- Published: December 31, 2021
- Updated: December 31, 2021
- Level: Undergraduate
- Language: English
- Downloads: 21
Assessing Organizational Readiness for Change Because Med-Qpment has found cost advantages to moving their current facility to a new county, assessing the change requires examining the potential impact on employee attitudes and ongoing commitment to reaching organizational goals. In this type of scenario, assuming the counties are quite distanced from the current headquarters, this will require relocation in order to keep its trusted and valued employees retained. Family issues often count for 80 percent of failed relocations (Lachnit & Solomon, 2002). Therefore, it is important first to conceptualize the potential damage that vital relocation strategies will have on employee attitude or budget.
The first step is to assign at least one designated change agent responsible for overseeing the change effort. “ It is very important for the leader of change to seek the active support of the workforce population” (Edosomwan, 2009, p. 13). In a meeting with senior managers and important middle managers, this change agent should be elected to take on the responsibility of communicating the importance of the relocation effort with employees and coordinate the necessary human resources activities necessary to keep motivation high and commitment top-notch. People are often resistant to change, especially in a situation where Med-Qpment would be uprooting most of its staff and forcing them, and their families, to move into a different part of the state. Issues of job security will be considered, along with their basic physiological concerns, such as the costs of selling their homes or purchasing new homes to meet the change goal.
After electing the change agent, they should be exposed to the realistic budget for this change effort and produce a qualitative questionnaire for distribution to the employees that can address individual concerns about the change. This questionnaire should highlight issues such as telecommuting possibilities (to avoid relocation) as well as any counseling services that might be required on behalf of human resources. Two experts in this kind of change offers that failed relocations can cost approximately $115, 000 for each employee (Lachnit & Solomon), something Med-Qpment cannot afford currently. As the practicing change agent, these questionnaires can be distributed in a group meeting format where discussion about the probable relocation can occur face-to-face. “ In times of change, interpersonal interaction with peers and superiors is highly valued, making such relationships a salient feature in shaping readiness” (Bouckenooghe, Devos & Van den Broeck, 2009, p. 559). The change agent must reinforce that they are assigned as the employee representative and will ensure that all employee concerns are addressed. At this point, future meetings should be scheduled in group format to show the company’s dedication to isolating each individual worry.
Employee readiness for this relocation change begins with assessing the returned questionnaires and then speaking with different information technology experts and managers to find out which job roles might benefit from telecommuting without disrupting the business. With the change agent now diagnosing potential solutions to avoid uprooting the entire staff, it shows employees that alternative solutions are on the minds of leadership and they will come to value their relationship with the change agent. Planning for the change is looking for innovations in how service is provided so the company can limit the costs of per-employee relocation.
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G. & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). “ Organizational Change Questionnaire – Climate of Change, Processes, and Readiness: Development of a New Instrument”, The Journal of Psychology, Provincetown. 143(6), pp. 559-600.
Edosomwan, Johnson A. (2009). “ Leading Transformation”, Leadership Excellence, Provo. 26(9), p. 13.
Lachnit, C. & Solomon, C. (2002). “ Relocation changes to fit changing times”, Workforce, Costa Mesa. 81(5), pp. 34-40.