Implementing Change Within The Workplace

Implementing change in the workplace is a dynamic process. Although change itself can be controlled and limited to some degree, innovation is substantially even more dynamic. This dynamic, unpredictable process introduces vulnerability, which can lead to employee frustration. Just as the scenario addresses, many individuals become motivated at the thought of change and innovation; however, the change does not occur due to resistance or other obstacles. Much of this resistance arises from the unpredictability and vulnerability of the process. Managers must be able to prevent or manage resistance by using tools and strategies to smooth the process.
Prevention of resistance is most effective when implementing change. Preventing the weight of inertia in a workplace allows the change to happen in a timely manner with minimal problems. As Lee (2004) emphasizes, leaders have the ability to effect change and performance. If someone is accountable for outcomes and poor habits, outcomes will improve. The manager must show a caring attitude over the process of change and welcome any positive innovation. This caring attitude will become contagious to the employees working under him and become a priority to them as well. Approaching the change in an accepting, open-minded manner can decrease the vulnerability and frustration associated with change. How the change is presented can make the biggest difference in the outcome of the change. The manager must show that blaming will be avoided at all costs. One will only ask why, not who, to avoid the feeling of belittlement. This can allow employees to become comfortable with voicing their opinions and mistakes, which can allow an even greater range of improvement. The manager must also encourage...

... middle of paper ...

...d procedures are now being monitored to improve clinical processes. Ensuring that these processes are implemented in a timely, effective manner can also improve the quality of care given to patients. Management of the processes ensures accountability of the effectiveness of care, which, as mentioned earlier, improves outcomes. Lastly, providing reimbursements based on the quality of care and not the quantity also decreases the “wasting” and overuse of supplies. Providers previously felt the need to do more than necessary to meet a certain quota based on a quantity of supplies or other interventions used. Changing this goal can significantly decrease the cost of care due to using on the supplies necessary to provide effective, high-quality care. I look forward to this implementation of change and hope to see others encouraging an increase in high-quality healthcare.