Discussion of Change Process

DISCUSSION OF CHANGE PROCESS

Change management is art of influencing people and organisations in a desired direction to achieve an agreed future state to the benefit of that organisation and its stakeholders. (Cameron and Green, 2003)

A number of models can be used to model a change management process. A popular model is Kurt Lewin's forcefield analysis. A forcefield analysis is a useful tool to understand the driving and resisting forces in a change situation as a basis for change management. This technique identifies forces that might work for the change process, and forces that are against the change. Lewin's model suggests that once these conflicting forces are identified, it becomes easier to build on forces that work for the change and reduce forces that are against the change (Cameron and Green, 2003). The difficulty is the assessment of strength or duration of a force, partlicularly when the human dimension is considered. The key resisting force in the change process was a lack of staff and poor leadership.

The change process under discussion was largely motivated by external factors. However, due to poor project planning, Trust management failed to consider the internal factors that had a major impact on the change. In particular, the management failed to involve the necessary stakeholders at a local level to increase ownership of the change thus failed to consider the human dimension (Walton, 1999 and DOH, 2004). The new team leader's autocratic leadership style did not fit the requirements of the task, or the culture of the team and thus sowed the seeds of resistance to change. (Hogg and Vaughan, 2002). The poorly managed change process became costly to the Trust due to the loss of human resources, reduced staff morale and lowered the credibility of the management. The change left the psychiatric liaison team feeling betrayed, and individual team members traumatised.

As the change process progressed, it became evident that a thorough analysis of current resources and various dimensions of organisational change had not been carried out (Johnson, Scholes and Whittington, 2005). The management had not prepared a clear plan for launching and executing the change at a local level.

The NHS Modernisation Agency Improvement Leaders' Guide (DOH, 2004) stresses the importance of taking into consideration the human aspect when planning a change project. Similarly, Walton (1999) argues that change initiatives should be thought through and planned as far as possible taking into account the psychological bonds that staff form with their work groups and their organisation as a whole.

It follows then that no precautions had been taken to address resistance to change. Johnson, Scholes and Whittington, (2005) state that there should be a clear communication plan to state how information about the change project will be communicated inside and outside the organisation. The team members were not given an opportunity to challenge and test the change proposal, or clarify what aspects of the change they could or could not influence. (Walton, 1995)

Fulop, Protsopsaltis et al, (2004) suggest that change project should be presented as an opportunity to improve the quality of performance and that clinicians should should be involved on a consultative basis. Team members were aware of the consequences of extending the hours of operation without increasing the resources, however, there were no systems in place to communicate these views to the Trust management, a key aspect of the change process. The lack of key stakeholder involvement in the change meant that the management did not have access to the psychiatric liaison team's valuable experience on the immediate and wider implications of cutting down resources. (Henderson, 2002)

The team members felt that their concerns about the lack of resources had not been taken seriously, and this inevitably led to a feeling that the Trust did not care about it's employees or their views. Strong emotions