Damien Barry - "Unscrambling the Egg"
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•248 views
This document summarizes a change process at Monash University in Australia involving the separation of the Department of Accounting and Finance into two new departments. It describes: 1) The marriage of the combined department from 1997-2012, which grew significantly but also showed unequal growth across campuses. 2) Counselling for the department from 2007-2011 due to a push for separation, culminating in an external review recommending the change in 2012. 3) The divorce process, which was approved by university councils in 2013, beginning the change process of separating roles, staff, and structures into the new departments.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Damien Barry - "Unscrambling the Egg"
Similar to Damien Barry - "Unscrambling the Egg" (20)
More from Association of University Administrators
More from Association of University Administrators (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Damien Barry - "Unscrambling the Egg"
- 1. “Unscrambling the egg” – reflections on a (mainly) successful University change project. AUA Leeds 2016 Damian Barry Consultant and PhD candidate University of Melbourne
- 2. A change story that involves: • Department of Accounting and Finance, Monash University, Australia • marriage • counselling • divorce • property • custody • institutional homogenisation 2
- 3. Marriage • Married 1997 - marriage of “equals” • 2006: 120 academics; 33 professional staff; 5 campuses • Strong but unequal growth – students, revenue, academic staff • “Change junkie” - adopt and adapt culture • Strong leadership • Opportunistic approach • Largest and most profitable department 3
- 4. STRUCTURE 2013 6 September 2012 4 Head of Department Exec Asssistant x 2 Discipline Heads x 2 Academic staff Business Manager Finance Research Admin E Learning & Design Academic Development Marketing and Events Academic & Admin Support Admin staff HDR Co-ordinator B. Acc & leadership Programs Academic Quality Manager
- 5. The “scrambled egg” Ingredients: People Policy Process Structure Multi- campus & x-campus culture: A “one department” approach March 2016 5
- 6. A real scrambled egg…. 6
- 7. Counselling 2007-2011: Push for separation 2012 : External review recommended a separation …the “marriage” is over 6 September 2012 7
- 8. The professional staff view…..initially 6 September 2012 8
- 9. Critical timeline • November 2012: Dean accepts Review Committee decision • Separation approval timeline: 1. Faculty Executive: March 2013 2. Faculty Board: April 3. Academic Board: May 4. University Council: June 2013 March 2016 9
- 10. Preparing for the change …. Governance, policy and process: Steering committee and dedicated project officer Project plan – deconstruct the department: ”rats” and “mice” Communication plan including dedicated web, email and FAQ Change workshops for leaders and professional staff Agreement on language Strong message: “No job losses – but role change” June 2014 10
- 11. For professional staff March 2016 11
- 12. DIVORCE June 2013: Council approves….the change really begins… • Phase 1 – Management proposal • Phase 2 - Implementation March 2016 12
- 14. CUSTODY: What about the staff? March 2016 14
- 15. Custody principles • Keep academic staff within relevant discipline groups • Provide world-best support • BUT….. “Living under the one roof” Sept 2014 15
- 16. Custody and adoption – unscrambling the egg Principles • Staff will be treated fairly and equitably • Staff allocated to roles in the new structure • Agreed process to fill new positions • High HEW (salary level) “shared staff” adopted out • Business Manager role (me) – no new home but a transition role March 2016 16
- 17. The new structure - the unscrambled egg 17 Department of Accounting Head of Department Academic Staff Business Manager Senior Executive Officer Programme Manager Senior Administrator (Education) Senior Administrator (Research) Administration Officer Administative Assistant Faculty Shared Staff Executive Assistant
- 18. Post separation – first 9 months • staff adjusted to new paradigm and new roles • staff reverted to positioning themselves • it was still all new.. it will take time and patience • Faculty / university changes create a continuum of change.. unsettling • co-location created issues • staff tensions emerged • institutional homogenisation setting in! Loss of uniqueness March 2016 18
- 19. Success keys 6 September 2012 19
- 20. Recipe for success: Govern & Manage Well 6 September 2012 20 Select change model Define leadership roles Know where resources reside Allocate resources adequately Recognise complexity Keep track Be consistent Model buy-in Source:VCrew2016
- 21. Governance of change • Is not the same as change management • Need clarity as to who is making the decisions and who is implementing • Decision making processes in place • Engage stakeholders in decision making • Clear “rules of the game” March 2016 21
- 22. Successful ?.......why? • A plan and agreed approach – governance and management model in place • Business as usual during the waiting period • Staff allowed to express a preference • Keep the “big” picture in mind • Collegiality, collaboration and cross training • Opportunity for staff to provide feedback Sept 2014 22
- 24. LEADER ...SHIP • Maintain professionalism and task – business as usual • Take the opportunity to influence the outcome • Being the leader And the change champion • Collaborating, negotiating • Keeping staff on point and generating enthusiasm • Accept the down side – rise above • “Rejection” March 2016 24
- 25. Change as transition.. .change is normal Source: William Bridges – “Transition Model” 25
- 26. Questions 26
- 27. Thank You 6 September 2012 27
Editor's Notes
- This presentation is about change –a largely successful change process given the context of the change and the governance and environmental challenges in play at the time.
- This is a story 14 years in the making and it has many ingredients: It started with a happy marriage and seems to be the norm with a not so happy separation…. at least initially Institutional homogenisation – an issue which is confronting HE and other industries. It could be seen as the loss of identity and diversity
- First there was a marriage: At the beginning there was love and marriage. Living happily thereafter… not A mixed marriage; Disciplines: Financial accounting; Management accounting; Accounting information systems; Finance and Banking 98 academics, 150+ sessionals, 4800 EFTSL; 22.9 FTE professional plus casuals Largest department As at 1 Jan 2013 – the year of change. Largest department in Monash and of its discipline in Australia. Bigger than a number of faculties. 2001-2007: 3 reviews; administrative restructure (2005); development of centralised shared service model 2008 -2012: HUB model for HR, IT and Finance “staff driven” restructures - opportunistic Lean Thinking 2012:
- The department org structure set up was a mix of service HUB plus discrete expert support, led by a senior professional staff manager (me) PEOPLE: 21.9 22- 74 AGE RANGE HEW LEVELS –FULL RANGE (BECAME A PROBLEM) PROCESS: MULTI CAMPUS DEPARTMENT/ COMMON POLICIES AND PROCESSES We had developed a “one department” approach to policy, process and service quality
- One version of the scrambled egg
- The regular 5 year review was limited to academic considerations – not operational. It was touted as an academic decision driven by a range of factors that coincided: The faculty and university issues relate to setting up a new Business School and a professional staff strengthening project Rationale as expressed in the 2012 Review Report. Also, HOD finishing and no one wanted to run the big department. The review team determined that: “…each of the disciplines - …big enough to control their own destinies; there were no difficulties in them standing alone financially (providing any separation remained largely cost neutral); the research and training needs of each discipline were different; and …it is now the norm that these disciplines are separate; rarely are they seen in one department. “
- We were not happy… not all of us. Some resigned to view that our view not relevant. Professional staff unanimously opposed splitting the disciplines based on a range of factors including: loss of access to infrastructure and resources Specialist and technical support roles compromised Career limiting for professional staff. Review Panel commented: “We were proud of the department’s reputation for excellence and leadership within the Faculty, and considered it to be ‘the best department in the Faculty” – if not the University! concern that the department’s significant infrastructure investment was only sustainable if the department maintains its current size; the effectiveness of specialist professional roles, such as of e-Learning and Educational Design, Research and IT technical support would be significantly compromised; a potential reduction of resources available to ALL staff in both disciplines; the overwhelming belief that a split would result in negative consequences for the career prospects of professional staff.
- This became part of the problem in keeping staff engaged. To separate the department the Faculty needed to follow University regulations to have a business case developed and approved as indicated on the slide. At best an 8 month process from day of Dean’s decision The initial document was the Business case in which I and the department exec steering committee worked with the faculty to develop. Whilst the business case wound its way through the governance approvals I was working with the steering committee and the Fac Mgr to develop options for providing the professional staff support to the two new departments.
- From the beginning it was determined that the change would be a good model. The steering committee was the department executive leadership team plus a senior staff member who had significant industry restructuring experience; Got a project officer working with Faculty planned a range of activities and comms to build change momentum and provide staff with feedback opportunities. Comms channels: intranet, emails, meetings, FAQ. The promise to professional staff was no jobs lost.
- The environment was full of change –shared service projects; new Business School; external political and economic issues etc Change was going on around everyone in preparation for the real changes. Some had moved on. During the period of approvals for the business case what become apparent was that separation was not going to be physical and that the academic and professional staff were in very different positions emotionally and job wise. Issues arose and were dealt with quickly. Staff were involved and aware of these operational changes and the need for them to be decided in order to be implemented in 2014. But for professional staff the wait for where they would fit in the new departments continued while change whirled around them. Changes implemented in anticipation of agreed change –coding/new web sites/intranet/ reviewing PD and restating role descriptions.
- Phase 1: Presentation of management’s proposal and the staff consultation period: Prepare the change management plan: “Consultation Paper” Staff meeting to discuss consultation paper; then Consultation paper provided to staff and the NTEU Feedback received and considered Dean presentation to staff on final structure and implementation process Phase 2: Implementation Phase Dean makes decisions on direct transfers of individual staff The Consultation paper reviewed the rational for change; the proposed changes; the consultation process –staff/NTEU; staff support; proposed transition strategy (principles and process set out here); implementation timetable. Consultation Advise individual staff of outcomes of direct transfer process. Expression of Interest process for any vacant positions Evaluate EoIs for vacant positions and hold interviews Advise relevant staff of outcomes of interview process In the implementation phase management will make its decision as to allocating staff. Management can transfer any staff member to a new role at the same HEW level if they are a satisfied that the staff member has the skills (Or can acquire the skills with training) to carry out the tasks. Position Descriptions will be prepared as part of this phase in conjunction with HR. Any FTE issue can also be discussed as part of this phase COMMUNICATE robust processes, remove the negatives, enhance the positives, the realities, the politics and the bigger picture negotiate and compromise; consistent leadership (and leaders?) ….and
- We all had entered the Kubler- Ross curve indicates the up and downs of the change journey. We were no different. I was no different! But after a few months I had become a strong advocate for the change. All the issues that I had thought were limiting to prof staff progression became the reason to support the change. Prof staff would get a career path within the departments.
- Once the divorce was approved then the separation of the department for the academic staff (mum and Dad) was a straight forward separation of already separate disciplines. However, the professional staff were attached to the married department; shared the surnames of the married couple ( the discipline group) and operated as a family supporting the parents and siblings. Separation for the professional staff was like a divorce with the custody arrangements Up for grabs BUT with the other siblings having already found a new home with one of the parents. Of course the academic staff saw their relationship somewhat differently!
- Rules of divorce as per the slide Still live under the one roof –no relocation
- New positions were anticipated to be created through re‐organisation of structures or changes to services provided. E.g department manager. In allocating prof staff a number of agreed principles were in place: ** decision made that high HEW staff would not separate but become a shared services Staff option to express preference for department No job losses
- This is the new structure of one department – the other department structure was substantially similar But 7 staff became part of a shared services unit dedicated to supporting both departments, line managed at Faculty and based in the departments.
- Loss of uniqueness was a big deal for the staff… but many only realised this once they lost it!
- My title says this was a successful change and it was …. Sort of! Success required a strong platform from the start. i.E good governance, management and leadership in place. And resources. In retrospect we looked at change management as an all encompassing term for what we did was a combination of structure (governance) and process (change management) and senior staff taking the leadership responsibility on board
- We started out with a plan and a discussion and made sure we addressed as many of the issues at the beginning. Having a change expert (an academic who was a senior manager) was opportunistic. Key stakeholders represented.
- 21
- Refresh: Key elements that gave us the best chance of a successful transition
- Our processes and messages remained clear – even if unacceptable. The time frames for decision making were outside our control and we needed to consistently re-assure staff – especially the professional staff. Allow them to venrt
- Leaders and Leadership were a key part in keeping staff engaged and the process on track – both academic, professional at department and faculty We had a leadership team that drove the change and continued to keep a BAU approach and remain positive. There were different leadership elements: As indicated earlier my personal leadership challenge was to turn around my view of change and I ended up being the champion of it as the majority of staff would end up in a more valuable role career wise. This was despite the imminent loss of my role – I did not see a place for myself in either of the new departments and was not prepared to step down multiple levels. The attitude of the Dean to this was most disappointing and displayed a complete ignorance of professional staffing structures in the university It became apparent that at best we could influence the outcome but could not get the best structural outcome due to many external issues and a risk averse culture of senior management.
- Much has been written about the process of change and this is another slide depicting the process staff go through in transition. Staff move independently and at different speeds through the process. Within higher ed change is the norm and we adapt and move on- i.e. we have operationalised change and it is now has less strategic importance. However, the norms of change are not broadly accepted as the impact of changes as the norm is still uneven across the sector. People are people and still have primitive views of change – perhaps this is a HE issue.
- Questions?