what are the system perspectives and resource perspective that are applied in the case study?

Interviewer: Kerry E. Interviewee: Mr Bruce Sanger Q1: Tell me about the situation or event in your workplace that resulted in some form of change? Okay, so in the last 18 months, we decided to completely renew and re-do our whole Administration and Compliance systems programmes for our Firm. We needed to ease some of the workloads that we were currently dealing with in the Perth ofce. We employ over 200 people and it was getting to be a sort of chunky process when it should have been streamlined, efcient and transparent. Q. Okay so you wanted to expand internally, or you wanted to...? Yes so there were two objectives: one was to increase, in fact, double the number of people in the Compliance Auditing Function; and the second objective was to provide a more scalable and sustainable workforce alternative to the current approach that had been used for the last 20 years. (2. So the practices in your rm were ummm outdated? More or less - let's call it 'Administration' was not streamlined; not efcient enough. We needed to simplify what had become a complex task. 50, it was about increasing, or 'augmenting' the workforce, and the other was about really migrating into a lower cost bracket. By streamlining our operating systems and up-scaling the workforce to specic targets we calculated we would save up to a third of our current costs. Q: So, the number of people in the Compliance Auditing Function. Can you explain that to me? The current function? Yes, we use about 10 or 12 people in that department alone. But as I said, we wanted to become more lean, more efcient in the Perth ofce. We realised this might mean just shifting or adjusting our talent base moving some people out [maybe retirement or redundancy] and maybe increasing the number of employees in other more demanding sections. Q: OK. So why all this change - can i ask about the drivers for the changes? 50, our Firm is in the Financial Services Industry. Auditing and Compliance is our main focus. We examine the books of big companies to ensure that they are adhering to the regulations and law and part of what we do is to make sure that the different companies are keeping up with changes to those regulations. 50, one driver in our industry are the changes to regulations. We have to change our practices to meet the new regulatory demands. Another driver is increased competition we have to remain efcient and very good at what we do as well as being competitively priced. So if you line those two things up Industry demands and regulation-driven changes and the need to remain competitive it works out that the best next step is to increase the Compliance people in our staff. Q: So, could you say there was customer pressure as well? That's right. Competition for us is about being amongst the best re our services but also being attractive re our fees and charges. People pay good money they want a good product, a good service. Q3: What were the areas of the organisation that then had to consider to implement that change? So, the rst thing really is about getting the initiative embedded into the strategy and getting the board to say yes "we agree with it". The second thing was then building out the business case. We had to put our new proposed programme forward for management to examine. We had to work with the Finance Dept and recruitment. We had to be clear on what we needed to enable us to do the work the way we wanted to but it had also to be viable. We thought it might take a year to settle into the new program me - and then maybe another year before it really showed any true benets and prots for the rm. Q So, would you say it was a top-down strategy? Yes and no. We had to engage with all different arms of the rm for example HR had to be on board with us from the start. Then we pulled in different Line Managers: then more senior Line Managers; then the 'owner' of the Compliance Function (computer) programme and the Administration Function we used. Gradually we started opening the discussion to each section and got as much feedback as we could. Then we took the idea to the Board. They said "yes, the business case made sense" and so we started to plan further about how to take the next steps. Q: So how important was the 'order' of involvement for this initiative to be acceptable? Well, really, we engaged the different tiers of management as early as we felt comfortable to. It sort of became part of how we managed the whole change. We needed support from senior management and the Board of course - but the different Sections of the Firm had to help drive it all so they had to be included from early on. We actually did a bit of a market scan by putting it out there to the departmental line managers...we asked "how would we do this?". That got interest and feedback ...but we also used an external consultant [an individual not a rm]. 0: So how did the Firm in general read to all of these proposals? Well, once we had narrowed down our options re process and predicted the number of extra specialised employees, we turned to the HR department. We had to try to gure out who were the impacted individuals? How would we manage the communications within the system. We were very conscious of external communications to other stakeholders. We were worried the press would get hold of our plans and make it sound disruptive and negative. We needed to get it right the rst time because there were going to be a lot of staff changes and that can be made to look bad for an old rm with a good reputation. Q: So, who else would you say were part of this 'enobling Team? We used ITa lotthey had to make sure that all programme implementations and adjustments were working from the start no room or time for malfunctions. Then we engaged a 'Risk Ma nager', to assess the multiple risks relating to the project. As we moved into the change planning more intensively, we added specic Compliance people and Administration experts to make sure that our new systems sort of merged with the older systems. We had too much client/ customer history in our systems to simply wipe it all clean and start again. It was a very sensitive process. Q: So, when did you first really start communioating with the employees? Well, we just sort of brought them into the tent, you could say. We talked about it at meetings, we asked them questions: we urged them to ask questions: and we put a stream oftraining programmes in place from early on. Q; OK \"and what were the actual steps required to let people know ? So, planning for the tell-day of "everyone we are doing this" required heaps of communication. We did it like this: We called a night meeting of the Executive and we said "we are going with this". Then the rst thing next morning we sent an email to all staff. This was done simultaneously as we got the impacted Tea ms together and said "look, letting you know we've decided to make this change in the business forthese reasons, and as a result, unfortunately, a number of roles will be impacted. And we have a number of redeployment opportunities\". Then as that communication gained legs we sent the same message out to the whole rm again. Q: Did you only, more-or-less, just use email ...like were management all prepared? Yes and No some of it was leader lead communications. But it was all well prepared, all scripted. Some of the senior leadership were told the day before that the announcement was happening. Some of them were told some weeks before. Some didn't really need to know at all we were saying to them "Look it doesn't impact your area of business butjust so you know downstairs we are doing this this and this" so they were kept informed as they needed to know. Q: So, did that communication system work well? Did people get the information they needed to? Veah, it did. lttook a lot of preparation a lot of work went into preparing the FAQS as well, ma king sure that we covered every dimension that we could and had well-prepared leaders to communicate it. So, it was scripted. Consistent. Very im porta nt Q: And what about your customers did they need to know ...how did you include them ...or inform them? We actually engaged a lsales leader'. Hisjob was to ensure that our customers were well informed. He prepared us and them for discussion that we may need to have. It was a part of our planning at the start so we had prepared for it. Q: Okay, awesome. So, there seems to have been a lot of people involved in the whole process? Ves. For a rm this size, the changes were impacting across all Departments - it's a bit like a wedge, where you start off with a few driving the process and ultimately you get to that point where there are lots of people engaged. Q: So, did that have any strong impacts ...sar't of in the day-to-doy o'ice? Absolutely. So, any change can be quite disruptive for the people involved. For example I've done a number of similar change programmes - you might be talking of a Firm with 5,000 people and you have to move 300 or so people. This Firm was a little easier here we're talking to 200 people with the changes impacting 35 people, but it was harder because we all know each other.. Q: Okay, so your saying that it doesn't always matter the number of people it's more about how the changes are implemented that people are people and can he hurt or rewarded regardless of the size of the rm or the size of the change? Ves- very much. In percentage terms the people affected might be only 10%, but in this Firm most of our people sit on two-oors in one building. So, it's almost a bit of a family culture, so it was a bit different. You know everyone by their rst name. Eli-And how did the employees react? Well there were two parts to this: you have the Compliance Team, which we were adding to . so they weren't negatively impacted in that sense. They were also quite relieved because their workload was bigger and heavierthan elsewhere in the Firm. They could see an end in sight for their big workloads, extra personnel was good for them. Q: And the other Administration section? . Yes this team was a different story because we had an existing team of 15 and 11 of those positions were to be impacted. So dealing with this was difficult. We had to adjust the team from 15 down to four people. We were essentially, by introducing the new programmes, removing their roles from the Firm. (1: Right so, how was that managed would you say? Look, I think itwent quite well really. Respect for all was essential. We initially notied them about 8 weeks in advance about the commencement of new programmes. Fortunately, HR worked with us and held back recruiting for other sections for a few months so that we were able to re-deploy some of the staff. But still, we had to be up-front and honest with the whole department. We had to tell them that "your jobs are impacted, but we can offer about seven or eight redeployment opportunities". So all 15 were a bit anxious as we worked through a process of working out who was going to be redeployed. Q:Wl|at did atherpeaple feel about the change? I think there were a number of other people who were indirectly impacted. I think the Sales Team were a bit unsure. I know now that they were worried about the reactions of customers to the changes. There were also other smaller Department Admin ofcers who wondered "a re we next?\" (115:1, there was a bit of fear involved? Yep, fear. Q: How long did the process take once the go-ahead was approved? From start to nish we did it in six months. And there were lots and lots of moving pans with communication plans, planning IT cybersecurity, training and upskilling; conducting interviews. The IT guys did an enormous job implementing the new systems very heavy load on their shoulders during that time. Q'So how about the senior Managerand' the Line Managers how did they feel about it all? They were pretty good actually I think it was solving problems for them, right? So, for the head of Compliance, it meant that we could give them eight more staff. And for the head of the Admin Function, it meant that they gained new systems that basically took work from their shoulders and made their operations more efficient and ...the end processesthe Reports and table and charts and all ofthegures etc etc ...just looked better. It was a complete refresh -new look. It made us look better overall. 0: Were you able to measure the post-event feelings of the sta? Were they happy? Any grizzles? All happy it seems. After 6 months we did an engagement survey. Overall the results were "highly engaged\". And people are going OK. Even those who were redeployed seem pretty happy. One person left after a couple of months for another position elsewhere and two others took redundancy, but otherwise, we seemed to maintain most of ourTeams. Q: How about motivation levels? Would you say very motivated? Yeah I've actually never seen anything like it. There's an energy we've not seen for a while it could be the new faces but I just think that work is sort of easier for so many ...so it's not a boring, burden to come to work. Q: One of the things we are learning in this unit is the importance of communication for putting in new plans and strategies because if it's not communicated well people start fearing, they aren't sure what is going on, they start resenting it. Would you say there was resentment from people across the board?Do you think people accepted this well? There's a few answers to that. The Team that was impacted most the Admin Team had va ried responses. They did n't really say a lot. They just sort of absorbed it for a while. We did have a variety of responses from tears to anger at the start as the news sank in. There was some confusion with Teams that weren't impacted but were informed, I think they thought they weren't being told the whole truth... wondering if they werte next on the 'hit list' sort of thing. So reactions were a bit of a mixed bag. Some of that could have come down to how well the message was delivered by different department leads. Q: Would you say that perhaps the leader's communication might also reect their own attitude towards it ...so like if they weren't happy, they wouldn't be able to make it a positive message ...would they? Ves, certainly. Everyone had their own opinions - you ca n't expect every messenger to be enthusiastic. Also, because it is a little bit of an emotional topic as well, some people had quite strong views on whether we should be doing things like this or not you know, like why change things if they are working? There will always be a little bit of undercurrent of opposition in these situations people can be biased -and at times like that - it can shine through a bit in the messages. Q: is there a better way to send messages about change? Unfortunately, the answers are not always clear. FAQs are always difcult on a topic like this because one of those questions will always be "will there be further changes?\"; or "will other Tea ms be impacted?\" And all you can really say is "we continue to assess the operational requirements\" or words like that. That doesn't put people's minds at ease. But we honestly can't say if there will be further change ...we have to wait until the dust settles on this stage ...a nd then see what we've learned and maybe decide to do something further. Q: Yes, l'm guessing people don't like that type of answer? That's right. Yeah, they want more certainty. Quin, most people accepted it well, did their jobs? I would say, yes. I would also say that the redeployment opportunities- once people had worked through the 3- or 4-days process of talking amongst themselves and they need that opportunity Once that had settled down the focus started to shift a bit to " so what are we gai rig?\" It was a sort of signal to really push the benets of the new systems we were going to implement. People started feeling a bit more secure you know, once they knew what we were trying to do. But it would have been a hard week for many of them uncertainty is difcult for anyone. I think the whole organisation had a pretty awful few weeks, especially as I said, this is a smallerfirm and I literally walk past different Team members ten times per day. Q: So, everyone sort of was very involved, talking to each other, everyone was sort of feeling it? Veah. And you know on a positive note, as hard and as awkward as it was, you know- I would go check in with them, just askthem how they were going It was difcult at times you feel as though they blame you because everyone knows everyone. It was actually quite personal for me it was a little more stressful, emotional. Q5: Did anything else change as cl result of your actions? Driust the program itself? I think those that did n't believe in it have had a rethink. Some other Managers IT for example, have increased their personnel because business has grown. Q: So, the outcomes in regards to the original drivers: the price and the Compliance, would you say thuse were both achieved? Yeah, absolutely. I think Compliance has learntthat its quite a subjective role in a Firm such as ours. Much of it is based on experience. So, I think our expectations of how quickly the Compliance Team would be reformed and up and running to the level of productivity we expected was not right. It took longer. Looking back, I think we could have done a lot more training and that would have helped ...as it was, people had to learn the new systems on the job on the run. a: Is the new system meeting the targets set? Not yet but we are OK with it, as we had allowed leths to 2 years before we really saw improvements in output. 0: So, you have become more competitive as a result of this change? I wouldn't say it's had that sort of impact as the changes were signicant but only for one section of the Business. But I think in time the changes will show for example we now have the capacity to deliver things that are not even asked of us at this point so that also allows us to strengthen our ability to compete. Q: Du you view the change as successful, overall? Yep. It generated the outcomes we were looking for. Q; And the employees? Whilst there was probably a few rough sort of months there, staff are now settled. A couple ofthose employees that were the most upset about it have actually said to me "thank you for coming to take that time to check in on us\". They tell us they are actually more engaged now than they were previously. I think at rst they took it quite personally - but then after a while they realised that its nothing to do with them, like it's a business decision. And it even makes sense to them now. 12:51:, with the top-down methudI that was used, would yau to that again ? Would you see any other way ofdoing it? Well, the other way is to just literally go out to the business and say "Look this is in our strategy. It's coming, we will try to look after you all, but there could be some roles that are impacted\". You have to ask ifthat might have translated into more worry than there needed to be. Or maybe we would have lost valuable people who decided to not hang around for potentially bad news. So ...yeah, I would like to have been more transparent - but I really think there is no one-bestway. Also don't forget that the changes were on the borderline of being market sensitive. It's just good business sense to be careful with what you say , who you tell. Do you tell your employees but not the market ...and start rumours? Do you tell the market and loose good staffwho feel disenfranchised about it all? There's no easy answer. Being transparent is not that simple. (I: What ahout timing was your timeline appropriate? In some ways it could have been unrolled over a longer timeframe. IT were under so much pressure for a number of months there. But -a|so, the start-up was a bit too slow so I would like to see that happen more quickly. Once the decision is made get the wheels turning. Like most things, if done again, in a perfect world, the process would have been done a bit quicker. Butthat'sjust the way things are. Q: Any final comments? The change was disruptive on many levels. Once senior management and the board had approved the proposals we had to keep it all quiet. So a couple tricky months of not telling in lviduals, keeping it quiet but working on it at the same time. I ask myself often, could we have done it differently? So, I think it went very, very smoothly, but did we need to be so secretive in an organisation of 250 people? Could we havejust been totallytransparent from the outset? I don't think there's a perfect answer there. Okay...l believe that's of]. Awesome. Thank you very much