CHANGES
The Fact that you can doesn’t necessarily mean that you should;or,
“Why don’t they ever let us do something the same way long enough for us
to get good at it?”
The above statement was heard from a front line social worker the other
day. The quotation is included here because it captures, better
than the several efficiency systems I’ve read, the effect of frequent
change upon line staff in a paper and procedure dense setting.
Unfortunately, most not-for-profits seem to be paper and procedure
dense. Even more unfortunate is the fact that we managers can
often be dense as well. To wit:
One of the side-effects of efforts to constantly improve quality is the
mirage procedure, followed closely by the magic form.
The mirage procedure is a new, improved method that will better give the
organization what it seeks. Then the time arises when you need it.
You reach for it. Just as you attempt to use it, you realize that
you can’t grasp it. You stand there empty handed, realizing that
you’ve chased a mirage.
It was a good procedure. It really was. Everyone had a
handle on it when it was rolled out. Unfortunately, many, many
other procedures have been rolled out before and since, each with their
handles in different places. So when the time came to grab one to
use, the handle could not be found.
Then there is the magic form. It is amazing. It starts with
items a,b,c,d,e,&f. After further review, it is determined that
item c is not necessary, but items g and h should be included.
Soon thereafter, items i, j, & k are deemed essential. (Please
note that one of the properties of the magic form is that it may change
many times and many ways, but it will never get smaller.)
The impetus for the magic form came from a wonderful new philosophy,
which gave rise to a brilliant new procedure, and led to the idea being
put in its basic terms on paper: the magic form. Sadly, all
the front line staff were told when it finally reached them was “Here’s
a new form you have to use.”. They never learned of the magic in
the form. They only saw mystery in it.
There are, of course, many reasons for changing procedures and
paperwork. For instance:
· Changes
in the state of the art
· New
or changed law or regulation
· Altered
focuses of accrediting bodies, or new accreditation.
· New
management with new ideas
· Old
management went to a new seminar.
· New
management with old ideas, but introduces them with a different look in
order to put their own stamp on things.
· Innovation
based in practice and observation in the field.
· Improved
coordination among sections/departments reducing fragmentation and
overlap.
· Etc.
Obviously, some of the reasons are better than others. But there
is a common theme: The positive effect of the “improvement” is
usually overestimated and the negative impact of the process of change
is usually underestimated.
In view of this, we must take greater care in deciding how and when we
will introduce change. Though some might think it radical, this
writer has been a proponent of the following for some time:
Changes should only be introduced periodically throughout the year.
That is, there should be “change free” periods. One suggestion is
that form and procedure changes only be introduced twice a year, with
each period lasting one month. This would permit logical and
coordinated introduction and implementation of the changes. That
is, each change’s impact upon staff and upon the other changes could be
assessed prior to the introduction, and proper training could more
easily be provided.
Only changes which are required by law, regulation, or accreditation;
or, those which provide significant immediate increases in health/safety
should be enacted sooner.