EDP 810 Module 8 Leading Change Across the Frames Example

A Second Launch: A Four-Frame Change Plan for a Youth Agency

Student Name

Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University

EDP 810: The Psychology of Leadership

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

A Second Launch: A Four-Frame Change Plan for a Youth Agency

When the invented agency first rolled out its case record system, the news came by memo; the system was chosen without the casework supervisors and enforced with compliance reports. Eight months later, most caseworkers still wrote on paper. Earlier modules analyzed the problem through each frame, assessed the executive director's own frames and examined how stress shaped her decisions. This final paper writes the relaunch plan. As before, the agency and everyone in it are invented.

Readiness for Change

Armenakis and Harris (2009) looked back over decades of their own studies and consulting and argued that people back a change when they hold five beliefs, each of which a leader can strengthen or weaken. They need to see a gap between where the organization is and where it should be. They need to judge that the proposed fix suits that gap. They need confidence that they and their colleagues can make it work. They need to see that the people at the top mean it. And they need to expect something good from it for themselves. The authors labeled these discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support and valence, and urged leaders to design both their messages and their actions around all five.

Measured against these beliefs, the first launch failed on most. Caseworkers accepted that funders needed better data, so discrepancy was partly present, but they did not believe the chosen system was appropriate, doubted their ability to use it in the field, saw principal support as support for funders rather than for them and expected only costs to themselves.

How Recipients React

Oreg et al. (2011) reviewed sixty years of quantitative studies on how recipients react to organizational change. Reactions had cognitive, emotional and behavioral parts. They were shaped by recipients' own characteristics, such as their tolerance for change; by the internal context, especially trust in management and support from supervisors; by the change process, especially participation and the quality of communication; and by how recipients expected the change to affect them. Participation and trust were among the most consistent predictors of positive reactions. The first launch offered neither: caseworkers were not involved, and trust was damaged by the compliance reports.

The Plan

Sequence

The plan runs over six months. In months one and two, the redesign team revises the forms, giving caseworkers participation, which Oreg et al. (2011) found among the strongest predictors of positive reactions, and giving Joan a role that addresses her interests. Tablets and protected time arrive in month two, so that efficacy rises before the new forms go live. In month three, the compliance report is retired and the redesigned system relaunched at an all-staff gathering built around caseworkers' stories. Peer coaching continues through month four. Quarterly supervisor meetings continue beyond the plan. The symbolic relaunch comes only after real change, so that it marks something caseworkers can see.

How the Frames Reinforce Each Other

Each frame's actions support the others. The redesign team is a political move that also produces a structural fix and a symbolic message that caseworkers' judgment counts. Tablets and coaching build efficacy, which makes the relaunch credible. The relaunch gives meaning to changes people have already experienced. Bolman and Deal (2021) argue that change efforts fail when leaders attend to one or two frames and neglect the rest; this plan assigns actions to all four.

Evaluation

Success will be judged at months three and six. The main outcome is how quickly notes reach the system after a visit, measured against the pre-relaunch baseline. Caseworkers will complete a short readiness survey based on Armenakis and Harris's five beliefs at the start, at month three and at month six, showing which beliefs have changed and which need more attention. Team reviews will collect caseworkers' views on whether the system helps them serve youth. If the readiness survey shows low efficacy in one team, coaching there will be extended.

Listening to Resistance

The plan treats resistance as information. Oreg et al. (2011) found that reactions to change depend on how recipients expect it to affect them, so persistent resistance in a team signals that the change still looks harmful from where they stand. Each team's monthly review will include a question about what is still not working. If Joan's team, once the most resistant, raises a problem, Daniela will treat it as a test of whether the redesign is genuine and respond within a month.

If Readiness Stays Low

If the month-three survey shows that a team's efficacy remains low, the team's data lead will arrange extra coaching and the deputy will check whether tablets are working in the field. If principal support remains low, Daniela will attend that team's review in person and ask what would show them her commitment. If valence remains low across teams, the plan will be paused while the redesign team examines whether the system still costs caseworkers more than it gives them.

Lessons From the Course

The plan draws on what each earlier analysis showed. The structural analysis identified the mismatch between a professional bureaucracy and coercive rules; the redesign addresses it. The human resource analysis showed lost autonomy and hidden struggle; tablets and coaching address them. The political analysis showed a coalition against the system; the redesign team brings Joan inside. The symbolic analysis showed a launch without meaning; the relaunch supplies it. Daniela's self-assessment showed her weak political frame, and the quarterly supervisor meetings build it into routine. The stress analysis led to decision rules that will govern how she responds if the relaunch hits trouble.

Conclusion

Armenakis and Harris's readiness beliefs explain why the first launch failed and what the relaunch must address, Oreg and colleagues' review shows that participation and trust shape reactions and Bolman and Deal's frames organize actions into a coordinated plan. For Daniela's agency, a six-month relaunch combines redesign, support, coalition-building and meaning, in that order.

References

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879079

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (7th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550