Self Directed Teams

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 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 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 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, 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 service was responsible for overseeing this change.

Actions/rationale to Address Issue

The executive director and director of 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 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 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 was 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 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.

Using the Analysis completed in Group Assignment #1 and the Change Tool Kit as a minimum, develop a Change Implementation Plan that contains the following part. Note that this part is the minimum expectation.

1. Change Implementation Plan

And also provide proper references

Group assignment #1 is

1. Stakeholder Analysis

List Your Allies

Executive Director and Director of Service

• ED and DS are both newly hired and inexperienced in their roles.
• Outlined the organization's mission, vison, values and strategic directions including the staff empowerment and the creation of self-directed team.
• Responsible for making decisions about the shift in children's services.
• Ensures that the organization meets its financial and service objectives.
• Responsible in ensuring that the organization's vision supports employee empowerment.
• ED conceptualized the change while the DS is responsible for overseeing this change.

List Your Opponents

CS (Children's Services) Manager

• Has minimal authority because he is new to his role in the organization.
• Motivated to make this initiative successful and responsible for implementing the change.

List Your Fellow Travelers

(DS) Developmental Services Supervisor

• Worked under a different department before CMHS.
• Responsible to oversee two children's mental health teams with over fifty staff.
• Supervision shifted to the new self-directed team format.
• Driven to be successful in their new role.

CMHS Supervisor (Children's Mental Health) - 2x

• Has 20+++ years' experience.
• With mixed feelings of excitement and apprehension.
• Responsible for leading the service programs and development even though there is no clear expectations and guidance.
• Job title was modified with role change.
• Did not received training for the new role.
• They are motivated to be successful in their new role.

List Your Neutrals

Board of Director and External Consultant

• Composed of persons from professional community.
• They are less influential in terms of implementation, and they are not directly involved in the decision making in terms of shift in children's services.
• They want to ensure that the organization meets their objectives.

List Your Adversaries

20 (DS) Developmental Services Staff and Over 30 CMHS (Children's Mental Health) Staff

• Directly involved with the change.
• Due to their lack of involvement in decision-making, lack of training, and lack of acknowledgement of their previous feedback, they are likely to be confused and resistant to this change.
• Motivated to find answers, feel valued, and aims to work in a supportive and collaborative environment.
• Did not received training about this change.

1. Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Legend:

an "X" in the column denotes their current Stakeholder Type

a "" in the column denotes the desired StakeholderType

Stakeholder	Current Understanding	Neutrals	Adversaries	Fellow Travelers	Opponents	Allies	Desired Understanding	Discussion Approach
Executive Director	ED and DS are both newly hired and inexperienced in their roles. Outlined the organization's mission, vison, values and strategic directions including the staff empowerment and the creation of self-directed team. Responsible for making decisions about the shift in children's services. Ensures that the organization meets its financial and service objectives. Responsible in ensuring that the organization's vision supports employee empowerment. ED conceptualized the change while the DS is responsible for overseeing this change.					X	The Executive Director and Director of Service is expected to have a deeper understanding on the proposed change management by creating a strategy. They should spearhead implementation, strategy, behavioural and communication plans to ensure that every stakeholder involved is well-informed and prepared for the changes ahead.	Meeting with the Executive Director, Director of Service, and CS Manager, to justify the change. Create a thorough implementation, strategy, behavioural, and communication plan to justify the change. With the help of supervisors, modify job descriptions and operational plans; send new staff for training for growth and development.
Director of Service					X
CS Manager	Has minimal authority because he is new to his role in the organization. Motivated to make this initiative successful and responsible for implementing the change.				X		It is expected from the CS Manager that he understands the rationale behind the change and how it will favourably affect the whole organization with the proposed implementation, strategy, behavioural and communication plans lead by the Executive Director and Director of Service.	Meeting with the Executive Director, Director of Service, and CS Manager, to justify the change. Meeting with supervisors to modify job descriptions, operational plans, and identify training opportunities to support new roles. Create a thorough implementation, strategy, behavioural, and communication plan with the Executive Director and Director of Service to justify the change. Lead weekly staff meetings to discuss updates received in email, conduct team-building exercises. The purpose of this is to engage, align, deliver transparency, inspire collaboration, and strengthen teams and company culture.
DS Supervisor	Worked under a different department before CMHS. Responsible to oversee two children's mental health teams with over fifty staff. Supervision shifted to the new self-directed team format. Driven to be successful in their new role.			X			Despite being implemented quickly, they understood the new self-directed team concept because it had been clearly laid out by the higher-ups. They were able to convey the goal and purpose of the new change to the team because they had received the required training and mentoring support. They also realized how crucial their new roles were to the success of the transformation.	Meeting with the Executive Director, Director of Service, and CS Manager, to justify the change. Actively participate in the behavioural change plan implemented by the management. Identify objectives, timelines, required resources, and methods to measure progress. Participate in weekly staff meetings to discuss updates for changes, tackle initiatives, and areas of focus. Join team building exercises to help foster trust and communication between staff and supervisors). Engage in one-one meetings with staff to openly discuss their roles, ask questions, and share their progress on projects.
CMHS Sup.	Has 20+++ years' experience. with mixed feelings of excitement and apprehension. Responsible for leading the service programs and development even though there is no clear expectations and guidance. Job title was modified with role change. Did not received training for the new role. They are motivated to be successful in their new role.			X
Board of Director	Composed of persons from professional community. They are less influential in terms of implementation, and they are not directly involved in the decision making in terms of shift in children's services. They want to ensure that the organization meets their objectives.	X					Extend support to all stakeholders. Be aware in the development ofimplementation, strategy, behavioural and communication plan. Get involved in the planning and design phases of the change. Require the stakeholders to submit a weekly status information report to be updated on the progress of the change. Be always aware of project risks and potential impacts.	Meetings with Executive Director and Director of Service to develop a clear rationale for the shift and a detailed implementation plan. Be involved into the process that promotes transparency and accountability.
External Consultant	X
20 DS staff	Directly involved with the change. Due to their lack of involvement in decision-making, lack of training, and lack of acknowledgement of their previous feedback, they are likely to be confused and resistant to this change. Motivated to find answers, feel valued, and aims to work in a supportive and collaborative environment. Did not received training about this change.		X				It is expected that they developed a clear understanding of their role within the team through guidance and mentorship from DS Supervisor and CMHS Supervisor. It is expected that they will be comfortable in carrying out their roles and responsibilities. It is expected that they learn the benefits of the peer consultation approach and be involved in the group decision-making and be able to share their expertise with co-workers from another service department.	Meetings with CS Manager and DS and CMHS supervisors to explain the rationale for the shift and be aware of their roles and expectations in the proposed implementation plan. Actively answer surveys to determine understanding and comfort level with the proposed changes. Actively participate in team building exercises, engage in one-one meetings with supervisors to discuss roles, ask questions and share their progress. Be aware of changes, new initiatives, and areas of focus.
Over 30+ CMHS staff		X

1. Behavioural Change Plan

Organizational behavior is a key element in any change management plan. The organization's overall culture, people's behavior, and attitudes directly contribute to the direction of any change initiative.

For a change to be successful, management must learn to anticipate and/or identify behavioral problems and adjust their processes accordingly in order to solve them. This is where the behavioral management plan in the toolkit comes in. According to this, there is a step-by-step guide to creating an effective strategy.

Step 1: Identify the issues, behavioral changes required, or those that need to be changed.

Step 2: Assess the organization's current situation and identify possible sources of gaps. This could include reviewing the current systems or procedures in place.

Step 3: Plan what are the possible interventions and solutions that could mitigate the problem.

Step 4: Monitor the behavior change progress and find ways and sustain them.

Three fundamental problems in the case are (1) the organization's overall culture and state (2) the organization's evident lack of a formal change management plan specific to self-directed teams and (2) the obvious lack of communication, training, and support for middle management and staff which led to the project's shutdown.

Issue 1: Organization's Culture and Readiness to Accept Change

Problems: Newly appointed senior leadership team members (executive director and director of service) who are inexperienced in the positions.

Organization's readiness to undergo further change initiatives considering that it had just undergone recent changes including a merger, multiple expansions, and team restructuring.

Recommendation (Systems, Tools, and Processes Needed to Support the Behavior Change):

For the SLT: Full onboarding and immersion are necessary to fully understand how the institution functions.

For the organization: Management must do a temp check if both business and employees are ready to undergo yet another change initiative.

Issue 2: Lack of a Formal Change Management Plan for Self-Directed Teams

Problems: The newly-appointed leaders developed a generic change management template which they cascaded to the middle management. However, they failed to come up with a plan that is specific to self-directed teams. In addition to this, it was also mentioned that the rationale does not relate to the new executive director's vision of team and staff empowerment.

Recommendation (Systems, Tools, and Processes Needed to Support the Behavior Change):

To create a change management plan that is specific to the self-directed teams' initiative that they want to promote and that is also anchored to the organization's vision.

Issue 3: Lack of Communication, Training, and Support

Problems:

Communication: The recent changes were decided by the new director of services and the CS manager alone, without proper consultation. There was also no formal communication strategy about the implemented change and how it would affect the department and the work of the team members involved.

Training: The mid-level managers obviously do not possess the necessary skills to carry out the new responsibilities assigned to them. Mid-level managers and staff members alike were also not equipped to undergo change management.

Mentoring Support: The supervisors struggled to implement the self-directed teams' model and the CS manager pointed this out as the supervisors' inability to carry out the self-directed teams' principles. This led to further complications and supervisors' feelings of distrust towards their manager and confusion about their roles.

Recommendation (Systems, Tools, and Processes Needed to Support the Behavior Change):

Communication: The organization should promote an effective communication plan which constitutes management's openness to inputs and suggestions and the proper cascade of information.

Training: Empower mid-level managers by providing leadership and advanced change management training. Also, providing even just basic change management training to staff would prepare them for future organizational change initiatives.

Mentoring Support: Provide continuous coaching and mentoring sessions to mid-level managers for them to become more empowered and competent in leading a team and handling more complex problems.

Through these points, employees would feel that they are more involved in the decision-making process of the organization. Thus, would minimize change resistance, increase motivation and engagement in the change initiative and increase retention.

1. Team Communication Plan

Change, they say, is inevitable but difficult most times. It also sometimes brings about different emotions, such as excitement, turmoil, confusion, and anxiety. When the change and change process is not well planned and communicated to the parties involved, it could further make the process more difficult and eventually lead to failure, as seen in the case study.

In this case study, the change process failed due to various communication, planning, Training process breaches, etc. Let us discuss the various reasons why this Change process failed. The following are the communication issues we observed:

• The Executive Director failed to align his vision for the Organization with the Company's Vision and Mission. Though his thoughts were genuine, the process was wrong, making the whole process a failure.
• Communication between the CS, Supervisors, and employees could have been more apparent and concise. The supervisors were left to figure out how to implement the change process independently. It became a case of the blind leading the blind.
• There was no significant evidence of training or support during the transition period. Before any change, there must be training and re-training for easy transition. This training can be done in batches. This process helps employees understand and get familiar with what the Organization is doing. It helps with productivity and better output from employees.
• The employees were not involved in the developmental process of the change tools. Firstly, it would have given the supervisors and other employees a sense of belonging and commitment and allowed the CS and Management to understand better what direction the Change process should go.
• There were no set parameters for the evaluation of the process. This is very necessary for the Change process as it helps the Organization evaluate the process, get feedback, and make some necessary adjustments till the Organization achieves its Organizational goals.
• The process of Change Management in this Case study shows that the Organization still has work to do, particularly in implementing the self-directed team format. Future leaders can work on developing a supportive and inclusive organizational culture to solve these preparedness gaps (O'Connor & Netting, 2009). A robust change management plan with clear objectives, timelines, and implementation procedures is essential (Lewis et al., 2012)
• It is also critical to incorporate employee feedback into the transformation process. Leaders should aggressively solicit feedback, resolve problems, and modify the implementation approach as needed (O'Connor & Netting, 2009). Finally, it is crucial to monitor and measure the success of the self-directed team model. Therefore, evaluation and accountability metrics should be put in place to analyze the effectiveness of the change process.

Given these, we have outlined the following team communication plan:

Type of Meeting	Purpose of Meeting	What to Communicate
Townhall type of company meeting	To align everyone on the vision for the change and how it aligns to overall company goals Build excitement and support for the change	Rationale Benefits of change How it will impact groups Support to be provided during the change process
Meeting with CS and Supervisors	To provide Supervisors with CS knowledge To address concerns and allay fears in the new task of Supervisors	Rationale Expected changes Process Timelines Support to be provided during transition
Focused Group discussion of affected groups	To gather feedback on how the change is being implemented Create a plan of action to better manage change	Feedback on the changes How to adapt to the changes better
Adaptation Session for all Stakeholders	After gathering feedback, this session will help the organization decide on an effective transition plan	They will discuss how different departments or teams will adapt to the proposed Changeortransition