Change Management Issues - Assignment Example

Assessment Task 1: Change Management Theory Questions Name: Instructions: The following questions refer to theory and background for change management. You will need to refer to your resource book and undertake research to answer the questions below. Your responses should be a minimum of a half page typed text. Your responses should be in your own words and reflect your own thoughts supported by references. Please ensure that all references are acknowledged. Check that your references are appropriately formatted – refer to Harvard Referencing Guide. We expect each question will include at least one reference Theoretical questions 1. Compare and contrast 2 theories of change management. These can include theories discussed in LIA or other researched theories. Although many change management models exist, most community mental health organisations, and non-government - recovery orientated accommodation services depend on two of the following models in their change management strategies: Lewin’s Change Management Model, and Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model. A comparison of the two reveals several issues of significance. They both have a sequence of events, organisational processes, or steps that have to be implemented on after the other to accomplish effective change management. The models encompass a sequence of organisational processes, which happen over time. Accordingly, Lewin proposes that the change process typically needs three steps: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model also proposes that the change process requires eight steps: increasing change urgency, building a team committed change, creating a vision for change, communicating the need for change, empowering the staff with the ability to change, creating short-term goals, being persistent, and making the change permanent (Brisson-Banks 2010). Towards this end, it is clear that the difference between Kotter’s model is just an adaptation or improvement of Lewin’s model. The difference is that Kotter suggests eight stages of change while Lewin proposes three. An additional observable difference is that, Kotter’s model appears to concentrate on the common errors that leaders are likely to make while initiating change: incapacity to create a sense of urgency for change, a coalition for change management process, the deficiency of a vision for change, as well as effective communication of the vision, inability to eliminate the obstacles for effective change and failure to relate change to the organisational culture. The two models are focused on preparation and acceptance of change, rather than the actual change. At the same time, not one of the steps can be skipped. On the other hand, Lewin’s model is more concerned with the zones of safety that many people being instigated to manage change like to operate in. For instance, during unfreeze, most individuals tend to resist change. Hence, unfreezing has to be set off through motivation. During the transition, the organisation shifts into a transition period once change is instigated. Hence, effective leadership and encouragement is vital for success of the process (Brisson-Banks 2010). During refreeze, once change has been implemented successfully, the organisations shifts into a zone of stability, where the employees refreeze as they work under the new guidelines. References Brisson-Banks, C 2010, "Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models and their commonalities," Library Management, vol. 31 no. 4/5, pp. 241-25 2. Your resource book lists a number of tips about implementing change using Lewin’s framework. In your own words explain how you might apply 3 of the tips if you were implementing change Lewin's Three-Stage Model of Change proposes a three-phase process called Unfreeze–Change–Refreeze and relies on the three tips: Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze. The stages are applicable to a community mental health organisation. Unfreeze: During unfreeze, I would prepare the community organisation to acknowledge that change is crucial for the organisation. To ensure this, I would communicate to the employees the need for change by highlighting the organisation’s inefficiencies that blockade effective performance or productivity using emails or during staff meetings. Later, I would break down the current status quo in order to develop new ways that the organisation should operate. Next, I would create persuasive messages that show the staff why the current ways of operating should not continue. Later, I would confront the existing unhelpful organisational cultures, values, and attitudes. Change/Moving: Once I have unfrozen the organisation, it is now time to change it by moving. At this stage, I would need to develop new cultures, values, behaviours and attitudes, as the employees would be seeking new ways to do things. In fact, as Lunenburg (2010) shows, the employees would start believing and acting in manners supporting new direction. For the minor changes, I would involve a few employees, including making changes to the employee recruitment and selection strategies. For major changes, I would involve many participants. This would include having new evaluation systems in place, restructuring the jobs and duties the employees perform, and restructuring the entire organisation that demands relocation of staff to varied sites in the organisation. The rationale for this is since the employees, at this stage, need to understand the advantages tied to the change. Refreeze: During the final stage, I would stabilize the change at a new quasi-stationary equilibrium as I expect that changes have started to take shape and that people have started to embrace new ways of working outward (Lunenburg 2010). To cement the change, I would change the organisational policy and modify the organisational structure to support the new ways of doing things. I would also acknowledge the employees efforts in adapting the new ways, and subsequently reinforce their new cultures. In the end, we would need to celebrate the successful change management. References Lunenburg, F 2010, "Approaches to Managing Organizational Change," National Journal Of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity vol12, no1, pp.1-10 3. Research 3 reports or inquiries which impacted on your sector in the last 10-20 years. Describe (in at least 50 words) each of the reports or inquiries and then explain each one (in approximately 200 words) the impact on the sector. In researching the report and determining its impact you need to find, use and cite at least 1 additional source or reference for each report. Research sources might include: Academic studies Commissions of inquiries, royal commissions, senate inquiries/reports Commonwealth and state government reports Conferences, seminars, visiting speakers Media Peak bodies Political party policy Professional associations journals and projects Publications, newsletters Social action and research bodies Statutory/government bodies 3a. My first report or inquiry: “The National Review of Mental Health Programmers and Services 2014” report by the National Mental Health Commission Description: The report provides evidence showing that many Australians suffered from worse mental and treatment health, as the treatment they received, including avoidable involuntary seclusion and restraint, could not effectively promote early intervention. The report recommended that the Commonwealth government should redirect the funding from hospitals to the community health programs (Sott & Barbour 2015). IMPACT: The report influenced the policymakers to consider overhauling how the Commonwealth would fund the sector in future. The Commonwealth government considered that it would not move funding from the hospitals to community health, as the report had suggested that this would ensure better integration of the local government departments to ensure effective use of the funds, without reducing the funding (Scott & Goloubeva 2015). Additionally, part of the increase in hospital funding, which totals $1 billion, would be allocated to community health programs to keep the mentally ill outside the hospitals. The report influenced the government to reform the mental health sector, leading to creation of the initiative “Review of Mental Health Programmes and Services.” An additional impact is the creation of Mental Health Expert Reference Group (ERG), which is tasked with providing advice to respond to the Review of Mental Health Programmes and Services in Australia (Morrison 2015). The Commonwealth government also assigned the National Mental Health Commission the task of undertaking the “Review of Mental Health Programmes and Services” in consultation with the consultation with Mental Health Expert Reference Group to implement substantial reforms that see to it that the funds provided by the government are optimally used to reduce mental illnesses starting December 2015 (Morrison 2015). References: National Mental Health Commission 2014, The National Review of Mental Health Programmers and Services, National Mental Health Commission, Sydney Morrison, S 2015, "ERG Meeting – countdown to reform begins," Mental Health Australia, 18 June 2015, Scott, S & Goloubeva, J 2015, “Mental health funding will not be taken from state hospital system, Sussan Ley says," ABC News, 19 June 2015, Sott, S & Barbour, L 2015, "Mental health review published online in full, recommends moving funding from hospitals to community health," ABC New, viewed 18 June 2015, 3b. My second report or inquiry: “The Case for Mental Health Reform in Australia: A Review of Expenditure and System Design” by Medibank Description : The report presents a research confirming the high occurrence of mental illness in Australia since the 1990s and its impact on the lives of individual with mental, and their families and associates. The report estimates the total direct expenditure on supporting individuals with mental illness across Australia ($28.6 billion) and further shows how policies recommending additional funding for mental health sector have been ineffective. Explanation of Impact: The Medibank (2014) report had significant impact on the society, as later confirmed by Nous Group (2015). It enabled key stakeholders in the mental health sector survey the options for systemic reform of mental health in Australia, with the hope of ensuring that the needs of the mentally ill are addressed through the $28.6 billion spent annually. This is to ensure better outcomes and greater efficiency of mental health service providers. It also sensitised the policymakers, including the state and national governments, on how the huge funds, provided to the sector, are not being effectively put into use, leading to static mental illness, lack of access to mental health services. For instance, Victoria changed its priorities for mental health reform 2015 to ensure the funds it invests ($1.2 billion) are optimally used. Consequently, Victoria has formed three fundamental goals. Provide people of Victoria with the best opportunity to enjoy good mental health, ensuring that people who experience mental illness are provided with high quality help at an early stage, and lastly, offer a well-coordinated care that helps in addressing the diverse impacts of mental illness. Strategies targeted include investing in 420 re-developed or new mental health beds, as well as expanding the community-based specialist treatment services (State Government of Victoria 2015) References: Medibank 2013, The Case for Mental Health Reform in Australia: A Review of Expenditure and System Design, Medibank Private Limited and Nous Group, viewed 18 June 2015, Nous Group 2015, Report on Australia’s mental health system launched by Minister, viewed 18 June 2015, State Government of Victoria 2015, Victoria's priorities for mental health reform 2013-15, viewed 18 June 2015, 3c. My third report or inquiry: The “National Mental Health Report 2013” by the Department of Health and Ageing Description: The report provides a summary of the system level changes that have happened in the mental health sector from 1993 to 2011 at the national, state and territory levels. The report shows that despite the fact that all governments have intensified their reform efforts in recent during the period by increasing funds for clinical and community support services, nothing has changed much. Explanation of Impact: Consequently, the report influenced the federal and state government to adopt major system level changes, including prompting the local government to adopt end-to-end redesigned systems that are targeted to cover detection, diagnosis, treatment, and recovery of patients in most states to ensure optimal use of the funds provided by the federal government. Based on the recommendations of the report, Department of Health and Ageing started partnering with other key stakeholders, such as the National Mental Health Commission to come up with strategies for systemic reform of the mental health sector in order ensure the needs of the mentally ill persons are met efficiently. In response, National Mental Health Commission, which was established to make independent reports on the performance of mental health services in Australia, took up initiatives to oversee the transparency and accountability of the hospitals (National Mental Health Commission 2013). Due to the complexities of funding, the National Mental Health Commission made proposals to the National Health Reform Agreement to fund mental health services on activity-basis, to promote transparency. It is expected that through these changes, the hospitals would be more accountable hence eliminating the need to move funding from the hospitals to the community health programs. References: Department of Health and Ageing, 2013, National Mental Health Report 2013: tracking progress of mental health reform in Australia 1993 – 2011, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra National Mental Health Commission 2013, Response by the National Mental Health Commission, viewed 18 June 2015, Read More