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 clinical services, 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 the 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 the 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 of the 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 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 longtime 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, was responsible 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 the service was responsible for overseeing this change

Actions/rationale to Address Issue: The executive director and director of the service were aware of the change management literature (see Lewis et al., 2012). They developed a template for organizational change, which they shared with the middle management team during 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 the 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 about the nature and necessity of this 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-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 were further reduced. The staff recalled the agency's poor history regarding change management, and they were guarded, skeptical, and resistant towards self-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 the 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.

FROM THIS CASE DEVELOP A CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE COMPANY.