the rationale linked to the executive director's visionand the organization's value of team and staff empowerment. There was also no formal communicationstrategy to share this news with supervisors and staff and prepare them for this impending change. Thischange wasdecidedby thedirectorof service andthenew CSmanagerwithout consultationorinput.

The supervisors and staff were not anticipating this change, and there was no discussion of the impacton the staff involved. Instead, supervisors were abruptly informed about the integration of the twoservices, the changes to their roles, and the shift to a self-directed team format, during an after-hoursmeeting.Similarly, theDSandCMHSstaffwereinformed ofthis change

during a team meeting, prompting multiple concerns and questions. As supervisors were not provided arationale for this shift, they were challenged to explain this change to staff and how it would personallyaffect them. As a result, staff in both services were confused about the nature and necessity of thischange.

Supervisor/staffPerceptionsofImpact

The supervisors understood they were responsible to implement this initiative with staff from bothteams, with ad hoc support from the new CS manager. However, without a detailed change plan with atimeline and steps to follow, and training to develop their knowledge and skills, they began to strugglewith implementing the self-directed team model. The CS Manager personalized these issues to thesupervisors'lackofabilitytofollow self-directedteamprinciples.Thesupervisorsalso feltshockedand distrustful toward their CS manager, given the lack of input into their significant role changes. They wereconfusedabouttheirrole,astheywere no longerprovidingdirectclinicalsupervisionto stafforleading team meetings, yet they retained responsibility for addressing staff performance issues and completingperformance evaluations. This confusion consumed much energy during supervisor team meetings withthe CS manager. During this time, the supervisors were also responsible for multiple new serviceprojects, which were challenging and time-consuming. However, the progress that supervisorsaccomplished on these projects was not recognized by the CS manager. Both the DS and CMHS staffquestioned the self-directed team initiative during the entire implementation process. They were upsetabouttheirlackofinvolvementin decision-making,andthey felttheirpreviousfeedbackwas ignored.

Asa result,theirjobsatisfactionandtrustwithintheorganizationwasfurtherreduced.The staff

recalledthe agency'spoorhistoryregardingchangemanagement,andtheywereguarded,skepticaland

resistanttowardsself-directedteams.Staffreportedfeelingconfusedandconflictedaboutthe

supervisors' new roles, and who to consult for clinical supervision, as supervision was shifted to peerconsultation within their new teams. This confusion led to ongoing staff conflict within their newlyformed teams and consumed much of their energy and discussion at team meetings. In terms ofoutcomes, the anticipated outcomes, resources, and evaluation measures needed for this change werenot specified. The outcome was that the senior leadership team admitted this change initiative failed,after a one-year trial period. As well, while the organization had an overall accountability framework,there were no evaluation or accountability measures built into this pilot project to determine if theenvisioned changes were successful. Instead, the supervisors were held directly accountable for the lackof success. Acting on staff feedback, the director of service and CS manager decided to returnsupervisors to their former positions and teams. Supervisors returned to teams in disarray: disorganizedwork processes; lengthy client service waitlists; staff feeling burdened with large caseloads; client fileswith incomplete documentation; missing outcome data; and multiple staff resignations requiring newstaffhiring.