Leave room for people to shape the change

What we found in the news

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s 2018 Psychology of Change Framework (opens in a new tab) examines the human side of improvement. In its discussion of designing change with people, it observes:

“Those most affected by change have the greatest interest in designing it”

— Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2018

The sentence continues by connecting design with what is meaningful and workable for those people. We take it as a useful invitation to look at how an organization introduces a new process.

The framework offers an approach to improvement. It does not establish that a particular change will succeed or that consultation alone will make a difficult decision easy.

Why this matters to us

Imagine a team is asked to introduce a new intake process while several other changes are already under way. The intention is sensible. The deadline is clear. The time to practice is harder to find.

Staff may comply while still working around unresolved questions. Participants may encounter a process that looks orderly internally but asks them to repeat something important.

At genus, we are interested in what happens before a new workflow becomes ordinary work. People need to understand the purpose, influence the details that affect them, and have room to learn how the arrangement actually behaves.

Start with the work people recognize

Describe the problem using an example the team can examine. Where does the current process become difficult? Who experiences the difficulty? What would a useful improvement allow them to do?

Invite the colleagues doing the work and the people receiving the service to question that account. They may agree with the problem but see a different cause. They may also identify something in the current arrangement worth preserving.

Explain which parts of the decision are open and which constraints are already fixed. People can contribute more meaningfully when they know what their input can influence.

Avoid asking for views only after every consequential choice has been made.

Make room for a small, supported trial

Choose a limited part of the workflow that can be examined responsibly. Agree who will take part, what support is available, and what circumstances would require a pause or a different approach.

Give staff time to prepare and ask questions. If the trial adds work, decide what can be reduced, delayed, or reassigned. Otherwise, the organization may be testing how much extra effort people can absorb rather than whether the process works well.

Use fictional information when rehearsing. Where a live trial is appropriate, follow the organization’s approved governance, consent, privacy, and service arrangements.

Ask participants what they understood and what they needed at each step. A completed form may conceal a confusing experience.

Learn before expanding the arrangement

Agree what the team will look at after the trial. Include the intended benefit, the effort involved, and any unexpected difficulty for staff or participants.

Hold the review soon enough for people to remember the details. Ask where they had to improvise and which instructions helped. Welcome a finding that the proposed approach needs to change.

Record the decision and its reasons. If the process is revised, give colleagues a clear account of the new version and retire the earlier instructions through the normal process.

Expansion should follow a considered review of the evidence and the organization’s responsibilities. Enthusiasm, a tidy presentation, or the effort already invested cannot answer every question about readiness.

What this means for the people you serve

A person affected by a change may have useful ideas about its language, timing, or practical demands. Offer ways to contribute that suit different preferences and explain what happened as a result. Respect a choice not to participate. Access to an ordinary service should not depend on becoming a volunteer improvement adviser.

The genus connection

Today, configured genus tools can support intake, staff resources, training, and operational workflows according to the modules and permissions in use.

Configuration still needs people to agree the purpose and test the actual experience. The platform does not guarantee adoption or a better outcome. We see value in using it as part of a careful process of trying, listening, reviewing, and adjusting.

One question for your next team meeting

What time and influence have we given the people expected to make our next change work?