Listen to thisI’ve worked for a number of human service agencies,
a few community-based, but mostly residential. Many of those
agencies were experiencing some difficulty “low morale and high
turnover, allegations and investigations, insufficient funds to cover
current expenses, and more. Change was necessary, and I’ve seen
several approaches to making changes, and have at times used each of
them.
Approach number one (poor)
The Director comes into a staff meeting with a new Policy and Procedure
Statement. He or she has discussed it with other “upper level” people and is now presenting it to the “Team” as a fait accompli.
The Director distributes copies, reviews the changes, tells staff to
place copies in their manuals and implement the changes immediately
In larger organizations with a training division, there may even be
agency-wide training on the new procedures.
Anyone who expresses any concerns about difficulties in implementing the
changes is labeled, “Not a Team Player.” Team Players, after all,
do what they are told ...
The results
The staff who have to implement and live with the changes were not
consulted. The message is quite clear. Their opinion doesn’t matter. They do not feel as if they are a part of the “Team.”
The Director believes he or she has done all that is necessary to do to
make the changes effective, and moves on to other matters.
Meanwhile, implementation is sporadic. Some staff make attempts to
follow the new procedures. Others are not so diligent, for
whatever reasons, and keep doing things the way they always have.
With little follow up from the Director, it looks as if no one really
cares. So why make the effort?
The problem
Staff who have had no input are not so likely to feel a part of the team
and support changes. Routines are neither established nor changed
by written policies and procedures, by meetings, memos, or even
training, but by consistent attention. The procedures that matter
are the procedures that in practice, not the ones on paper, at least
until the time comes to “discipline” someone. Change requires
consistent attention and follow through until it becomes routine.
Approach number two (better)
A new change is discussed in a staff meeting. Perhaps someone
suggests a change “the Director or a member of the staff. Perhaps
someone brings up a problem. There is brainstorming. Ideas
are presented and discussed, perhaps at length. Eventually, there
appears to be some consensus and the decision is made to make a change.
The results
There appears to be a consensus that the change is good. Staff
leave the meeting and return to work. They begin to think and to
talk amongst themselves over the next few days. They identify some
concerns with the changes to which they had all agreed. But it’s too late. The decision has been made.
The problem
When a change is proposed in a staff meeting, the person proposing the
change has had some time to think about it from her or his own
perspective. Others have not. The ideas are new to them.
Some people in the staff meeting may be preoccupied with other concerns
and not able to give full attention to the changes being discussed.
Others may be hesitant to speak out for what ever reasons. With
more time to think on the changes while on the job, to sleep on it, as
it were, to talk amongst themselves, the apparent consensus breaks down.
Staff feel a part of the team, but end up worrying about what they have
gotten themselves into. And any attempts by the Director to follow
through tend to run into resistance and objections.
Approach number three (best)
The Director announces in a staff meeting that she or he has been
thinking about making some changes and invites input. (Or perhaps
someone else identifies a problem or suggests a change.) There is
considerable discussion, brainstorming, etc. Perhaps a consensus
is reached. The Director says that she or he appreciates the input
and would like to take some more time to think about it, then tables the
matter until the next meeting.
After the meeting, staff have time to think about the proposed changes
when they return to their work. The proposed changes take on a
different reality when staff are actually on the job rather than in a
meeting. They have time to think and evaluate on the job, to more
fully consider consequences, to talk with others, to come up with
alternatives. And there is no pressure.
Meanwhile, the Director visits with staff informally and listens to what
they have been thinking.
At the next meeting, everyone is fully prepared to discuss the changes.
When there is a consensus, the decision to implement the changes is
easy. If consensus is not yet apparent, the matter can be tabled
again.
The results
This approach leads to a more lasting consensus. It makes
staff members feel a part of the decision-making process, a valued part
of the team. The message is clear, the Director does not make
decisions without input from the people who will be affected, those who
will have to implement the changes. Of course, it is still
necessary for the Director to follow through, to pay attention to staff
effort and progress in implementing the changes. Making changes
requires effort from the people who must make them. People like to
feel that their effort is noticed and appreciated. Change,
therefore, requires consistent attention and follow through from
leadership over a period of time until new routines are firmly
established.
The problem
This approach takes time, patience, and effort on the part of
leadership. But I think it’s worth it. There is seldom any
urgency to make changes in policies and procedures that have been in
place for any length of time. After all, if the matter were
urgent, it could not have waited for a staff meeting in the first place,
so one more week, one more staff meeting should not be a problem.
Final thoughts
It is not always possible for Directors to accede to the wishes or
desires of staff. Legal requirements and licensing rules and
regulations and financial constraints and so many other things sometimes
require changes that staff would prefer not to make. Even in such
cases, however, providing staff the opportunity to contribute their
thoughts, ideas, opinions, and objections, listening, considering, and
answering, includes staff in the decision. Ironically, they still
feel a part of the decision even when the decision goes against their
wishes. If it is done right, which simply means, if staff feel
that they have been heard and considered.
