Managing change in an organization consists of many factors from the onset of the intervention to the successful completion.

The person in the change manager role must not only decide what approach he or she will take to make an intervention possible but how he or she will implement the plan into action. The change manager will need to focus on the organization as a whole, on present employee work ethics and beliefs, and on current goals of the organization. This focus should include, but not be limited to, researching the companys work ethics, the diversity and beliefs of the employees and any motivating factors for the employees. The core philosophy shown consistently in organization development includes these statements, Change is intentional, change is positive and purposive, change is data driven, change is values centered, change is action oriented, change is based in experience, grounded in theory and focused on learning (Gallos, 2007, p. 130). As stated above, change is intentional. For an intervention strategy to be successful, a change manager must first decide a change is needed and why. This change can evolve from observing an organizations goals and the behavior of the employees. Questions will arise such as the following: 1) Are the companys goals met in a professional and efficient manner? 2) Are employees performing to the best of their abilities? 3) Do employees have the necessary materials to accomplish their roles in a timely manner? 4) How are employees interacting with each other? After the change manager reflects on these questions, he or she can begin to create a vision for the company. However before a vision is presented and accepted by employees, a change manager must present the urgency of change and the need to work as a team (Gallos, 2007, p. 243). A current change that is being required in my present work environment is a policy change regarding employees time schedule. This change mandated by the state, calls for the

immediate move from pen and paper scheduling to a centralized, paperless, online posting of hours worked and time off. To accommodate this change, an intervention strategy will be developed to minimize employee frustration and confusion. Employees may feel frustrated and confused due to their lack of understanding of what the policy will entail, lack of involvement in the change, computer skill deficits and how they as employees will benefit from this change in policy. In reviewing the employees strengths of past changes that involved the computer, I have found that all employees have a basic understanding on how to operate a computer, This in turn, will aid them as they implement the new timekeeping policy. However, buy in regarding the new online policy may be a challenge. Employees need to be valued and respected while they are involved in change. In reviewing which intervention strategy would work the best for our department, I researched three different approaches to determine which one would be most effective. The strategies that were researched included whether to incorporate a written instruction manual on how to enter time online, to mandate numerous workshops to be held at various agencies within our satellite campuses or to train one director from each campus site to become that agencys timekeeping expert. After reviewing the different approaches, I determined the best intervention strategy to incorporate this change would be to have a director trained at each site. The advantage of having an onsite trainer consists of having one director at each agency knowledgeable of the online timekeeping system. Another advantage would be that the director is knowledgeable of each employees unique scheduling needs and this would eliminate high volume trouble shooting calls to my office concerning timekeeping questions and concerns.

By having a knowledgeable person at each site to troubleshoot, I would be free to work on other projects and tasks assigned to me. While delegating this task to a director is a positive, there are disadvantages to this strategy. One disadvantage would be if the appointed director for the agency were absent or on an extended leave of absence, another person within that agency would have to be educated on the new policy to ensure that procedures are followed and that employees time is posted correctly. If another person is not trained on the new policy within a timely manner, I would be designated to complete the agancys time schedule, thus causing an interruption to my job at the main Human resource office. Another disadvantage when delegating timekeeping is that I would have to reassess and evaluate periodically the trainers effectiveness in implementaing and maintaining this change. To utilize this intervention strategy of training directors from each of the four agencies, I would implement these steps: 1) review and study the timekeeping policy and its implementation date, 2) decide what additional training is needed to ensure that the directors are successful in implementing the change and 3) plan how I would make these changes doable for the directors and myself in the workplace. To train the directors I would seek answers to the following questions: 1) Do the directors have enough time to learn this policy before the effective date? 2) How often should retraining or continuing education occur to maintain this policy? and 3) Are instructions and resources sufficient and available to meet the directors needs? After contemplating the above steps and questions, I would begin creating the intervention strategy. From this time forward, I would assume a facilitative coaching role that allows directors to interchange and dialogue freely. I would encourage ideas and honest feedback during the

training sessions. In these training sessions, I would express how these changes will affect the agency directors and employees and what each group should expect and should gain from the policy updates. In addition, hands on training is critical because this approach allows realistic problems to be solved with assistance and support readily available. Hands on strategies allow time for any setbacks that may occur to be addressed and then resolved prior to beginning the new policy, I believe this one-on-one coaching role will develop a mutual respect between directors and myself; thus helping to achieve the success of the intervention strategy. I trust directors will embrace the new timekeeping policy change when they perceive they are instrumental in playing a role in the needs of change. From my own experiences and the assigned readings, I have found working in small groups can be more comfortable for learning and understanding; people do not feel threatened or fear they will be left behind, as they would possibly feel in larger groups. Small groups allow employees to ask questions or voice concerns so they can readily accept the policy change. The strengths of this intervention strategy are: 1) delegating timekeeping responsibilities to each agency director, 2) hands on teaching sessions 3) small group atmosphere and 4) allowing employees to voice their opinions and concerns in a supportive atmosphere. The essential needs of my chosen intervention strategy include: 1) scheduling mutual times for training sessions at the main office with me and 2) having the directors themselves value the new policy as being positive. In conclusion, changes are vital in an organization because there will always be a need for improvement. Every individual is capable of change; however, he or she must have the desire and much needed support and encouragement along with positive feedback. While there were

several intervention strategies explored, I felt being in a small group and training individual directors to take responsibility for the new timekeeping policy was the best route to take. Most strategies include trial and error and learning from mistakes and I am sure I will learn from this mode of teaching. As I employ change in my workplace, I will readily use what I have learned from my readings and past work experiences until I am comfortable in the role of change manager.

References Gallos, J.V. (2007), Organizational Development: Core concepts and theories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.