Culture of Change Readiness - Best way to overcome resistance to change

Making Changes within your Organisation? – Maybe you need to assess the extent to which your organization is ready.

Organisational sustainability and change go hand-in-hand. Many organisations introduce change, or initiate and plan for change, in response to a wide range of internal and external triggers. For some it could be the result of key staff departures providing the opportunity to review and potentially refresh the organizational structure. For others it could be the result of difficulties with the external environment necessitating changes to long standing business models that have not been previously challenged.

Such changes can be viewed in many different ways by the staff within the organisation. Some will view these potential changes as opportunities by virtue of embracing the unknown whilst improving whatever the shortcomings of the existing position may have been.  Others will view them as threats by virtue of being uncomfortable with the unknown and the sense of possible loss of position, control, influence or power.

Research in this field of change management and specifically in the area of “organizational readiness for change” has been extensive over the years. Some have contested that the lack of change readiness may be a key reason for organisations failing in their attempts to manage the changes that are introduced. Others have suggested that organisations that display high levels of internal flexibility and a change ready culture are far better able to adapt and absorb changes as they come up.

A further approach has been to suggest that the management of change may in fact be more successful if continuous change is the norm within the organisation, rather than focusing on specific changes at particular moments in time. This implies a more fluid approach to change rather than an ‘episodic’ approach characterised by piecemeal changes as and when they are perceived as being needed.

Alongside this recognition regarding the readiness for change, is the associated research regarding change resistance, which in many ways represents the two sides of the one coin, in that the more ready the organisation is to actively and positively work with change, the less change resistance and therefore the more likelihood of successful change outcomes.

Currently, my own PhD research being undertaken in the Not-for-Profit hospital sector reinforces this duality of change readiness and change resistance and highlights a broad range of characteristics which shape change readiness. Whilst skill and care may be applied to change management via effective project management, this latter activity does not recognize the emotional aspects of change as felt by those that are experiencing the change.  As such, good project management does not equate to good change outcomes. Understanding your staff responses to change must represent the other side of the ‘mechanistic’ aspects of change.

In response to this research, OPTIMUM NFP has developed the ‘CARC Program (Cultural Assessment for Readiness for Change)’, a process for evaluating change readiness within your organisation, using a range of qualitative research techniques to assess your organisations readiness to work with, and absorb, proposed changes. Information gleaned from this process can then be incorporated into the change program to effectively reinforce the process and achieve better change outcomes.

Happy to hear from organisational managers wishing to further discuss the process by which this research at your organisation can deliver positive outcomes witih regard future change management outcomes. Contact David Rosenbaum at OPTIMUM NFP for a no obligation discussion on how the CARC Program can be economically applied to your organisation – before the next change!

Risk Management Frameworks – How Does Your NFP Compare?

Standards Australia has been quite active in its delivery of resources to the Not-for-profit sector, regarding the management and communication of risk. 2010 saw the release of HB 266:2010 entitled “Guide for managing risk in not-for-profit organizations”. This was supported by HB 327:2010 entitled “Communicating and consulting about risk”. Both publications came off the back of AS/NZS ISO 3100:2009 entitled “Risk management - Principles and guidelines”.

Together, these publications focused on the core application areas of risk management, namely the principles for managing risks, the framework within which these operated, and the process that underpinned them. Communication was recognised as the key to successfully implementing a risk aware culture within the organisation, as part of the delivery of an effective risk management framework.

The message in these pronouncements is quite clear. There are a broad range of risk principles that your organisation needs to consider in order for risk to be understood in the broadest possible way. These principles need to be contextualised within a consolidated framework that must be well considered, well developed, and well understood. In order for such a framework to be effective, it must be supported by a process that caters for the identification, assessment, and treatment of risk. Finally, this process must be supported by an effective and consistent communication methodology.

This integrated approach to risk management should be the focus for your not-for-profit when considering and assessing risk.

In the context of not-for-profit organisations, a wide range of risk categories combine to form an overall picture of the risk environment within which not-for-profits operate. These can best be summarised in the following manner:

• Asset risk – which relates to the ongoing management and maintenance of the organisation’s physical assets including buildings and equipment used by employees, volunteers, contractors, and clients;

• Compliance risk – which relates to the external regulatory framework that the organisation operates within as well as the internal policies and procedures that are in place to govern behaviours of its internal stakeholders;

•  Environment risk – which relates to the management and sustainability of the built and natural environment that the organisation works within, and, from which services are delivered;

•  Financial risk – which relates to the operation, management and development of the financial frameworks within which the organisation operates in, and supported by its internal financial policies and procedures;

•  Liability risk – which relates to the organisation’s services, products, information or behaviours that results in legal action against the organisation or its officers;

•  Personnel risk – which relates to the safety, occupational health or well being of the organisation’s staff;

• Service delivery risk – which relates to failures in the provision of its services and how these may impact the organisation, and finally

• Technology risk – which relates to the security, safety, function and management of the organisation’s technology systems and processes.

OPTIMUM NFP has worked with numerous Not-for-Profits in designing and successfully implementing risk management frameworks. As a member of the  Risk Management Institution of Australasia, and an experienced Not-for-Profit consultant, David Rosenbaum of OPTIMUM NFP is well placed to respond to the risk requirements of Australian Not-for-Profits.

Governance - A View from the Top - Is Your Board Delivering?

This is the question that all not-for-profit organisations should currently be asking themselves. From a performance perspective, the state of not-for-profit board performance is indeed a very mixed bag. Contrary to popular opinion, board effectiveness and efficiency is not entirely the product of the professionalism or otherwise of individual board members. Having worked with numerous such boards, I have seen individual professionals make themselves available for such voluntary positions, only to falter at the steps of performance as a collective group, to the detriment of the executive management team of the organisation. Not-for-profit board membership is seen by many aspiring professionals as stepping stones into the corporate world, in preparation for a ‘career’ as a fully remunerated board member. This approach is supported by lecturers at the Australian Institute of Company Directors, in its graduate course, who suggest that not-for-profit boards are an appropriate way in which to effectively ‘cut your teeth’ on boards as a precursor to the commercial world, where board membership as a non-executive director is financially rewarding, especially for those adopting the portfolio approach to their careers. Voluntary board membership within a not-for-profit organisation is a challenging engagement, even more so depending on the size of the organisation. Directors see themselves in a non executive capacity and yet, in many instances, are expected to involve themselves in far more activity than would otherwise be the case in equivalent private sector concerns.  I would also contend that board members of not-for-profits have extremely complex challenges, given the more diverse nature of the external stakeholder group and the involvement of substantial numbers of volunteers at the operational levels. In the current, and expanding, regulatory environment, and the potentially challenging financial environment, not-for-profit organisations need confidence in the boards that guide them. How confident is your organisation with its current board and what room is there for improvement? OPTIMUM NFP has worked with a number of not-for-profit organisations in evaluating board efficiency and effectiveness based on a 100 point questionnaire uniquely developed for the purpose. The questionnaire defines 4 board dimensions as:       The Role of the Board       The Processes of the Board       The Behaviours of the Board, and       The Members of the Board Within each dimension exist 5 categories and within each category are contained 5 questions. The result of the survey is a detailed report followed by an exhaustive list of recommendations, all undertaken in the context of a formal board presentation, where issues can be discussed and findings, as well as recommendations, analysed. Such governance reviews of your board are considered appropriate and widely undertaken within both the Not-for-Profit and the commercial sectors in the context of three contextual issues: Broader legislative frameworks surrounding incorporated entities which places an ever increasing demand on board members; Challenging and uncertain economic environment which places ongoing pressures on not-for-profit organisations to refine their service delivery programs, and Increasing demands on not-for-profits to provide expanded services in a social environment that heightens competition for government funding at the local, state and federal levels. Every board should regard this process as fundamental to ongoing refinement of their processes and structure, in order that efficiency and effectiveness remains high on the organisational agenda - at all levels

The World's Financial Woes - Perhaps Philanthropy Is The Next Best Thing!

The current financial crisis affecting the western world appears to have potentially spiralled out of control. The extent to which a fix can be applied to the problem is doubtful, given that much of what is stated in the public press appears to have overlooked some root cause issues that no-one, especially not regulators or their agencies, wish to address.

It would appear that financially, the Greek economy has been on the nose for some period of time. Financial commentators readily admit to knowing that the Greek economy has been a basket case for decades, if not beyond. Their ability to address their own internal issues has been questioned in many quarters and yet, here we are in 2011, with banks and government monetary authorities concerned about the possibility of default by Greece triggering potential financial losses amongst a wide group of private and public investors.

The question that goes begging is why were loans made to Greece in the first place to the extent that they had been? Why was Greece even invited into the Eurozone? Which of the Global Investment Banks earned incredibly outlandish commissions or fees for structuring and brokering Greek debt?

The reality is that until these questions are addressed and the global investment banks brought to account for their careless and reckless behaviour, long term real solutions to the current financial woes of the western world will never be addressed.

This brings into focus the whole value proposition of when is enough enough? At what point in time does financial gain become purely the end point rather than the means to an end in itself?

This underlying question is perhaps at the heart of the latest publication by Dr. Diane Coyle PhD whose orthodox economic views are in fact quite refreshing when seen in the context of her latest expose regarding the explosion of executive remuneration levels in the western world.


What expectations are we building into a society that in Australia, despite general public opinion, is experiencing an ever widening gap between those that have it and those that don't. Our society is fracturing and the historic egalitarianism upon which Australia was built, is gradually slipping away.


Sad to say, but greed is taking over and corporate greed in the finance sector is partly to blame.


The Greek crisis and all that will follow can never be resolved until, as a society, we decide when enough is enough, when the accumulation of wealth without purpose and without recognition that there is a growing list of an Australian underclass, without bringing to heel the investment banking falseness of creating artificial reality, is brought to finality.


With so many worthwhile human causes in Australia and abroad, the accumulation of wealth through such artificial means that leave nothing of substance in their wake, seems pointless.


Maybe Greece and others defaulting will provide the reality hit that is so desperately needed in the western world.

Managing Change in Not-for-Profits with the Introduction of Strategic Partnerships

The development, design, implementation and monitoring of change management programs is generally an organisational challenge irrespective of it being in a commercial or a not-for-profit environment. 

NFP environments however provide some additional characteristics, with one of the key ones being the extent to which pressure for change derives from external environmental considerations to possibly a greater extent than commercial organisations, where change programs find themselves being initiated equally from within the organisation, albeit still being driven hierarchically. 

Current external pressures being applied to NFPs relate directly from the perceived impacts of the Federal Government reforms to this sector, which, in some cases, may go to the heart of survival for some of Australia's smallest NFP participants. 

One of the outcomes may be rationalisation within this sector. In many cases this rationalisation may result in the development and expansion of strategic partnerships amongst these smaller service providers.  

The development of partnerships, strategic or otherwise, may be a challenge to many in this sector. In New South Wales, the Disability Services Sector is currently undergoing, or about to undergo, such a challenge, as the current method of financing the sector becomes redundant in July 2014 with moves by the State Government to direct payment for services through the person obtaining the service, as distinct to the current and long standing model of financing the service provider directly based on the number of programs and the number of people undertaking these. The Person Centred Approach now becomes the central plank for the large number of service providers in this sector.


Will this prove successful, either from the Person's perspective or indeed form the sector's perspective? This is an unknown quantity at the moment. What is also in question is the extent to which the State Government is actually ready for this change itself, let alone the myriad of service providers currently in existence.


A number of these smaller NFPs operating in this sector will be challenged in terms of their marketing and 'business development' activities, their ability to effectively 'cost' the services they provide and finally, their ability to maintain their focus.


Whilst some will consider that they may in fact lose business as a result of their customers looking further afield for such services, some in the industry, quite rightly, believe that there is also opportunity to pick up additional clients as those people do in fact look further afield.


This is where strategic partnerships may be a solution to this dilemma. However, before looking to involve themselves in such partnerships, they need to effectively change their existing business model and internal organisational mindset to cope with the new forms of doing and seeking business.

 

Organisational Readiness for Change

Organisational Readiness for Change

75% of all organisational change management programs fail. What can your organisation do to improve this statistic?

Much has been written and practised regarding organisational change and change management strategies across various sectors, including the commercial and the not-for-profit arenas.

Management literature abounds with case studies that warn of the pitfalls and high failure rates. Analysing these in detail highlights a vast number of issues.

Leadership styles and approaches to change programs are often put forward as an indicator regarding the potential success or failure of change strategies and programs. Are your leaders managing or leading with regard the change? Is there a common agreed vision for what the end product of the change will look like? Are your leaders focused on what needs to be done or how it is going to be done?

Communication is also an often described attribute of successful or unsuccessful change. Is the organisation providing effective communication to offset perceived concerns of staff that the changes will not threaten their jobs? Is the communication timely and is it reaching those that it is designed to reach? Is the communication an effective two-way process so that staff are afforded the opportunity of questioning and relaying their concerns to management?

Inclusion and exclusion policies and behaviours are also often muted as indicators when it comes to determining success in change management programs. Are all decisions made in a top-down process or are staff included in that process? Are all change initiatives driven from central management or are ideas for such changes openly received from staff at all levels and then filtered throughout the organisation. What is the extent of ‘democracy’ within the organisation that enables it to attract broader ideas?

Leadership, communication, staff input, are all valid issues that are relevant when determining the potential success or failure of change programs within any organisation.

One additional factor however, is the extent to which the organisation is ready for change. This points to ongoing policies and frameworks that have been and are being put in place to ensure that staff not only accept and work with individual change initiatives, but are also able to envision a broader consensual approach to change. Such an approach results in staff viewing organisational change as opportunities rather than threats, resulting in a higher degree of success when individual change programs are initiated.

How does your organisation respond to such change? Is the roll out of change initiatives a daunting task fraught with the likelihood of substantial internal resistance? Are your strategies for such change initiatives somewhat underdeveloped?

Perhaps success in relation to organisational change initiatives doesn't come purely from planning and execution on a project-by-project basis. Perhaps success comes from building capability within the organsiation so change comes more naturally to those involved. Building the platform for successful change is perhaps more powerful and more beneficial than swift implementation.

Organisational Culture

Organisational culture is one of those terms that is mentioned in various times and in various contexts.

I often wonder how it actually relates to the way an organisation really functions. Is it something that does in fact drive behaviour? Is it something that people actually relate to? Is it something that people within an organisation reference consciously or subconsciously as they go about there day-to-day activities? Is it something that is developed top-down or does it resonate with staff at the lower rungs of the organisation? Do Chief Executives actually drive culture or are they a reflection of a more pervasive cultural norm that exists within the organisation and develops over time?

Current events within the Murdoch newspaper empire provide a confusing picture, depending on how you interpret the various public announcements, press coverage, parliamentary hearings and the like. On the one hand, telephone hacking has been variously described as common place in the United Kingdom amongst newspaper groups inside and outside the Murdoch controlled publications. On the other hand the News of The World appears to have mastered this activity as an art-form. Using this as an interpretive base do we assume therefore that a culture exists among that industry which is independent of the organisations working within that industry? If this is the case, then what role does individual organisational culture play in either countering a broader culture that is obviously problematic? Or does the broader culture exist irrespective of the organisational culture? What becomes the prevailing culture? To what extent does the CEO or Chairman of an organisation drive culture?

Organisations, irrespective of them being not-for-profits or operating within the commercial world, constantly seek to publicise culture as a hallmark of who they are, what they are and how they are perceived by a broad range of internal and external stakeholders. Many not-for-profits attract employees and volunteers by publicising either the unique culture of that specific organisation or, more broadly, the culture that is apparently alive and well in that sector.

The extent to which culture underpins organisational activity or the extent to which culture is a product of organisational activity may be critical to better understanding what it is and how it can, and should, be used.