The Age Concern Auckland Organisation’s Change Incident

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Amalgamation of 3 Auckland Age Concerns
Reason for the Merger
Resistance to Change
Communication and Consultation Process
Communication
Perception the Merger Was Too Rushed
Impact on People
Attachment to the Organisation Culture and Identity
References

Amalgamation of 3 Auckland Age Concerns

On the 1st of July 2019, the three Age Concerns that had been providing support and services to older people, their whanau, and carers across Auckland for the past 70 years (North Shore, Auckland-West, and Counties Manukau) amalgamated into a single organization– called Age Concern Auckland. The organizational change incident was the merging of three Auckland-based independent Age Concern entities to reduce inefficiencies, duplication, and improve service delivery and consistency regionally.

This amalgamation ensures that Age Concern Auckland can continue to deliver relevant services and support to the Auckland region now and into the future. It also means that organisationally, Age Concern Auckland could effectively address the changing environment in which we find ourselves operating within. Notably, our aging population and a doubling of the proportion of older people making Auckland their home over the next ten or so years, both of which meant Age Concern Auckland would need to increase the level of service and support we provide.

Reason for the Merger

The reasoning behind the merger stems from the fact that there is a greater value when more than one company works together as opposed to working in isolation. Working as a single organization would enable Age Concern Auckland to raise its public profile, optimize our resources to achieve service outcomes, minimize duplication, including the three entities applying for the same philanthropic dollar, and ensure there is one strategy instead of three to achieve consistency of services across the region and less confusion to the public. All three entities were affiliated with the National Age Concern, but some branches had services that others did not, which were confusing to the general public.

I was working for Age Concern Counties Manukau as the Community Strength & Balance Facilitator for nearly three years when we were told that the three Auckland Age Concerns would be merged to form one. Only Counties Manukau delivered the Strength & Balance contract. The other two areas had another provider deliver it. Being a successful lead agency with the addition of a Local Falls Working Group and Community Central to manage all referrals, I believe, presented an opportunity to gain other contracts and deliver a consistent service across the greater Auckland region.

When we discussed the initial proposal in 2018 and were asked to have our say, we were under the understanding that our workplace culture would be recognized, maintained, and valued. The proposal was that there would be a CEO appointed and a leadership team, including a 2IC. With this in mind, the proposal seemed fair, both in the vision for moving forward collectively, as well as with no significant loss to people or loss of organization knowledge, relationships, and reputation.

This critical reflection will cover the resistance to change from employees and management, the lack of trust, the impact on people, the communication and consultation process, attachment to the organizational culture and identity, and the perception that the merger was rushed. Then the evaluation will outline ways in which my reflection has shifted or deepened my understanding of the incident and how I would apply the insights gained from this reflection to future work life as a manager or employee.

Resistance to Change

Some of the resistance to change from staff across all branches was motivated by the perceived threat to job security (Palmer et al., 2017) and that some individuals and community groups would be disadvantaged. The authors highlight that retention is minimized when organizational culture is not implemented, which is one of the outcomes during the merger of multiple organizations with different values and internal environments. Nonetheless, staff changes are required for an organization to grow and be competitive in the future.

Firstly, our South Auckland office had concerns about who would become the overall CEO as our current manager was engaging and motivating and had built the Counties branch from 4 part-time workers and one FTEs to 17 employees. Relevant literature does, indeed, support the idea that the organizational culture, which is partly implemented or employed by the CEO, positively affects organizational performance (Chatman & Eunyoung, 2003). Counties Manukau had gone from being nearly bankrupt to having $150,000 in reserves and regular income from contracts to employ the 17 staff. Our general manager had obtained many new contracts from the District Health Board, including the handyman and counseling services, as well as the Lead Agency for the Live Stronger for Longer Community Strength & Balance contract that I was employed to deliver. Most importantly, the culture among the staff was very supportive, and we worked well as a team.

We were told the heart of Age Concern is our clients, and how we work within our local communities will not change. We were to have still local teams based at all our current offices who would work to meet the needs of the people in our communities. The approach correlates with the viewpoint that change can be drastic and evolutionary, with the evolutionary one less damaging to employees and the companies where they operate (Meyerson, 2001). Age Concern Auckland was to continue to provide intervention services that support people suffering from abuse, neglect, and in need of social support, aging well services that assist people in staying independent, healthy, and active, including the Community Strength & Balance program, social connection services that mitigate loneliness, promote community involvement and enable mobility and a dedicated Asian Service to meet the needs of the growing Asian community.

Communication and Consultation Process

The Auckland CEO had conversations with our board Chair individually, and the decisions made by the Counties Manukau Board were changed. This split our board which made employees feel very apprehensive about the merger. Following this, the new CEO was appointed from the Auckland office, and our CEO was not appointed. The original proposal was wiped, the new CEO drew a new proposal, and the structure was changed. Communication with employees is, in fact, a major element in promoting changes such as mergers, as illustrated in current literate highlighting that in corporations in which team members were informed about the organizational shifts, resilience and motivation was higher (Schweiger & Denisi, 1991). The new CEO told the board that this was an operational issue and that they had appointed him to the role. The three boards were disbanded, and a transition board was appointed. It was discussed that there should be two members from each of the three regions and a couple of extras co-opted based on skills gaps. This did not happen and left staff lacking trust.

There was a consultation process that was very flawed as staff, including our General Manager, attended a combined meeting where the new structure was shown, and some roles were no longer present. There was no communication with the staff affected prior to this meeting. Trust in management and staff from all regions was lost during this process. The change management process turned into the Auckland office senior management dictating a new structure that suited only the Auckland branch.

There are initially two significant concerns following the new structure being presented, the first being the short amount of time for staff to give feedback, and the second, the lack of “place” for the other two CEOs to enable them to continue to move forward with us by valuing what knowledge and experience they hold. It was inevitable that there was no strategy for shifting the organizational culture, which aligns with the lack of clarity for the employees operating there (Groysberg et al., 2018).

Communication

The transition process felt rushed, possibly due to the late appointment of the new CEO coupled with the holiday break in between. Moreover, there was no communication post the new CEO’s announcement about how it affected the current staff in the three branches or its stakeholders and networks. The rationale for the proposed change was formulated as follows:

“to deliver relevant services and maintain brand awareness and reputation so that the organization will continue to be supported by the communities it seeks to serve and the stakeholders it works alongside.”

Networking is vital to South Auckland. The short time and subsequent pressure to accept the new structure put the South Auckland Age Concern at risk with funding and relationships. Moreover, the damage to the existing organizational culture may have led to the diminishing of long-term survival on the market (Costanza et al., 2016). The new structure missed a team leader/manager and a Māori/Pacific team. In Counties Manukau, we need Māori Pacific liaison staff members/team members. The audits and treaty obligations are undertaken for some of our contracts, and funding applications are incredibly dependent on meeting these requirements of the contracts. This is an area we were already lacking in and making it difficult to work with the existing Māori/PI groups/organizations and service users when we do not show this in our structure or governance. I raised this as part of the feedback on the new structure, yet nothing was changed.

Our staff attend community network meetings and have an overarching view and extremely proactive focus to optimize these relationships. A two to three-month transition did not enable a successful transfer of network relationships, especially in South Auckland, where we had a very high concentration of Māori and Pacific Island people. 6 -9 months transition and a comprehensive external communications plan and management handover/upskilling may have been more acceptable – specific to Māori and Pacific networks and other dedicated cultural groups. For example, Kotter’s 8 Steps could have been implemented for a smooth transition to the new organizational culture (2007)

The audits undertaken for some of our contracts and our funding applications are highly dependent on genuinely meeting the indigenous requirements of the contracts. It is not just putting this information on paper that has made ACCM successful in the past. The relationships, knowledge, and work behind the scenes earnt ACCM the lead agency in several different service areas.

The Asian services team in the structure mentioned that it did not include South Asian, which it needed to if it was going to service the Counties Manukau region. The structure was already there to support the addition of South Asian people, and following staff feedback from more than one branch was still not considered.

Perception the Merger Was Too Rushed

The message was, “All feedback must be received no later than Friday, 22^nd March. All feedback will be reviewed by the new CEO. “At this stage, it is still proposed that any merger will occur by 30^thJune 2019.”

Staff was concerned that decisions were rushed, and the final proposal was too late for discussion with team members from each branch, resulting in a final document pushed through to meet the time requirements rather than people requirements, possibly impacting staff, stakeholders, services, and clients. Moreover, such a rush shift may have resulted in high employee turnover (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). Consideration of feedback and a review may have also required further consultation with staff which did not happen. The solution would be to change the timing (Palmer et al., 2017) to allow staff to prepare for the change and consider how the change should be proposed to existing stakeholders, networks, and funders to reduce disruption.

It was suggested by some staff to dilute the impact by continuing involvement at the support management level of the current CEOs for at least the first six months of the 2019/20 financial year would be a means to provide stability and continuity while steering the combined entities towards the goal of the new management structure. However, according to research, a more effective way of embracing change is through education and information rather than time (McShane, 2019).

Impact on People

The process in relation to the second proposal dated March 2019, where we had a significant loss of the two major players’ CEO from Counties Manukau and North Shore. Before the March 2019 document, I understood that there would be minimal impact on staff and that the amalgamation of the three Age Concerns of Auckland would incorporate all our knowledge, experience, relationships, work cultures, and values.

It was not made clear that all staff would need to reapply for their position if they are not seeking an open position available on the descriptions given on the spreadsheet. There was no communication with the staff.

I applied for one of the new positions, Ageing Well Manager. However, I felt that due to the conflict with the Counties Manukau team and backing resistance given to our CEO, whose role would be obsolete, I was not given the role and felt at the time that the new CEO believed I might be a threat to the process. I was looking forward to a new challenge. When I was not given the role, I decided I was ready for my next step, so I resigned anyway.

Three years after the merger, only one staff member remains in the Counties Manukau office from that time out of 17 staff. The other two offices lost several staff during this process too.

Attachment to the Organisation Culture and Identity

My colleagues and I were supportive of one another and highly motivated, delivering a professional service as we were the right people and the right fit for the positions. Many of the staff were part-time and had flexibility within their roles. There was a work-life balance. Our skills and experience were all valued and respected, and our culture was based on absolute trust, integrity, and respect.

The Counties Manukau CEO had exceptional relationships in our community, as well as knowledge. We valued our own people, as we had a deep culture here at Counties Manukauthat speaks respect, loyalty, and a collective Aroha for our community. Our CEO created this culture, and we took pride in having her lead our group. When I attended community events or meetings, people validated the knowledge and relationship that our CEO holds in our community.

The resistance to change was influenced by the degree of attachment to this existing culture (Palmer et al., 2017). The set of identity beliefs the staff held about the organization was central to their actively resisting change. These attitudes about the organization’s nature were established within the staff assumptions(Reger et al., 1994, cited in Palmer et al., 2017). They were sparked when the change seemed to be in direct contradiction with key aspects of organizational identity. The Auckland branch did not operate as a team as we did prior to the merge, and some Auckland staff were disgruntled prior to the merge, which was not what we experienced in Counties which highlighted concerns for our staff during this phase.

My concern about the new structure was the impact of the possible loss of key players; I reflected on the future impact it may have. I refer to the latest proposal, “Rational for the proposed change,” “to optimize the utilization of resources (including people)” in achieving the service outcomes”. With this statement in mind, I could not help but notice that suitable positions had not been created for the other managers and staff to utilize their skills, experience, and passion for the older person. I feel it would have been best to utilize our resources (people) to achieve the organizational change outcomes.

This, to me, shows that we value our people, both professionally and personally. Age concern is about people, so during this merge, it would have been better to value ours. According to Kirkpatrick (2001), cited in Palmer et al. (2017), the change would unlikely have been challenged if it was ‘in the employees’ interest’, including offering security, higher remuneration, promotion, status, or responsibility. Looking back, when I thought I could get a promotion and increase my job scope by applying for the Ageing Well position, I started to embrace the change. I opted out when I did not get the role and realized I would stay in the same part with less generous benefits. I might have stayed if the new CEO had offered to put time into my development for a future role. This may have been achieved by focusing on employee retention by preserving the organizational culture, which leads to staff motivation (O’Reilly, 2008).

References

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64.

Chatman, J. A., & Eunyoung Cha, S. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture. California Management Review, 45(4), 20–34.

Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 361–381. Web.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2010). Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 24–36. Web.

Groysberg, B., Lee, J., Price, J., & Cheng, J. Y.-J. (2018). The leader’s guide to corporate culture. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 44–52.

Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96–103.

Meyerson, D. E. (2001). Radical change the quiet way. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 92–100.

McShane, S. L., Olekalns, M., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2019). Organizational behaviour: Emerging knowledge. Global insights. (6th ed.). Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill

O’Reilly, C. (2008). Corporations, culture and commitment: Motivation and social control in organizations. California Management Review, 50(2), 85–101.

Palmer. D., Dunford. R., Buchanan. A. (2017). Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. 3^rd Edition. McGraw Hill Education. N.Y.

Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of management journal, 34(1), 110-135.

Click Here To Order Now!