ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

CASE ANALYSIS: THE CARDIOLOGIST’S TALE- AN INSIDE ACCOUNT OF CHANGE LEADERSHIP

This case records the experience of a consultant cardiologist who, as head of service, led a series
of improvements to the Norwood Hospital cardiology department in 2011/2012. The Cardiac Services
Redesign Project produced benefits for patients, staff and the hospital as a whole, and the cardiologist
won a national award. The problem that the head of service wanted to solve was the inefficient service
and that their system was organized around the doctors, not around the patient.

QUESTIONS:

1. What change leadership behaviors and attributes were important to this doctor in this change
leadership role?

The doctor exhibits basically all of the roles of a change agent according to Ulrich. He acts as a
catalyst and champion of change as he requires staff including the doctors to participate in
discussions/meetings about the inefficiencies that the hospital is facing. He also acts as a facilitator
among the doctors, nurses and other staffs as he connects the gap between the tasks of the doctors and
the other staffs because some doctors forget their vocation which is about their patients and not for
financial gain or any other reasons. A reason why many activities and appointments are cancelled. He
acts as designer as he redesigns the existing scheme to make up for the hospital’s system inefficiencies
and lastly, he acts as demonstrator as he himself makes extra effort to perform the changes as a doctor
and also as a change leader. He was able to know staff’s hidden ability that helps the hospital be better.
In this way, other staffs were given an opportunity to contribute more than what they contributed
before.

2. What political tactics did he use?

When the doctor took the role as a change leader, he had colleagues who were less willing to
change. In this case, he was be able to persuade his colleagues to support his service. He showed that
being able to do things, even if it is just a small one outside your agenda is a big help for the hospital. He
said that staffs including doctors can do small things such as engaging in the front door because they are
all part of the organization. They should help one another if the need for help arises even if it is not your
job to do so. He showed that contributors can contribute big or small things even if it is not your job to
perform.

3. What are the challenges for change agents raised by this case?

The challenge was the discipline of the staffs. There were department/staffs that are not
performing well because of many excuses such as they don’t have knowledge of this and that and that
they don’t have time. At first, he didn’t challenge or change them. He just published the data so
everybody could see it so that they personally realized that they are the one who were not performing
well. He sets up meeting for it to be discussed. He sets the system six weeks in advance so that there is a
plenty of time for the staff to prepare and for excuses not to be included in the agenda. In this way,
everybody should have heads up about their job so that they could start performing well and it is also a
way of coordination among departments/staffs.

4. What are the training and development, and other HR implications, raised by this case?

In this case, the organization should have training and development about time management
and coordination among its members. The case also displays lack of communication and lack of good
work environment among its people because some thinks that they are a higher member than the
others, a reason why they think they should not do little things which basically is a big help to the whole
organization. It is a good thing that the change agent was able to connect or bridge the gap among
them. He was able to emphasize that doing little things even if it is not your job could help the
organization in a whole.