Guide to Successful Change Management

Leadership

Although the previous Chief Executive had led the Association out of local authority control to being a stable housing association in its own right, he had done this with a rather autocratic management style. Richard Kitson was determined to move the organization away from that. A rather coercive style - useful in some situations - can lead to a risk-averse culture and create dependency upon its leader. Creativity and innovation can also be stifled. There were elements of all of these in the previous culture.

Richard managed this transition carefully. On the one hand he relied on voices from outside to feed back to staff and managers inside what sort of leader he was; and on the other hand he engaged in regular and open conversations with staff and all managers. Naturally they were apprehensive at first but, through staff briefings, conferences, small group and individual discussions, they saw that here was a man they could trust and follow, and who was open to ways in which they could contribute to the future.

His initial style can be described as pace setting - knowing where he wants to go, having the intellectual firepower to argue his corner, encouraging people around him to participate in creating the future, leading from the front and by example and taking people with him. What was interesting was how the culture as a result shifted from one of, 'We don't normally do this' or, 'I'm not sure we can do that' to one of, 'Let's try' and, ? think we can win this contract.'

In the longer term Richard is aware that he needs to spread the leadership across the senior management more and down into the organization. His challenge is to sustain the success by becoming a leader who is primarily a facilitator or enabler and also to continue to build the leadership capacity throughout all parts of the Group. The relationship between CEO and Chairman has been a critical success factor. They share similar viewpoints and both operate on the basis of no surprises for each other. Once convinced of the other's arguments they are both willing to promote the arguments. The board seeks to challenge and test the ideas and suggestion from the management team and once satisfied that the thinking has been rigorous enough they tend to be happy for the managers to proceed.

The Aster Board mirrors the Aster GMT in that they are focused on longer term strategic issues rather than this year's bottom fine. And as such the operating businesses have considerable autonomy in terms of day-to-day operations.

No shotgun wedding

Testway had a somewhat different route to the grouping. John Spens as Chief Executive had steered the association out of local authority control just four years before, delivery of a premier housing service to its tenants being a primary aim.

For Testway the first three years after the housing stock transfer was one of finding its feet, establishing its reputation and credibility and also, in a sense, discovering its new identity. By the spring of 2003 there was some pressure for change - managers and board members were beginning to ask what was next in the strategic picture. They recognized their vulnerability due to their size. The initial impetus of the transfer had made them fully aware that they hadn't transferred out of local authority control just to stand still. They spent some time with an external adviser working out strategic options for the future. Their deliberations started by taking a long hard look at their internal capabilities and assessing the current and future market and external environment.

Through a combination of an ongoing working party and a series of board away days they developed the following options:

1. Stay as we are.

2. Stay as we are plus increased development activity.

3. Stay as we are plus increased development activity plus acquiring other local authority stock.

4. Growth through merger.

They concluded that if they could find the right partner then the fourth option was the best.

It was at this time that the Housing Corporation announced its intention to limit the number of its strategic partners (external driver) and also, following a number of performance issues, it was decided to replace its development team (internal driver). Informal links were made with the neighbouring Silbury, which offered help resourcing the development function. Continuing in that vein of cooperation, the two Chief Executives started to seriously discuss the possibility of closer working between the two associations.

The grouping criteria were agreed and both parties looked at whether there was indeed a match. The other partner needed to be:

* of equal size (and equal partners);

* an active developer;

* high performing:

- upper quartile

- meeting Housing Corporation Key Performance Indicators

- low rent arrears

- efficient turn around of vacant properties

- good repairs record

- good rent collection;

* reputable (eg with the Housing Corporation);

* with a geography that would be different enough to avoid overlap but close enough to produce synergies;

* financially strong;

* with a natural synergy when it came to attributes such as stability, being a charity and having similar values.

The Testway board went through a rigorous process of analysis and assessment of the 35 or so associations within the distance specified and filtered them down to 10. A series of meetings and further appraisal reduced the possibilities down to just three or four. However, there was one clear front runner. The board were already witnessing the two CEOs working well together and trusting one another and they recognized that there was most likely a good cultural fit.

Staff and tenants were kept updated with open communication and consulted about all of the options. The grouping proposal went through the usual due diligence processes - assessing the financial, cultural, commercial and legal risks; the two Annual General Meetings; and a number of board meetings. The difficult issues were put on top of the table (not under the table!) and discussed, with a clear challenge on the tricky issues - 'What's best for the business?' The grouping was ratified. As a symbol of the beginning of the new organization and to demonstrate that it was a merger of equals a new name was given and Aster was born.

The transition period - one year on

Aster Group is now beyond the honeymoon period. At a high level there was a cultural fit - and indeed the set of espoused values are very much values in practice - but the devil will always be in the detail and differences have emerged. This is not surprising, given the somewhat different backgrounds, some different attitudes and different sets of competencies. So a period of learning how to live together was experienced. But, continuing the wedding metaphor, they decided against an exit clause or pre-nuptial agreement.

The glue in the first few months was the two Chief Executives (or rather the new Chief Executive and his Deputy Chief Executive). They kept the dialogue going as and when differences or issues emerged.

Aster's vision of 'passion for excellence, pride in performance' is encapsulated in its mission to be a leading provider of high quality affordable homes and services and to help create thriving and successful communities. Its business objectives for 2006-2009 are:

1. Achieving excellent customer and community focused services.

2. Delivering more new homes.

3. Strengthening the foundations.

4. Maintaining robust businesses.

5. Developing our people.

The Group has adopted a set of values that underpins how it operates. These are to be customer responsive, honest, open and true to their word and fair to all. Within this there is a strong emphasis in involving and responding to the needs of customers.

(Housing Corporation's assessment, June 2006, http: //www. housingcorp .gov.uk/)

On a detail level the cultures, although similar, had different emphases. There were many more similarities than differences, but where there were differences they needed to be identified and discussed and worked through to reach a common understanding and an appropriate way of working together. There were good and bad aspects to each of the cultures, but there was enough openness for people to say, 'Hang on a minute, let's talk about this'.

Also there was a difference in life stage - one had been autonomous for almost a decade, the other until quite recently had still been wrestling control away from the local authority (which found it hard to relinquish control).

A number of binding and bonding interventions have helped the different companies operate alongside each other, managing the 'what's tight - what's loose' tension between each other and the centre. An expanded management development programme has brought the senior managers together on a number of occasions and there are clear signs that a new Aster culture is emerging.

Many staff- often the managers - have embraced the change wholeheartedly and have been focused on making things happen by just doing it. Others further away from the decision-making process felt it was more like the proverbial emotional roller-coaster. The pace of change was such that on an emotional level there were a lot of feelings to deal with and on a task level there were quite a number of things that needed doing or clarifying.

Whenever a new structure is implemented there are always issues around the difficulties of managing and control - where are decisions made, where the power and authority Ue, who has clarity about roles and responsibilities.

What helped people during this time was the development and communication of a clear strategy, the reflection back of a core set of values that were role-modelled by senior mangers, a sequence of staff briefings and cascades and the establishment of an annual staff conference to celebrate success, involve and engage staff in the future direction and test out ideas.

It seems that there has been no period of consolidation - the Group grows, other partners seek to join and change continues at a similar fast pace.

Project management

Both the technical and psychological aspects of the project management of the grouping process were conducted with openness and no hidden agendas. A key question all parties returned to when there were difficult decisions to be made was, 'What's good for the business?' Staff were asked for their views and ideas about what form the partnering should take.

An external project manager was appointed who had the sponsorship of the two Chief Executives. The project manager was called in from outside for a number of reasons:

* the project seemed too big for anyone to take ownership of and do their business as usual as well;

* they wanted an experienced credible project manager for such a highprofile initiative; and

* both associations welcomed an objective third party.

The project itself was run along effective best practice project management guidelines with a detailed plan of activities, all tasks having a responsible person owning it and clear reporting procedures.

A key wish was for there to be limited staff upheaval, certainly no redundancies, and indeed with the growth agenda, promotion of cross-organization staff opportunities.

Terms and conditions differed in the different parts of the Group and whilst some integration has taken place many of the differences are actually down to the varied levels of maturity and development of the businesses and the fact that the same set of policies and procedures wouldn't necessarily fit across the whole. There no doubt will be convergence over time if appropriate. Part of the process is defining what is tight and what is loose - movement towards one integrated IT system makes sense; a coordinating HR function with semi-autonomous units in the businesses might also evolve. Financial control systems and diversity and equality policies emanate out of the centre - but financial management is left with individual businesses. A central tenet is to give as much autonomy as possible to individual businesses provided they perform against business plan and budget. Where there is scope for efficiencies and synergies, grab them.

Organizational development

During the initial period of change prior to the grouping, external consultants were brought in to help Silbury manage organizational change. As part of the mobilization process all managers and a cross-section of all staff were invited to give feedback as to how they saw the organization, what the key issues were and what some of the solutions might be. The following were the main themes to emerge from the discussion groups and interviews with managers.

Developing common purpose, values and shared understanding of objectives

Some managers and staff were very clear about what the Group's vision and values were. Others were not so sure. People needed more clarity about what the new organization would look and feel like in the future.

Developing a shared understanding of what sort of organization we need to build for the future

People saw the need to further develop the vision and values for the organization through greater communication and engagement, both vertically and across the organization.

Managing for growth

Balancing the drive for growth whilst maintaining and improving the level of current service emerged as quite a creative tension. Ways had to be found to increase management capacity and capability.

Balancing between managing and leading

Managers needed to shift the balance from managing the increasing complexity of the Group (planning, organizing, controlling and problem solving) to demonstrating leadership and strategic thought (through setting a direction, aligning people, motivating and inspiring).

Where do we need to innovate as managers/management team?

More creative and innovative ways of doing things were needed to get to grips with the challenges. That included creating an environment where some risk taking was more acceptable and mistakes were inevitable but could be learnt from.

Individual and collective energy

Managers needed to be able to match their efficiency (doing things right) with their effectiveness (doing the right things). As roles, responsibilities and structures change the challenge on an organizational level seemed to be, 'Where should managers' time best be deployed and how much can they empower their staff?'

Personal responsibility

Managers acknowledged the shifting culture and are generally and genuinely signed up to developing it and taking their part in shaping it. However, it might be difficult to step fully into the new role of manager and leader and even more difficult to develop staff to play their part.

Developing management and leadership capacity and capability

A series of workshops were designed to address these issues:

* to help managers share knowledge and understanding across the whole Group;

* to develop skills to better manage change;

* for managers to understand their management style and the impact it has on others; and

* to address the important and pressing issues arising from a dynamic and changing organization.

In addition three working groups were set up to:

* develop practical ways in which people will 'buy-in', own and act out the values;

* develop ways for managers to keep their 'finger on the pulse' - know the key issues emerging for staff and the organization to take action on; and

* generate ideas as to how people can take on responsibility and grasp opportunities.

Managers and staff were involved, in a variety of ways, with developing the ongoing agenda for change. In addition to the workshops there were staff briefings, staff discussion groups and a staff conference (which now continues annually) where the forward agenda was communicated, ideas generated, and potential obstacles highlighted and worked on collaboratively.

A key component of the grouping was the bringing together of all the managers from both organizations. They spent time together over two days addressing the following challenges:

* meeting and getting to know one another's organizations and ways of working;

* developing a shared view of Aster's strategic opportunities;

* identifying some of the practical synergies for individuals and constituent businesses; and

* agreeing key lines of ongoing organizational development.

As a result of the workshop three working parties were set up, initially with managers from across the Group and then involving staff. The key themes to be addressed were:

* Direction - guided by Aster's vision and values and taking account of the strengths and weaknesses of the Group, where would you want Aster to be in five years' time?

* Improvement - examine current service improvement practices to confirm, a) whether they are appropriate for Aster Group and, b) how they can better engage and be made more meaningful to staff and customers.

* People - taking account of the staff surveys across Testway and former Silbury Group, examine and made recommendations of what we need to do to make the Aster Group a better place to work.

At the time of writing a further housing association has joined and once again managers and staff have been enfolded into the Group. Roles and responsibilities, synergies and business opportunities were all discussed openly and frankly. Whilst still embedding the previous grouping, Mendip Housing Association approached Aster as it was desperately seeking a partner. It needed support, protection, guidance and advice. Aster GMT recognized the resource implication and recruited a dedicated person to deal with these aspects of the Group's development. The joining criteria were different for Mendip. Whereas Testway had a reputation for award-winning community development and Silbury had a reputation for development, Mendip had expertise in care and support and the elderly. The process was the same as for Testway/Silbury but was concertinaed into a much shorter timeframe.

A key creation has been the concept of the Aster Group Manager - someone who not only exhibits good management and leadership within his or her own area of the business but who has rights and responsibilities across the Group both at an operational level (for example, spotting and sharing best practice, efficiencies and economies of scale) and a strategic level (for example, shaping and responding to the external environment and key partners, contributing to leadership thinking and development of strategy across the whole organization).

The challenge for the Aster Group going forward is how to maintain momentum in its growth strategy whilst embedding the changes that have already been made; and how to manage change fast enough for the senior management but at the right pace for staff to continue to perform effectively and provide an excellent service to their customers. Of course, since Aster is now the largest in the South West the relationship with the Housing Corporation has changed from one where it was needing to seek attention and probably had very limited influence, to one where it plays an important part in the Corporation's plans and as such could always pose a risk if it doesn't perform. Aster very much sees itself as a true partner with the Corporation - the challenges now being to continue the growth strategy, staying on the preferred list of partners and having to make year-on-year efficiency savings as laid down by the regulatory authorities.

The Institute of Public Health in Ireland

The Institute of Public Health (IoPH) in Ireland, funded by the respective Departments of Health in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, was established in 1999 to promote cooperation for public health in the whole of Ireland. It was a major cross-border initiative, which emerged at the same time as the Belfast Agreement intended to end the centuries-old conflict.

At a high level the Institute's remit includes providing public health information and surveillance; strengthening public health capacity; and advising on health policy. In reality it has made its major focus the tackling of inequalities in health across Northern Ireland and the Republic.

The Belfast Agreement was signed on 10 April 1998, a Good Friday, hence its unofficial title of the 'Good Friday Agreement'. Former US Senator George Mitchell, Canadian General John de Chastelain, and the Finnish ex-Prime Minister Harri Holkeri chaired the multi-party talks that led to the historic Agreement. The participants included the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the UK, and 10 political parties representing unionist, loyalist, nationalist, republican and crosscommunity constituencies in Northern Ireland. The US President Bill Clinton provided political support and encouragement.

The work of the Institute

The Institute of Public Health has been engaged in the development of information, policy and practice relating to poverty and health as part of the organization's overall commitment to combating health inequalities in Ireland.

The Institute uses the World Health Organization's definition of health as 'a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity'.

It also has developed an all-Ireland Population Health Observatory that supports those working to improve health and reduce health inequalities by producing and disseminating health intelligence, and strengthening the research and information infrastructure in Ireland.

The Institute firmly believes that the development of strong multi-sector partnerships is a crucial step in tackling inequalities in health. As a result it has developed a framework for partnerships in health and organized the first all-Ireland conference on partnerships for health.

It has developed an all-Ireland Leadership Programme to create a network of leaders from different sectors who will work collaboratively and creatively for a healthy society. Over the last five years it has produced publications and reports, held numerous seminars and conferences on key issues in public health, developed innovative and effective programmes and contributed to significant policy developments in Ireland and Northern Ireland. It has worked with a range of partners to bring people and organizations from across Ireland together to promote collective action for sustained improvements in health.

Beginnings

The original idea for an all-Ireland health body came from the Chief Medical Officer in Northern Ireland who began conversations with his counterpart in the Republic. He identified the need for greater cooperation on health. There was an exploratory small group set up by him and his counterpart. They discussed the idea and its potential for success with a whole range of people across the field, from universities to environmental health. One of the key observations was that people clearly didn't want any duplication, though something with a low resource and probably with an emphasis on things uncontroversial (ie, not political) such as focusing in on specifics like a register of diseases. The political context was delicate and so the focus at this early stage could only really be about information exchange.

Through careful networking and discussions, the civil service and some politicians were eventually won over. The Good Friday Agreement provided the necessary momentum to crystallize the idea and the Institute of Public Health for all Ireland was established - the germ of an idea with the starting point of employing just six people from different health professions and seeing what happened.

The Director's job was advertised later that year. The Institute actively sought someone who would develop the original ideas and move the health agenda forward proactively with limited resource, which was highly credible in the health field but politically astute concerning all the North-South sensitivities. Jane Wilde was appointed as Director of the Institute in the autumn of 1998. She had been active politically in the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and professionally as Director of the Health Promotion Agency. She had been a consultant in public health and on a health board, having trained both in the UK and the United States.