Position Paper Assignment
TT24
ChangeCommunicationStrategiesinPublicChildWelfareOrganizations.docxChange Communication Strategies in Public Child Welfare Organizations: Engaging the Front Line.
Authors:
Cao, Yiwen 1 (AUTHOR) [email protected] Bunger, Alicia C. 1 (AUTHOR) Hoffman, Jill 1 (AUTHOR) Robertson, Hillary A. 1 (AUTHOR)
Source:
Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance . Jan/Mar2016, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p37-50. 14p.
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
* Child welfare * Organizational change * Social workers Government communication systems Job involvement
Geographic Terms:
Author-Supplied Keywords:
child welfare communication organizational change
Abstract:
In public child-welfare agencies, successful organizational change depends on effective internal communication and engagement with frontline workers. This qualitative study examines approaches for communicating planned organizational change among frontline child-welfare workers. Five, 90-minute focus groups were conducted with 50 frontline workers in an urban, public child-welfare agency. Consistent with prior research on change communication in business organizations, two broad categories of communication strategies were described: programmatic (top-down) and participatory approaches. Results suggest that participatory communicative strategies emphasizing employee engagement might be most effective in combination with programmatic approaches that communicate targeted messages about the change. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]
Copyright of Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Author Affiliations:
1College of Social Work, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
ISSN:
2330-3131
DOI:
10.1080/23303131.2015.1093570
Accession Number:
112814407
Translate Full Text:
Change Communication Strategies in Public Child Welfare Organizations: Engaging the Front Line.
This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein.
Contents
1. COMMUNICATING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE WITH CHILD-WELFARE WORKERS
2. Organizational-Change Communication Approaches
4. METHODS
6. Participants
9. FINDINGS
10. Applied Organizational Change Communication Strategies
11. Programmatic Communicative Approaches
12. Use of Programmatic Communicative Approaches
13. Workers' Reactions Toward Programmatic Communication Approaches
14. Participatory Communicative Approaches
15. Use of Participatory Communicative Approaches
16. Symbolic Versus Legitimate Use of Participatory Strategies
17. Desired Change Communication Approaches
19. Service- and Outcome-Driven Communication
20. Preference for Well-Organized Communication
21. DISCUSSION
22. Commonly Used Programmatic Approach and Its Limitations
23. Preference for Genuine Participatory Approaches
24. Bridging Role of Supervisors
25. Practice and Research Implications
26. CONCLUSION
27. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
28. FUNDING
29. REFERENCES
Full Text
In public child-welfare agencies, successful organizational change depends on effective internal communication and engagement with frontline workers. This qualitative study examines approaches for communicating planned organizational change among frontline child-welfare workers. Five, 90-minute focus groups were conducted with 50 frontline workers in an urban, public child-welfare agency. Consistent with prior research on change communication in business organizations, two broad categories of communication strategies were described: programmatic (top-down) and participatory approaches. Results suggest that participatory communicative strategies emphasizing employee engagement might be most effective in combination with programmatic approaches that communicate targeted messages about the change.
Keywords: child welfare; communication; organizational change
Public child-welfare agencies encounter constant pressure to change with new policies, best practices, and evolving client needs (Collins-Camargo, [13]). Successful implementation of these changes requires timely and effective communication to engage employees, especially those on the front line. Prior research suggests the importance of clear communication within human service organizations for mitigating workers' job stress and intention to leave (Boyas, Wind, & Ruiz, [11]; Devine, [15]; Kim & Lee, [23]). However, little is known about how change is communicated and what specific strategies can effectively communicate information and knowledge about change in public child-welfare agencies.
To fill this gap and inform change leadership and management within child-welfare agencies, this exploratory study focuses on strategies for communicating planned practice changes among frontline child-welfare workers in an urban, public child-welfare agency. Specifically, we ( 1 ) describe workers' perceptions about and reactions toward strategies commonly used in their agency to communicate change efforts and ( 2 ) identify their preferences for future communication and engagement in organizational change efforts. Next, we review findings from extant literature on change and communication within child-welfare agencies and consider the applicability of findings on change communication from the broader organizational literature. Afterwards, we present the methods and findings of our study, examining change communication strategies, and conclude by discussing implications of our findings for communicating change to frontline workers for administrators and leaders in public child-welfare agencies.
COMMUNICATING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE WITH CHILD-WELFARE WORKERS
Child-welfare systems experience pressure to change to ensure safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families. Needs of clients and within communities drive child-welfare agencies to adapt their services and practices, and call for adoption and implementation of evidence-based practices in children's services, such as Title IV-E Child Welfare Demonstration projects, individualized or wraparound, family group conferencing, and alternative response. (Barth, [ 7 ]; Collins-Camargo, [13]; Horwitz, Chamberlain, Landsverk, & Mullican, [22]). Legislative and policy reforms, such as the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act ([42]), also prompt responses at the state and agency levels to reshape the delivery of child-welfare services. Exploring how to implement change in child-welfare agencies is important for maximizing benefits to children and families amidst constant pressures to adapt to changing policies and new best practices.
Child-welfare workers play a key role in carrying out leaders' vision and translating the change on the front line. Although leaders and managers often design and steer change efforts, frontline child-welfare workers engage directly with children and families to deliver services and carry out the change efforts. Implementation success substantially depends on caseworkers' motivation and perceived acceptability of innovations (Aarons & Palinkas, [ 1 ]). Workers on the front line may also reject changes that conflict with what they believe to be best practices or the practices most appropriate for people they serve (Powell, Hausmann-Stabile, & McMillen, [36]). As a result, inconsistencies emerging between the change envisioned by agency administration and the change as implemented by workers limit potential benefits of the innovation (Sandfort, [39]; Smith & Donovan, [41]). Hence, in child-welfare agencies, strategies encouraging open communication and worker inclusion in decision making facilitate the change process.
Inclusionary strategies that feature well timed and open communication benefit the overall functioning of the agency and smooth the change process. Strategies emphasizing worker engagement help cultivate open and participatory decision making in the organization and also promote workers' well-being, job satisfaction, commitment, and intention to stay or leave the agency (Mor Barak, Levin, Nissly, & Lane, [31]). Well-planned strategies encourage workers to communicate their experiences within the agency back to the administration. Strategies that solicit workers' feedback, build employee buy-in, impact change planning, and provide motivation to adopt the change help promote positive outcomes for children and families involved with the child-welfare system (Austin & Claassen, [ 5 ]; Collins-Camargo, [13]; Lee & Austin, [24]; McCrae, Scannapieco, Leake, Potter, & Menefee, [28]; Wells, [43]). Hence, timely and open communication strategies are important for engaging workers in the change process.
Although it is well recognized that more communication about and involvement in the design and implementation of change is preferable (Bolman & Deal, [10]), little research specifically explores communication strategies and worker engagement amidst organizational change in child welfare. Workforce studies found that communication with supervisors reduces job-related stress or burnout among child-welfare workers (Boyas et al., [11]; Kim & Lee, [23]). Literature on general organizational change processes also stresses the importance of identifying established communication channels from the beginning of implementation to gain workers' acceptance and understanding, thus mitigating uncertainty and anxiety inevitably brought about by organizational change (Mildon & Shlonsky, [29]; Pipkin, Sterrett, Antle, & Christensen, [35]). McCrae et al. ([28]) suggested that tailoring appropriate communication strategies to different groups of employees and addressing various types of needs among employees also matters in terms of engaging workers. Communication with frontline workers who are champions for an innovation or new practice helps to promote adoption and implementation of planned change (Blome, Bennett, & Page, [ 9 ]).
To our knowledge, no studies have been solely dedicated to exploring change communication in child-welfare organizations. Although prior literature points to the utility of participatory approaches to communicating change in human services, exactly how child-welfare agencies use these approaches is unclear (Blome et al., [ 9 ]). What strategies are effective in communicating the change remains unknown, even though the importance of communicating with workers is implied in literature (Packard, [33]). This limits child-welfare administrators and leaders' ability to engage workers in change efforts, slowing down change or even inhibiting change success altogether. Given the paucity of change-communication research in child-welfare literature, we draw from the larger organizational change-communication literature to inform the analysis and data interpretation.
Organizational-Change Communication Approaches
Communication plays a crucial role in ensuring successful implementation of a change effort. Lewis and Seibold's ([26]) seminal work highlights the key role of communication in organizational change particularly in the planning stage but contains limited empirical investigation of the communicative processes within organizations. Communicative activities, such as engaging stakeholders, change-information dissemination, and staff training are intended to help alleviate uncertainty and anxiety that change inevitably creates among organizational members.
However, high-quality communication can effectively mitigate uncertainties and anxieties. Quality of communication, referring to timeliness, accuracy, and perceived usefulness, is key in gaining employees' positive reactions toward the change. High-quality communication affects employees' attitudes toward the change, as well as their willingness to participate in an organizational change (Miller, Johnson, & Grau, [30]; Nelissen & Van Selm, [32]). High-quality communication also equips employees with necessary information to deal with the change, as well as increases employees' sense of control in the change (Hobman, Jones, & Callan, [21]). Therefore, administrators and managers need to employ a range of approaches to achieve high-quality communication.
Russ ([37]) synthesizes extant literature on communication strategies into an integrative framework intended to guide organizational practitioners' efforts. This framework highlights two major approaches to change communication: programmatic and participatory. The programmatic communicative approach is characterized by a top-down, one-way flow of the administrators' desired vision about the change to employees. Programmatic strategies intended to gain stakeholder compliance or to stimulate positive attitudes or beliefs about the planned change. Participatory change communication highlights the involvement of most or all stakeholders via solicitation of their views and perspectives in the implementation process. One fundamental difference between these two frameworks is the level of stakeholder collaboration, including frontline employees in the agency (Russ, [38]).
Literature has long emphasized the benefits of managers' appropriate use of various communicative approaches to engage organizational members and minimize uncertainties and anxieties associated with the introduction of organizational change. Applying a participatory approach to deal with negative feedback and feelings is beneficial for engaging employees in the change, because open and fair evaluation of negative consequences of the change process prevents painting an overly positive picture that does not accurately match organizational members' reality (Lewis & Russ, [25]; Smeltzer, [40]). Participatory approaches, characterized by employee participation also gives employees a sense of control over the impact of the change on their daily jobs, minimizes employee resistance, and increases employee satisfaction (Hobman et al., [21]; Lewis & Russ, [25]).
While participatory approaches are important, a singular communicative approach does not suffice for navigating the complexity involved in bringing about a change in an organization. Thus, blending and tailoring different approaches are critical in meeting employees' diverse needs and addressing various types of uncertainties (Armenakis & Bedeian, [ 3 ]; Peus, Frey, Gerkhardt, Fischer, & Traut-mattausch, [34]; Smeltzer, [40]). For instance, middle managers are key in tackling job-related uncertainties for they are more likely to directly interact with frontline employees, while agency leaders are critical for alleviating anxieties arising from strategic aspects of the change effort (Hobman et al., [21]). Thus, a cascading approach is recommended; agency leadership should communicate strategic change information, and simultaneously, direct supervisors should engage employees by communicating job- or task-related change information (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, [ 2 ]).
The purpose of this study is to explore public child-welfare frontline workers' perceptions of communication strategies used to communicate change. Specifically, we ( 1 ) describe workers' perceptions about and reactions to strategies commonly used in their agency to communicate change efforts and ( 2 ) identify their preferences for future communication and engagement in organizational change efforts. As a starting point for exploring change communication approaches used in public child-welfare agencies, we apply Russ's conceptual framework to understand the communication approaches used in a public child-welfare agency and inform how managers communicate change to frontline child-welfare workers.
This study took place within a large (approximately 700 employees), county-based, public child-welfare agency in an urban county of one midwestern U.S. state. The study was conducted to inform planning for an agencywide initiative to improve children's access to behavioral health services by implementing new behavioral health screening, assessment, and referral procedures. Five focus groups were convened to elicit workers' perspectives on planning and communicating change within the workers agency. To inform planning for this future initiative, the research team asked workers in each focus group to reflect upon their experiences with previous change efforts. Similar to many public child-welfare agencies, the study agency had a history of change initiatives that covered a broad array of administrative and practice changes including structural changes to work units, implementation of new programs or practices (e.g., alternative response), and records systems transformations. Thus, the data and themes related to change communication generated in this study reflect retrospective accounts and opinions formed in response to these prior efforts at this agency.
Fifty case workers from the public child-welfare agency participated in one of five focus groups comprising 9 to 11 participants. Most participants were female (88%), held a bachelor's degree (63%); the individuals had worked at the agency for 10 years, on average. The research team developed the recruitment criteria and asked the agency leadership team to purposively recruit workers based on their knowledge, experience, and expertise in connecting children to behavioral health issues. Given their tenure with the child-welfare agency (average of 10 years), participating workers had experienced several prior change efforts in the agency to reflect upon during conversation. Nearly all (89%) workers recruited for the focus groups consented to participate after being informed of the study benefits and risks. Group composition was homogeneous in terms of worker function (three groups for intake workers and two groups with ongoing, referral, case review, and adoptions workers) to allow for exploration of similarities and differences in workers' perceptions.
Focus groups were conducted by external evaluators to minimize bias, obtain honest responses, and protect confidentiality. The research team comprised one facilitator (consistent across all groups), a co-facilitator, and at least one notetaker. Groups lasted 90 minutes and were conducted onsite in agency offices. Focus group discussions followed a semistructured interview guide, developed in collaboration with the agency partner and covering four broad topics. The fourth topic, and the focus of this paper, examined desired strategies for engaging workers in organizational change. Each group was asked, "As this project moves forward and plans are developed, what is the best way that the agency can engage you in the planning?" This question was followed by probes related to strategies used in past change efforts, workers' reactions to these strategies, and their preferences. All focus groups were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. To protect workers' privacy and the confidentiality of their responses, all names were removed from transcripts and identifying information was not linked with any quotes. Although recruitment was conducted by agency leadership, neither participant names nor individual comments were shared with the agency. In addition, the beginning of every focus group included a discussion about the ground rules for conversations. During this time, participants were asked to keep their colleagues' opinions and thoughts confidential. This work was approved and overseen by the Institutional Review Board at the authors' home institution.
Transcripts were managed and coded in Atlas.ti 6. A grounded theory approach was applied to analyze the data (Corbin & Strauss, [14]). First, four coders reviewed field notes and transcripts and developed an initial codebook. Then, two coders independently applied the codebook to one focus group transcript. Coding discrepancies were discussed and the initial codebook was modified. Afterwards, at least two coders analyzed each remaining transcript and another coder resolved disagreements, reaching an 80% to 90% level of intercoder agreement for each transcript. After the first round of open coding, a refined codebook on organizational-change communication was developed by two coders analyzing texts in response to the fourth question on how to best engage frontline child-welfare workers in the change process. The codebook was applied and then further refined through discussion and a third researcher resolved coding discrepancies. Researchers reached above 90% intercoder agreement for each transcript. Quotes presented in the findings were selected to illustrate major themes; some were edited to preserve participants' privacy and to enhance readability.
Analyses of focus group discussions present two overarching themes: applied and desired organizational-change communication strategies. Workers' observations reveal that participatory and programmatic communication activities are used within the child-welfare organization. Workers also shared desired change communication strategies that they believed would better engage them in the change process.
Applied Organizational Change Communication Strategies
Workers' discussions on communicative activities are consistent with Russ's ([37], [38]) definitions of programmatic and participatory approaches. They spoke about how each approach was used in the agency and their reactions toward each type of approach.
Programmatic Communicative Approaches
Use of Programmatic Communicative Approaches
Workers described how the agency administration disseminated information about new projects. Communication primarily occurred via presentations at all staff meetings and interpersonal communication networks, whereby information informally trickled downward in the organization.
Workers described how they learned of the new project through planned presentations using slideshows: "We have ... seen the slide show [on the new project], I don't know how many times in the past year." The agency leadership planned presentations that contained deliberately crafted messages about the purpose of the project and leadership team's vision and briefly presented the information to all staff. As a result, workers had a basic understanding of the planned changes.
At the time of the focus groups, the agency leadership team was engaging in more-detailed planning efforts that were not yet ready to be disseminated to staff. However, workers did receive specifics and details of the project via interpersonal networks, largely limited by the location of workers' units or by workers' responsibilities involving offsite tasks. As one worker discussed, "You just hear about it from cubicle to cubicle." Overreliance on informal communication networks could generate rumors and distorted reality regarding the change content and influence, which might potentially jeopardize the successful implementation of the innovation (Smeltzer, [40]). Unequal access to accurate change information is another risk resulting from sole dependence on interpersonal communication networks: "Where I am ... we've heard it to no end, and there's other people that have just now hearing about it. So that sort of shows you the communication problems [in our agency]". Workers whose cubicles were in closer physical proximity to administrators' offices tended to hear information about the change in a timely manner. Otherwise, offsite workers or those away from the administrative offices did not have access to the administrative source of change information. Thus, workers' knowledge of the project varied. Overall, workers' discussions suggest a more programmatic communicative approach, which highlights a top-down distribution of information and limited employee participation. Workers described the top-down and hierarchical nature of communication within the agency with very little direct contact with agency management and leadership. One worker shared, "You mean the people at the top who make the decisions? I don't know, I don't ever sit down with ... [agency leaders] or anybody other than like my supervisor or associate." Rather, child-welfare workers directly communicated with supervisors and their peers. The top-down approach assumed workers to be passive recipients of change information, and workers were granted limited opportunities to pose questions and provide feedback directly to the administration.
In addition, workers' discussions reveal how employees' participation in change planning and communication was quite limited, another characteristic of the programmatic approach. Workers perceived that the agency could have more actively engaged the real frontline experts, as illustrated by the following quote,
What happens very often [in the agency] is new things come out, and the [workers] that are involved with that aspect of the job are responsible for it. They're not asked or a part of any conversation as to how it's going to work. It's decided upon by whoever. Here, we're going to start doing this, and then you're looking and going, this isn't going to work this way, because no one even consulted with us.
Workers' Reactions Toward Programmatic Communication Approaches
Generally, workers showed unfavorable attitudes toward more administratively programmed communication activities. Worker discussions suggest that programmatic communication approaches resulted in the feeling of having little of control over the change process and an organizational culture that discourages workers' input.
Workers expressed this feeling of a lack of control over the change process. They felt powerless due to programmatic communication strategies emphasizing "telling and selling." Workers were considered "doers" and not involved in the initiation and conceptualization stages of the change. In a discussion about how to best engage frontline workers, one worker stated, "Well, I think of it's just communication, once the change has been made, that this is what it is." This worker perceived herself not playing any role in initiating or conceptualizing the change but only as a passive recipient of the change from the administration. Workers' discussions noted how they had little control over the decision-making process regarding what change to make and how to bring about change, which may lead to resistance to organizational change. Workers also shared major communication barriers with administrators—specifically, workers did not feel comfortable expressing their thoughts to the administration. In a discussion about setting up a meeting with the administration to talk about project-related ideas, one worker reported that "I don't think that a lot of people [workers] feel comfortable doing that."
Participatory Communicative Approaches
Use of Participatory Communicative Approaches
Workers noted the use of two commonly applied participatory communicative activities: surveys and focus groups. Generally, workers expressed a strong sense of resistance to using surveys to solicit their opinions, because of heavy workloads and time constraints: "People aren't going to look at [surveys]. They don't have time." Although workers seemed resistant toward agency surveys, workers acknowledged that agency administrators sometimes use the results to inform change planning and implementation. However, workers may not always be aware of how their input and response are used for change planning—several months or years may pass after workers are surveyed before detailed project plans are revealed. Workers might not recall being asked for input or began working for the agency after ideas were solicited. One worker described a time that the agency implemented a change based on workers' suggestion in a survey though a time lag existed: "Well, and I think that they [agency administrators] have tried to make things [happen], like from the survey, they have said this [the new program] is what's come from the survey. We did the survey 2 years ago."
Though more time consuming than surveys, focus groups were generally considered to be a more favorable means of engaging workers, because they conveyed the intention from the administration to include workers in change planning. Specifically, workers associated focus groups with a sense of ownership and empowerment in the agency.
Symbolic Versus Legitimate Use of Participatory Strategies
Workers also described situations in which agency administrators solicited worker input, but workers did not believe this information was used meaningfully, suggesting that workers can distinguish between legitimate and symbolic use of participatory approaches. These situations were characterized by no follow-up with employees, no acknowledgment of worker input, and no true integration of worker feedback into change planning after surveys were sent out or focus groups were conducted. Workers expressed dissatisfaction, noting that these types of approaches signified a lack of sincere interest in employees. Though focus groups were preferred by workers because they offer intimate space to encourage open sharing, the lack of follow-up on workers' suggestions generated negativity toward this approach and uncertainty in the change process, as these two workers discussed:
· Worker One: Because I know I've been in a couple focus groups, and I don't always see or hear of anything back from it. And that is like kind of, you know, I was up in the air about coming to this one. Like, hmm, I don't know.
· Worker Two: When you have somebody come out and sit on a focus group, it would be nice just to hear some follow-up about it. You know what I mean? And to know what we took away from the focus group, and this is our next step, so we kind of know.
Focus group discussions highlight workers' frustration that their voices were not genuinely heard, as well as workers' apathy toward the current initiative due to negative feelings, accumulated over time, associated with the change. The key feature of participatory approach is that employees have a voice in the change process, which is not reflected in what workers perceived to be the communicative approach used in the agency, " ... the ones who ask for our feedback about half the time ... it doesn't get considered." It takes more than solicitation of workers' feedback to truly gain workers' buy-in, which requires appreciating, considering and reciprocating workers' input. As one worker put it, "I think if we as workers felt like our voices were being heard and appreciated and we actually seen some things getting put in place that we are suggesting, then I think that that would help as a whole."
Over time, the symbolic use of focus groups would generate negative feelings among workers that accumulate and create feelings of apathy toward the current change; this can potentially jeopardize any ongoing or future change efforts. I feel like we do a lot of focus groups or come ... And then it's like nothing [afterwards]. Like [the new project], this new thing is probably going to roll out, be the same," said one worker.
Meanwhile, focus group discussions highlight workers' appreciation and anticipation of administrators' response to their inputs. Providing timely follow-up is particularly crucial in using participatory communicative approaches that emphasize the iterative process whereby employees' voices are heard and considered in the change process.
Desired Change Communication Approaches
Workers noted three communication tactics they believed would encourage worker engagement: ( 1 ) involve relevant workers, ( 2 ) engage in service- and outcome-driven communication, and ( 3 ) organize communication efforts.
Focus group discussions emphasize workers' desire to be involved and informed of the progress of the change effort. As expressed by one worker, "So I guess if the agency is going to move forward with this, we would like to be a part of the process." Consensus was reached in worker discussions that those whose daily work activities and job functions closely relate to the purpose of change efforts should be involved as much as possible. For example, given that the current change project is to facilitate behavioral health screening, assessing and referring processes for children in the child welfare system, referral workers were considered to be key workers to consult with, as illustrated by this exchange:
· Worker One: So I think involving the people [workers] that are going to be doing the referrals and the work, I think would be instrumental, having them part of the process.
· Worker Two: I think it's definitely that it's workers that are making the referrals, so I definitely think workers need to be a part of that ...
· Worker Three: They need to be involved.
· Worker One: Yeah, definitely, the how is it going to work? How is it going to flow? What needs do we as workers have?"
Service- and Outcome-Driven Communication
Workers constantly stressed the importance of communicating that the change will drive and impact service provision and delivery to motivate and engage workers in the change process. The transmission of service-driven messages is particularly critical in applying the programmatic approach, which requires clear and specific top-down flow of information from organizational leadership.
I think workers have to be sold on the fact that this is going to go somewhere, that it's really going to help them to get somewhere with families and with kids and drive, I mean, it's meant to drive service. It's meant to drive how the case is going to go. And I think if people are sold on the fact that this really is going to help things, it's going to be huge.
Equally important, workers appreciated knowing the link between the change and its effects on the well-being of children and families. Public workers are mission driven and motivated by the impact and outcomes their job has on the families and communities at large (Wright, Christensen, & Isett, [44]). Focus group discussions emphasize two types of information about the outcome workers desired: success stories or statistical proof, with respect to how change efforts have influenced children and families.
Preference for Well-Organized Communication
Generally, workers preferred well-organized communication in small group discussions or through supervisors for feedback solicitation. Workers preferred small group discussions such as focus groups or within-unit meetings, which create a more intimate and egalitarian atmosphere for voicing their opinions and concerns.
Settings like this [focus group] would be beneficial and then have a representative, you know, report to, after they collected the information ... and go to one of their, I don't know, [management] meetings that they have.
Furthermore, workers considered supervisors to be crucial for relaying their inputs to organizational leadership. Workers felt comfortable having supervisors represent them in front of the upper management rather than voicing their own opinions in a large-group setting.
This study explored frontline workers' perceptions, reactions toward, and preferences for change-communication strategies within child-welfare contexts. In this study, workers described how planned changes in this agency setting are primarily communicated using a top-down programmatic approach through which administrators told and sold their vision and plans for change to frontline workers. However, over-reliance on programmatic approaches may limit workers' awareness of and buy-in for planned change efforts. Instead, workers expressed a preference for participatory approaches that engage the frontline in change planning and implementation. Genuine participatory approaches could enhance workers' ownership of and gain worker buy-in with regard to the change process. Findings also highlight the bridging role of supervisors to mediate communication and information sharing between frontline workers and agency leaders within a large, complex organizational structure.
Commonly Used Programmatic Approach and Its Limitations
Programmatic activities were more frequently applied in this organization than participatory approaches, which are consistent with related literature (Russ, [37]). According to workers' perceptions, the organization applied a programmatic approach that predominantly relied on the complex and hierarchical organizational structure in the child-welfare agency to communicate change information. Sole reliance upon presentations at staff meetings and interpersonal communication networks appeared to result in variations in workers' access to information and knowledge of the change, which is particularly problematic in engaging workers who oftentimes work offsite and are not closely interacting with the upper management (McCrae et al., [28]). Hence, top-down programmatic approaches alone in a large and complex organizational structure can limit achieving high-quality communication and generate negative consequences such as employees' low sense of control over the change and an organizational culture discouraging workers to share thoughts with the administration. Therefore, using multiple strategies is necessary to facilitate the spread and reach of change information among workers within the organizational hierarchy. Finally, findings suggest that the programmatic approach communicated the general purpose of the change effort but did not explicate the job-related repercussions on frontline workers' daily work, which is more likely to be actualized through participatory approaches.
Preference for Genuine Participatory Approaches
Findings suggest that workers preferred participatory approaches that engaged workers in planning and communicating the change. However, workers could detect the superficial use of participatory approaches. For instance, although the agency solicited worker input via surveys and focus groups, workers did not perceive that their input was actually used because there was little follow-up or response from the management; when the management did follow up, it was often too late, as workers may no longer remember providing their input. Being able to observe how one's input is used is important for worker engagement—for example when management implements workers' suggestions (when appropriate) of conveys to workers that their opinions are valued and respected; such practices can build consensus and buy-in. Therefore, greater effort by administrators and leaders is necessary to truly engage frontline workers in the change process.
However, genuine use of participatory approaches is challenging in a hierarchical setting (Martin, Jones, & Callan, [27]; Nelissen & Van Selm, [32]). Participatory communication is important for generating positive and supportive organizational social context (Hemmelgarn, Glisson, & James, [20]). Positive culture and climate is important for implementing change and, ultimately, effective service delivery (Glisson & Green, [18]; Glisson & Schoenwald, [19]). But workers' input and suggestion may not always be feasible or actionable. For example, in other conversations about improving children's access to behavioral health services, workers consistently advocated for improving the agency's response to parents and caregivers with mental health service needs. However, this input will not be integrated into the project plans because it falls outside of the project scope and funding. Therefore, more effort is required on the part of administrators and leaders to bridge the barriers in truly engaging frontline workers in the change process and at the same time discern the feasibility and applicability of workers input and suggestion.
One key to bridging communication barriers is maximizing the role of supervisors in linking the frontline with the leadership in a complex organization like a child-welfare agency. Findings highlight the role of supervisors as the preferred sources of implementation-related and job-relevant information, which is consistent with previous studies (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, [ 2 ]; Birken, Lee, & Weiner, [ 8 ]; Fernandez & Rainey, [17]; McCrae et al., [28]). In the context of human service agencies, in which most frontline workers are trained professionals, the supervisor was considered the "architect of change" to best communicate the vision at the unit or group level (Austin & Hopkins, [ 6 ]). This study further reveals that workers prefer that supervisors communicate their feedback to the leadership team. Supervisors could play a crucial role in implementing a participatory approach to engage workers, which stresses the importance of interpersonal interaction between workers and supervisors.
Though not reflected in the workers' discussion, the agency relied upon the supervisor to communicate change information among pilot unit workers. In the on-going project, the pilot unit workers communicate any barriers and facilitators to their units and then the unit supervisors bring workers' concerns to the attention of the upper management at bi-monthly (twice per month) project meetings or through other means. It is worthwhile to explore workers', supervisors', and administrators' perceptions of this communication approach in future work.
Practice and Research Implications
Our findings have practice implications for leaders and administrators in child welfare and other similar organizations. Results highlight the limitations of using programmatic or participatory strategies alone, suggesting that leaders should use both approaches in strategic and deliberate ways when implementing change. Programmatic approaches maximize fair dissemination with high efficiency and demonstrate leadership support for the change effort, but this type of approach limits employee participation and might lead to disengagement from the organizational change. On the contrary, participatory approaches encourage employee participation and boost employee commitment, but they require substantial investment in terms of time, funds, and personnel (Russ, [38]). This type of approach, therefore, may result in low efficiency. When not employed legitimately, this approach would be disingenuous and generate distrust and disengagement. Therefore, it is crucial for leaders and managers to acknowledge the limitations and benefits of both approaches and balance the limitations while leading the change.Our findings also reveal that workers in this study relied on supervisors and middle managers for information and to relay their input to senior leaders and administrators. These findings support the role of worker-supervisor and supervisor-manager relationships in implementation and indicate that points for intervention could target the supervisory level as well as the supervisor-manager relationship, which is consistent with the broad literature on organizational development and change (Austin, [ 4 ]; Cohen & Austin, [12]; Doueck & Austin, [16]).Results also suggest several helpful tactics to engage workers, such as linking change efforts to services and outcomes especially when programmatic communicative approaches were used, soliciting input from frontline workers who are responsible for carrying out change efforts, following up with workers in a timely manner after soliciting their input. Managers and leaders in child-welfare agencies could benefit from applying these tactics to better communicate the change information and engage workers.Several implications are suggested for future research. First, future observational studies are needed to identify strategies and tactics commonly used in public child-welfare agencies. Second, exploration of why and how leaders use programmatic and participatory strategies would be helpful to understand potential factors that may impact the decision-making process, such as leadership style/skills, organizational culture/climate, or nature of the change (externally vs. internally driven). Third, in this study, we did not probe the assumption that open communication and inclusion facilitates organizational change. Future research could explicitly ask about this assumption among participations. Finally, it would be beneficial to test the effectiveness of communication approaches for different types of change efforts (e.g., administrative changes, EBPs implementation) and to examine which approach is more effective and under what circumstances certain approaches work best.The findings of this study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the study is focused on communication within one child-welfare agency, and findings may not be generalized to other agencies or service sectors. In particular, changes within child-welfare agencies are often mandated by new federal and state laws. Caution should be taken when generalizing our findings to other service sectors that are less impacted by the policy environment. Second, it is important to note that our study reflects on change efforts generally. Workers' preferences and reactions to these change efforts may vary depending upon specific features of a change effort. Third, our study only reports frontline workers' perceptions and preferences for change communication. Managers and leaders may have different perspectives and rationales for how change is communicated and for how worker input is used when planning change efforts. Fourth, the selection of participants is highly biased due to the involvement with agency leaders, which makes interpreting the workers' opinions more difficult. Furthermore, workers may not have felt comfortable sharing their opinions due to the presence of other colleagues in the focus group setting. Though the research team took measures to protect workers' privacy and keep their comments confidential, we could not guarantee that other focus group members preserved the confidentiality of the conversation. This might give rise to more conformity than divergence in workers' opinions. For instance, workers tended to agree with each other across five focus groups. Lastly, these focus groups were conducted during the beginning planning stages of the intervention, which is being introduced using a staged roll-out. Several units were selected to participate in the pilot units and workers in these units may have communicated more about the impending agency changes than those in the comparison units.
To ensure successful implementation of sustained change efforts, continuous involvement of frontline child-welfare workers is paramount. Genuine calls for frontline employee participation and truly valuing worker inputs will enhance worker buy-in and potentially bring about successful implementation. Programmatic approaches may achieve high efficiency in the short run, but organizations must implement long-term change to survive in an outcomes-driven environment. To achieve this goal, the use of participatory methods, in combination with programmatic approaches, is more desirable than overreliance on programmatic approaches.
The authors wish to thank their child-welfare agency partners and the case workers who shared their experiences and ideas. A version of this paper was presented at the 2015 meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research.
This work was supported by the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau (Grant #90CO1104). The findings and discussion do not represent the official view of Children's Bureau.
1 Aarons, G. A., & Palinkas, L. A. (2007). Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34(4), 411–419. doi:10.1007/s10488-007-0121-3
2 Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during organizational change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 187–210. doi:10.1080/14697010701563379
3 Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315. doi:10.1177/014920639902500303
4 Austin, M. J. (1989). Managing Up. Administration in Social Work, 12(4), 29–46. doi:10.1300/J147v12n04_03
5 Austin, M. J., & Claassen, J. (2008). Implementing evidence-based practice in human service organizations: Preliminary lessons from the frontlines. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5(1–2), 271–293. doi:10.1300/J394v05n01_10
6 Austin, M. J., & Hopkins, K. (2004). Supervision as collaboration in the human services: Building a learning culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7 Barth, R. P. (2005). Parent-training programs in child welfare services: Planning for a more-evidence-based approach to serving biological parents. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(5), 353–371. doi:10.1177/1049731505276321
8 Birken, S. A., Lee, S.-Y. D., & Weiner, B. J. (2012). Uncovering middle managers' role in healthcare innovation implementation. Implementation Science, 7(1), 28. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-28
9 Blome, W. W., Bennett, S., & Page, T. F. (2010). Organizational challenges to implementing attachment-based practices in public child welfare agencies: An example using the Circle of Security® Model. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 4(4), 427–449. doi:10.1080/15548732.2010.526904
Bolman, G. L., & Deal, E. T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Boyas, J. F., Wind, L. H., & Ruiz, E. (2013). Organizational tenure among child welfare workers, burnout, stress, and intent to leave: Does employment-based social capital make a difference? Children and Youth Services Review, 35(10), 1657–1669. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.008
Cohen, B. J., & Austin, M. J. (1994). Organizational learning and change in a public child welfare agency. Administration in Social Work, 18(1), 1–19. doi:10.1300/J147v18n01_01
Collins-Camargo, C. (2007). Administering research and demonstration projects aimed at promoting evidence-based practice in child welfare: Challenges and rewards. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 4(3–4), 21–38. doi:10.1300/J394v04n03_03
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Devine, C. M. (2010). Participation in organizational change processes in human services organizations: The experiences of one group of frontline social workers. Administration in Social Work, 34(2), 114–134. doi:10.1080/03643101003608679
Doueck, H. J., & Austin, M. J. (1986). Improving agency functioning through staff development. Administration in Social Work, 10(2), 27–37. doi:10.1300/J147v10n02_03
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-2
Glisson, C., & Green, P. (2011). Organizational climate, services, and outcomes in child welfare systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(8), 582–591. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.04.009
Glisson, C., & Schoenwald, S. K. (2005). The ARC organizational and community intervention strategy for implementing evidence-based children's mental health treatments. Mental Health Services Research, 7(4), 243–259. doi:10.1007/s11020-005-7456-1
Hemmelgarn, A. L., Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2006). Organizational culture and climate: Implications for services and interventions research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13(1), 73–89.
Hobman, E., Jones, E., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507–532.
Horwitz, S. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., & Mullican, C. (2010). Improving the mental health of children in child welfare through the implementation of evidence-based parenting interventions. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 37(1–2), 27–39. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0274-3
Kim, H., & Lee, S. Y. (2009). Supervisory communication, burnout, and turnover intention among social workers in health care settings. Social Work in Health Care, 48(4), 364–385. doi:10.1080/00981380802598499
Lee, C., & Austin, M. J. (2012). Building organizational supports for knowledge sharing in county human service organizations: A cross-case analysis of works-in-progress. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 9(1–2), 3–18. doi:10.1080/15433714.2012.635473
Lewis, L. K., & Russ, T. L. (2011). Soliciting and using input during organizational change initiatives: What are practitioners doing. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 267–294. doi:10.1177/0893318911431804
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 21. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, A. J., Jones, S. E., & Callan, J. V. (2006). Status differences in employee adjustment during organizational change. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(2), 145–162. doi:10.1108/02683940610650758
McCrae, J. S., Scannapieco, M., Leake, R., Potter, C. C., & Menefee, D. (2014). Who's on board? Child welfare worker reports of buy-in and readiness for organizational change. Children and Youth Services Review, 37, 28–35. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.12.001
Mildon, R., & Shlonsky, A. (2011). Bridge over troubled water: Using implementation science to facilitate effective services in child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(9), 753–756. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.07.001
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59–80. doi:10.1080/00909889409365387
Mor Barak, M. E., Levin, A., Nissly, J. A., & Lane, C. J. (2006). Why do they leave? Modeling child welfare workers' turnover intentions. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(5), 548–577. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.06.003
Nelissen, P., & Van Selm, M. (2008). Surviving organizational change: How management communication helps balance mixed feelings. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 306–318. doi:10.1108/13563280810893670
Packard, T. (2013). Organizational change: A conceptual framework to advance the evidence base. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(1), 75–90. doi:10.1080/10911359.2013.739534
Peus, C., Frey, D., Gerkhardt, M., Fischer, P., & Traut-mattausch, E. (2015). Leading and managing organizational change initiatives. Management Review, 20(2), 158–175.
Pipkin, S., Sterrett, E. M., Antle, B., & Christensen, D. N. (2013). Washington state's adoption of a child welfare practice model: An illustration of the getting to outcomes implementation framework. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(12), 1923–1932. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.017
Powell, B. J., Hausmann-Stabile, C., & McMillen, J. C. (2013). Mental health clinicians' experiences of implementing evidence-based treatments. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(5), 396–409. doi:10.1080/15433714.2012.664062
Russ, T. L. (2008). Communicating change: A review and critical analysis of programmatic and participatory implementation approaches. Journal of Change Management, 8(3–4), 199–211. doi:10.1080/14697010802594604
Russ, T. L. (2010). Programmatic and participatory: Two frameworks for classifying experiential change implementation methods. Simulation & Gaming, 41(5), 767–786. doi:10.1177/1046878109353570
Sandfort, J. R. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the frontlines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 729–756. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024289
Smeltzer, L. R. (1991). An analysis of strategies for announcing organization-wide change. Group & Organization Studies, 16(1), 5–24. doi:10.1177/105960119101600102
Smith, B. D., & Donovan, S. E. F. (2003). Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context. Social Service Review, 77(4), 542–563.
Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, H.R. 2883, Pub. L. 112–34, codified as amended at 112th Cong. (2011). Retrieved from ProQuest Congressional Database.
Wells, R. (2006). Managing child welfare agencies: What do we know about what works? Children and Youth Services Review, 28(10), 1181–1194. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.11.009
Wright, B. E., Christensen, R. K., & Isett, K. R. (2013). Motivated to adapt? The role of public service motivation as employees face organizational change. Public Administration Review, 73, 738–747. doi:10.1111/puar.2013.73.issue-5
~~~~~~~~
By Yiwen Cao; Alicia C. Bunger; Jill Hoffman and Hillary A. Robertson
Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author
Copyright of Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
