Information related:

Why Change Management? As a top-ranked public research university, UC Berkeley serves as a flagship institution when it comes to our bold and innovative initiatives. Change management is often the key component in driving the success of these ventures. As we know from our own experience, not all change initiatives are equally disruptive. Some will have a greater impact and be more challenging. Others may be barely noticeable. Change can be bucketed into two main categories: Incremental and Transformational. Incremental change is easier to implement successfully. It is often based on the current state in order to improve the existing way of doing our work. It typically involves fewer changes and affects a small number of people. On the other hand, Transformational change is more difficult to implement, typically having only a 30% success rate. (Taking Stock survey by The Change Management Toolbook, February 2005) Why is that? Things get more challenging when the change is Transformational because it is designed from a future state and involves a fundamentally new way of doing things. This typically involves significant culture change and affects a large number. The complexity involved in culture change is often why it is easier to change the change than it is to change the culture. Culture is our values, beliefs, assumptions, and unwritten rules. These shape our behaviors and mindset as well as our performance. Individuals within an organization co-create the culture through conversations and by following behavioral norms. In addition to the overarching culture of an organization, individual subcultures often exist. Taking both of these into consideration for your particular initiative is necessary when determining how to approach a change for your area. Since there are many complexities involved in executing a change initiative, both change management and project management components are required. Sometimes change management and project management are mistaken as one in the same...when actually they are two complimentary yet different disciplines. Both utilize formal processes, tools, and techniques to plan for the change, manage the change, and sustain the change. While change management focuses on ensuring the support of the people, project management focuses on the work tasks to be executed. Coupled together, proactive change management and project management will lead to the actualization of the benefits of the change initiative. The one common denominator to achieve success for all change initiatives is people. According to Chip and Dan Heath, authors of Switch, peoples' brains have two independent systems at work at all times: the rational side (is reflective, it deliberates, analyzes, and looks to the future), and the emotional side (is instinctive, feels pleasure and pain). Think of the rational side of the brain as the Rider and the emotional side of the brain as an Elephant. The Rider's strength is to think and to plan. Without a plan there is no path to get things done. The Elephant's strength is emotion. Without emotion there is no motivation (no energy) to get things done. To change behavior (our own or someone else's), we must do three things: 1. Direct the Rider - make the destination crystal clear The Rider has their own issues. A Rider likes to contemplate and analyze information before deciding on a direction. When a Rider isn't sure exactly which direction to go, they lead the Elephant in circles. Often, what looks like resistance is actually lack of clarity. 2. Motivate the Elephant - make people feel the need for change When an individual's six-ton Elephant is not in agreement with the direction their Rider wants to go, the Rider is going to lose. The Rider may get their way temporarily, through close monitoring and exerting self[1]control, but in the long term the Elephant will ALWAYS overpower the Rider. Why? Self-control is an exhaustible resource. Often what looks like resistance is actually exhaustion. Motivation provides the energy the Rider needs to maintain self-control; a lack of motivation may doom a change effort. 3. Shape the Path - make the required changes specific To direct the Rider and motivate the Elephant, we need to shape the Path by focusing the situation, including the surrounding environment, to make the change more likely. Being specific narrows the focus, so the Elephant and the Rider are more likely to stay traveling together toward the goal. Often, what looks like resistance is actually lack of direction. Heath, Chip, and Dan Heath. Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard. Thorndike Press, 2011 Change Management Toolkit 4 | Page What happens if a Necessary Change Management Component is missing? Industry statistics show that only 30% of organizational change initiatives are successful. For a change initiative to be regarded as successful, the desired objectives of the effort must be fully realized. The reason 70% of change initiatives fail is because organizations do not engage in effective change management. There are seven necessary components of change management. If any component is neglected, the result will be a less than optimal achievement of the initiatives goals. The below graphic illustrates the seven components required for successful change management and indicates specific consequences that occur when a component is missing. To assist you in proactively addressing each component, relevant remedies from the Toolkit are provided

To Change Behavior - Direct the Rider Think of the rational side of an individual's brain as the Rider. The Rider's strength is to think and to plan. A Rider likes to contemplate and analyze information before deciding on a direction. When a Rider isn't sure exactly which direction to go, they lead the emotional side of an individual's brain (the Elephant) in circles. Often, what looks like resistance is actually lack of clarity. Ways to Direct the Rider - Make the Destination Crystal Clear Find the Bright Spots: In situations requiring change, the Rider sees problems everywhere which may result in "analysis paralysis". To make progress, direct the Rider toward workable solutions by finding and analyzing exceptions to the current problem. These "bright spots" point directly to solutions that will work in the current environment. These solutions can then be implemented as quick wins which will provide direction to the Rider and hope/motivation to the Elephant. Script Critical Moves: Decisions fall under the purview of the Rider. The more choices available to the Rider, the more ambiguous the path. An ambiguous path creates uncertainty, which makes the Elephant anxious. An anxious Elephant wants to stay on the path of the "status quo" rather than change to an uncertain path. The "status quo" is comfortable and reduces the Elephant's anxiety. This means the Rider will have to constantly exert self-control to keep the Elephant on the uncertain path. To create successful change, ambiguous goals must be translated into concrete behavioral goals. Overtime, these defined behaviors become instinctive requiring less self-control from the Rider. Point to an All or Nothing Destination: It is necessary to provide the Rider with a near-term vivid picture of an all or nothing goal which shows what could be possible. Describing a compelling destination prevents the Rider from getting lost in analysis. Instead, the Rider starts figuring out how to get to the goal. This also shows the Elephant why the journey is worthwhile, without giving the Elephant any wiggle room to rationalize failure

Case:

Organizational context

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 rural region, and multiple office sites. The organization was government-funded by several health and social service ministries and was facing increasing accountability to provide detailed quarterly and annual financial and service reports. The organization collaborated with a wide range of community service partners, such as healthcare, education, justice, child welfare, employment, and housing. This was a traditional organization with a hierarchical structure and culture, and well-established policies and procedures (O'Connor & Netting, 2009). It was governed by a board of directors from the professional community. The senior leadership team included an executive director, a director of clinicalservices, and a director of operations. The middle management team consisted of program managers and clinical supervisors for each area (developmental, children's, adult and senior's mental health). There were interdisciplinary teams for each area (20 staff each), with ranging professional capacities: mental health workers (master's level social workers/therapists), family support workers (child and youth workers), crisis workers (nurses, social workers), developmental service workers (BA level), consulting psychologists and psychiatrists. This organization had undergone continuous changes, including a merger, multiple program expansions, and team/service restructuring. There was a new executive director and director of service, who were both inexperienced in these positions. These directors introduced a new mission, vision, values, and strategic directions for the organization, including staff empowerment and the creation of self-directed teams. An external consultant trained all staff on having difficult conversations with one another, to increase staff's sense of safety and comfort in providing feedback to the organization. This initiative was not followed through, and staff feedback indicated they were feeling dissatisfied and mistrustful of management. Specifically, they requested improved communication and more involvement in decision-making.

organizational Issue

The executive director and director ofservice decided to introduce a rapid shift in children's services. First, the children'smental health (CMHS)staff and the developmentalservices (DS)staff were integrated under the DS manager, who became the children's services (CS) manager. This CS manager 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 change was based on a pilot project with DS staff, where a self-directed team format had been introduced. These changes were undertaken quickly, over a two-month period. Supervisors' roles were changed significantly during this process. The former DS supervisor, who had not worked in CMHS previously, had their role extended to oversee two children's mental health teams (over 50 staff). Supervision shifted to a 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 and development. Supervisors' titles were not modified with these role changes, and they did not receive any training to implement these changes.

Central Staff Involved

The middle management and front-line staff were primarily involved in this change. The new CS manager, together with the DS and two CMHS supervisors, wasresponsible for implementing this change. As noted above, while these individuals were experienced in their former roles, they were new to 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 had some experience with self-directed teams as a pilot project, while the CMHS workers were new to this process. These staff did not receive any training about this change. Indirectly, the executive director envisioned this change and the director of service was responsible for overseeing this change.

Actions/rationale to Address Issue

The executive director and director ofservice were aware ofthe change management literature (see Lewis et al., 2012). They developed a template for organizational change, which they shared with the middle management team during a leadership training. However, they did not use the template to develop a formal change management plan for self-directed teams. Nor was the rationale linked to the executive director's vision and the organization's value of team and staff empowerment. There was also no formal communication strategy to share this news with supervisors and staff and prepare them for this impending change. This change was decided by the director of service and the new CS manager without consultation or input. The supervisors and staff were not anticipating this change, and there was no discussion of the impact on the staff involved. Instead, supervisors were abruptly informed about the integration of the two services, the changes to their roles, and the shift to a self-directed team format, during an after-hours meeting. Similarly, the DS and CMHS staff were informed of this change during a team meeting, prompting multiple concerns and questions. As supervisors were not provided a rationale for this shift, they were challenged to explain this change to staff and how it would personally affect them. As a result,staff in both services were confused aboutthe nature and necessity ofthis change.

Supervisor/staff Perceptions of Impact

The supervisors understood they were responsible to implement this initiative with staff from both teams, with ad hoc support from the new CS manager. However, without a detailed change plan with a timeline and steps to follow, and training to develop their knowledge and skills, they began to struggle with implementing the self-directed team model. The CS Manager personalized these issues to the supervisors' lack of ability to follow self-directed team principles. The supervisors also felt shocked and distrustful toward their CS manager, given the lack of input into their significant role changes. They were confused about their role, as they were no longer providing direct clinical supervision to staff or leading team meetings, yet they retained responsibility for addressing staff performance issues and completing performance evaluations. This confusion consumed much energy during supervisor team meetings with the CS manager. During this time, the supervisors were also responsible for multiple new service projects, which were challenging and time-consuming. However, the progress that supervisors accomplished on these projects was not recognized by the CS manager. Both the DS and CMHS staff questioned the self[1]directed team initiative during the entire implementation process. They were upset about their lack of involvement in decision-making, and they felt their previous feedback was ignored. As a result, their job satisfaction and trust within the organization was further reduced. The staff recalled the agency's poor history regarding change management, and they were guarded, skeptical and resistant towards self[1]directed teams. Staff reported feeling confused and conflicted about the supervisors' new roles, and who to consult for clinical supervision, as supervision was shifted to peer consultation within their new teams. This confusion led to ongoing staff conflict within their newly formed teams and consumed much of their energy and discussion at team meetings. In terms of outcomes, the anticipated outcomes, resources, and evaluation measures needed for this change were not 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 the envisioned changes were successful. Instead, the supervisors were held directly accountable for the lack of success. Acting on staff feedback, the director of service and CS manager decided to return supervisors to their former positions and teams. Supervisors returned to teams in disarray: disorganized work processes; lengthy client service waitlists; staff feeling burdened with large caseloads; client files with incomplete documentation; missing outcome data; and multiple staff resignations requiring new staff hiring

Behavioural Change Plan Questions:

To achieve successful implementation, changes in individual behaviors are required. Behavioral changes cannot be left to chance;

they must be proactively planned for.

A behavioral change plan defines what success looks like, so it can be measured after the change is implemented. The most

successful behavioral change plans look at the:

Behaviors that need to change

Systems, processes, and procedures that need to be in place to ensure success

Other preparation activities required (e.g. training)

Consequences necessary to sustain behavioral change

Using the questions below, a behavioral change plan is created by the team, for the team, to ensure sustained behavioral change.

The leader creates an initial draft of the plan which is distributed to the team to obtain feedback. The team's feedback is then

incorporate into a revised plan in order to achieve buy-in prior to implementation

1. What behaviors need to change?
2. What does success look like? How will you measure it?
3. What knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed to ensure new behaviors?
4. What systems and tools are needed to support the behavior change?
5. What new policies, procedures, and/or processes are needed to support the behavior change?
6. What training is needed to support the behavior change?
7. What organizational assistance is available to emotionally support the employee?
8. What reinforcements/consequences need to be in place to sustain behavior change?