organizational change case study examples

7 real-life organizational change examples & best practices

By Sanni Juoperi 9. November 2021

Does the famous Ray Noorda quote “Cause change and lead; accept change and survive; resist change and die” resonate with you?

The business environment is more turbulent and the technology adoption landscape is more fast-changing than ever . As of late, businesses have had to shift to fully virtual business models, only to start all over again to build models that work optimally in the hybrid environment. Leading change, and beyond that, the ability to proactively transform the business model and strategy, are the key capabilities for any leader today.

In this article, we will share seven real-life tested organizational change examples and best practices that will help you embrace the journey of neverending business transformation.

Grab our  free template for leading a change process  and get started with the cultural change process.

1. Real-life example: Shared values and culture drive the ability to change

The global elevator and escalator manufacturer with 60 000 employees, KONE Corporation , recreated its company values and was fast to establish them as a part of employees’ everyday life. The key to success? A collaborative process where the values came from employees’ real-life experiences and dialogue.

“Howspace really gives every individual the opportunity to influence and be part of the decision-making process.”

Lotta Vuoristo , Head of Culture Journey at KONE, describes the process: “There were a lot of people involved in the discussions whom we have previously struggled to engage without travelling to where they are and working together face-to-face. Now, everyone was really enthusiastic and active.”.

Vuoristo—like many other work-life professionals—believes that from now on, digital working practices are an inherent part of everyday life at KONE as well as in other organizations. The key to success is to get every member of the organization involved in cultural development and strategic transformation.

Virtual working methods contribute to equality when the discussions are not only analyzed by humans but also by artificial intelligence . “I feel that Howspace really gives every individual the opportunity to influence and be part of the decision-making process,” says Vuoristo. Read the full story here .

2. Best practice: Use a structured framework for organizational change

The ADKAR® Model of change is a well-known and widely used tool that helps you analyze your change and better understand it. For someone who’s unfamiliar with building organizational change processes, a structured framework around building human-centred change can be good support for getting started.

The five ADKAR elements—awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement—are the building blocks for creating change from the human perspective. Read this article to get ideas on how to take the ADKAR model from theory to practice. 

Image source: prosci.com

3. Real-life example: Build the organizational change by strengthening what already works

Banking is a traditional industry with a lot of hierarchical structures. At the same time, it’s going through major changes with digitalization and shifting customer behaviour.

The Finnish banking company, Aktia, and the culture design agency, Milestone , realized that to embrace external changes, they needed to double down on what already worked well in Aktia’s internal culture.

By listening to Aktia’s employees and line managers on a digital platform, they identified the best parts of their culture: working together for the customer, innovativeness, bravery, and accountability.

“Using digital tools combined with service design methods allowed us to grasp the big picture fast.”

“With the Howspace platform, we got the opportunity to also involve line managers in the organization straight from the beginning. Using digital tools combined with service design methods allowed us to grasp the big picture fast,” describes Elina Aaltolainen, Culture Strategist from Milestone.

By strengthening the positive aspects that already existed in Aktia’s corporate culture, they were able to build Aktia’s future culture vision. Read the full story here. 

4. Best practice: Create a safe space for finding all the ‘whys’ for change

There is usually a trigger—internal or external—as to why an organization pursues a change initiative. It’s the first ‘why’: Why do we need organizational change? It’s important to acknowledge, however, that this first why is not enough. People who make up the organization must make sense of the process in their own way and find their own ‘whys.’

Beyond the “why,” you then need to consider how you’ll go about the change process, which should include getting everyone involved and sharing their knowledge and ideas about the ongoing change.

As you facilitate this process, ensure people feel safe to speak their minds honestly. Feelings are always involved when people are involved. One helpful idea is to allow anonymous commenting for particularly sensitive phases of the process.

5. Real-life example: Build on asynchronous communication to involve everyone

Wärtsilä Energy, a global leader in sustainable energy solutions, had the ambitious goal of leading the transition towards a 100% renewable energy future. To reach this goal, the company needed a bold and unique organizational growth strategy.

Wärtsilä ’s talent development lead, Kati Järvinen, started working for the company in the middle of its strategy process. The company’s previous growth strategy was done traditionally, with little input from employees. But this time Wärtsilä Energy was ready to integrate every employee’s insights into the process of identifying strategic capabilities.

“We had been used to a quite stable business, but now we are facing a totally new situation in the market. The energy transition is huge, all the market requirements are changing, and our competitors challenge us all the time. That’s why it’s time for us to direct our whole organization to the more agile ways of working,” Järvinen explains.

Working both synchronously and asynchronously, no matter where people were and when they wanted to join the process, everyone was able to contribute to the shared strategy initiatives.

Adapted from the work of John Losey, IntoWisdom Group 

“With Howspace, people were able to join the process whenever, wherever. It was wonderful that we had some pre-study before the workshops and during and after the events. People learned on the go, in small pieces, and when they had the motivation. We also had some quizzes and polls that immediately gave us excellent insight on how people experienced our strategy,” says Järvinen. Read the full story here.

6. Real-life example: AI supports making sense of the big picture

People need time and space to do their own sensemaking around change, as mentioned before. And with large communities and organizations, the amount of material to go through quickly becomes an issue.

When the Finnish Medical Association (FMA) started to prepare its basic principles of healthcare, it wanted to involve all members in discussing how to make healthcare even more effective in the future. The FMA has more than 26,000 members. To involve this amount of members for co-creation, going through input manually is not an option.

“We wanted a practical tool that would encourage and inspire doctors to actively discuss healthcare needs. The doctors know best what is going on in their field, and the Howspace digital platform made it possible to involve people in extensive discussions,” says Heikki Pärnänen , Policy Director at the FMA. Read more about their use of AI supporting large-scale dialogue in this article.

7. Best practice: Use a digital platform to co-create change

Many of the themes mentioned in this article require the ability to bring people together to have a dialogue around the change that is happening or needs to happen in an organization.

Howspace is a facilitation platform that is built for this purpose. Its built-in real-time AI capabilities—to build summaries, theme clusters and word clouds out of the discussion—allow for large groups of people to participate in change.

Check out our template for leading a change process!  💡 This practical process template walks you through the whole process of involvement-based cultural change from communicating the need for change to integrating it into the day-to-day.

Already a Howspace-user? You can add the template to your account  here .

You might be interested in these as well

Organizational development

The best change management tools for successful organizational transformation

Embracing change within organizations can be challenging, as people naturally resist it. However, utilizing the right change management software can […]

Top 7 Virtual Organizational Transformation Strategies

When it comes to organizational transformation strategies and how to effectively lead change in a virtual environment, my pro tip […]

Human-centric transformation: What is it and why does it matter?

Facilitating human-centric transformation is the skill of the future. But what exactly is human-centric transformation, and why is it so important?

Related Expertise: Culture and Change Management , Business Strategy , Corporate Strategy

Five Case Studies of Transformation Excellence

November 03, 2014  By  Lars Fæste ,  Jim Hemerling ,  Perry Keenan , and  Martin Reeves

In a business environment characterized by greater volatility and more frequent disruptions, companies face a clear imperative: they must transform or fall behind. Yet most transformation efforts are highly complex initiatives that take years to implement. As a result, most fall short of their intended targets—in value, timing, or both. Based on client experience, The Boston Consulting Group has developed an approach to transformation that flips the odds in a company’s favor. What does that look like in the real world? Here are five company examples that show successful transformations, across a range of industries and locations.

VF’s Growth Transformation Creates Strong Value for Investors

Value creation is a powerful lens for identifying the initiatives that will have the greatest impact on a company’s transformation agenda and for understanding the potential value of the overall program for shareholders.

VF offers a compelling example of a company using a sharp focus on value creation to chart its transformation course. In the early 2000s, VF was a good company with strong management but limited organic growth. Its “jeanswear” and intimate-apparel businesses, although responsible for 80 percent of the company’s revenues, were mature, low-gross-margin segments. And the company’s cost-cutting initiatives were delivering diminishing returns. VF’s top line was essentially flat, at about $5 billion in annual revenues, with an unclear path to future growth. VF’s value creation had been driven by cost discipline and manufacturing efficiency, yet, to the frustration of management, VF had a lower valuation multiple than most of its peers.

With BCG’s help, VF assessed its options and identified key levers to drive stronger and more-sustainable value creation. The result was a multiyear transformation comprising four components:

• A Strong Commitment to Value Creation as the Company’s Focus. Initially, VF cut back its growth guidance to signal to investors that it would not pursue growth opportunities at the expense of profitability. And as a sign of management’s commitment to balanced value creation, the company increased its dividend by 90 percent.
• Relentless Cost Management. VF built on its long-known operational excellence to develop an operating model focused on leveraging scale and synergies across its businesses through initiatives in sourcing, supply chain processes, and offshoring.
• A Major Transformation of the Portfolio. To help fund its journey, VF divested product lines worth about $1 billion in revenues, including its namesake intimate-apparel business. It used those resources to acquire nearly $2 billion worth of higher-growth, higher-margin brands, such as Vans, Nautica, and Reef. Overall, this shifted the balance of its portfolio from 70 percent low-growth heritage brands to 65 percent higher-growth lifestyle brands.
• The Creation of a High-Performance Culture. VF has created an ownership mind-set in its management ranks. More than 200 managers across all key businesses and regions received training in the underlying principles of value creation, and the performance of every brand and business is assessed in terms of its value contribution. In addition, VF strengthened its management bench through a dedicated talent-management program and selective high-profile hires. (For an illustration of VF’s transformation roadmap, see the exhibit.)

The results of VF’s TSR-led transformation are apparent. 1 1 For a detailed description of the VF journey, see the 2013 Value Creators Report, Unlocking New Sources of Value Creation , BCG report, September 2013. Notes: 1 For a detailed description of the VF journey, see the 2013 Value Creators Report, Unlocking New Sources of Value Creation , BCG report, September 2013. The company’s revenues have grown from $7 billion in 2008 to more than $11 billion in 2013 (and revenues are projected to top $17 billion by 2017). At the same time, profitability has improved substantially, highlighted by a gross margin of 48 percent as of mid-2014. The company’s stock price quadrupled from $15 per share in 2005 to more than $65 per share in September 2014, while paying about 2 percent a year in dividends. As a result, the company has ranked in the top quintile of the S&P 500 in terms of TSR over the past ten years.

A Consumer-Packaged-Goods Company Uses Several Levers to Fund Its Transformation Journey

A leading consumer-packaged-goods (CPG) player was struggling to respond to challenging market dynamics, particularly in the value-based segments and at the price points where it was strongest. The near- and medium-term forecasts looked even worse, with likely contractions in sales volume and potentially even in revenues. A comprehensive transformation effort was needed.

To fund the journey, the company looked at several cost-reduction initiatives, including logistics. Previously, the company had worked with a large number of logistics providers, causing it to miss out on scale efficiencies.

To improve, it bundled all transportation spending, across the entire network (both inbound to production facilities and out-bound to its various distribution channels), and opened it to bidding through a request-for-proposal process. As a result, the company was able to save 10 percent on logistics in the first 12 months—a very fast gain for what is essentially a commodity service.

Similarly, the company addressed its marketing-agency spending. A benchmark analysis revealed that the company had been paying rates well above the market average and getting fewer hours per full-time equivalent each year than the market standard. By getting both rates and hours in line, the company managed to save more than 10 percent on its agency spending—and those savings were immediately reinvested to enable the launch of what became a highly successful brand.

Next, the company pivoted to growth mode in order to win in the medium term. The measure with the biggest impact was pricing. The company operates in a category that is highly segmented across product lines and highly localized. Products that sell well in one region often do poorly in a neighboring state. Accordingly, it sought to de-average its pricing approach across locations, brands, and pack sizes, driving a 2 percent increase in EBIT.

Similarly, it analyzed trade promotion effectiveness by gathering and compiling data on the roughly 150,000 promotions that the company had run across channels, locations, brands, and pack sizes. The result was a 2 terabyte database tracking the historical performance of all promotions.

Using that information, the company could make smarter decisions about which promotions should be scrapped, which should be tweaked, and which should merit a greater push. The result was another 2 percent increase in EBIT. Critically, this was a clear capability that the company built up internally, with the objective of continually strengthening its trade-promotion performance over time, and that has continued to pay annual dividends.

Finally, the company launched a significant initiative in targeted distribution. Before the transformation, the company’s distributors made decisions regarding product stocking in independent retail locations that were largely intuitive. To improve its distribution, the company leveraged big data to analyze historical sales performance for segments, brands, and individual SKUs within a roughly ten-mile radius of that retail location. On the basis of that analysis, the company was able to identify the five SKUs likely to sell best that were currently not in a particular store. The company put this tool on a mobile platform and is in the process of rolling it out to the distributor base. (Currently, approximately 60 percent of distributors, representing about 80 percent of sales volume, are rolling it out.) Without any changes to the product lineup, that measure has driven a 4 percent jump in gross sales.

Throughout the process, management had a strong change-management effort in place. For example, senior leaders communicated the goals of the transformation to employees through town hall meetings. Cognizant of how stressful transformations can be for employees—particularly during the early efforts to fund the journey, which often emphasize cost reductions—the company aggressively talked about how those savings were being reinvested into the business to drive growth (for example, investments into the most effective trade promotions and the brands that showed the greatest sales-growth potential).

In the aggregate, the transformation led to a much stronger EBIT performance, with increases of nearly $100 million in fiscal 2013 and far more anticipated in 2014 and 2015. The company’s premium products now make up a much bigger part of the portfolio. And the company is better positioned to compete in its market.

A Leading Bank Uses a Lean Approach to Transform Its Target Operating Model

A leading bank in Europe is in the process of a multiyear transformation of its operating model. Prior to this effort, a benchmarking analysis found that the bank was lagging behind its peers in several aspects. Branch employees handled fewer customers and sold fewer new products, and back-office processing times for new products were slow. Customer feedback was poor, and rework rates were high, especially at the interface between the front and back offices. Activities that could have been managed centrally were handled at local levels, increasing complexity and cost. Harmonization across borders—albeit a challenge given that the bank operates in many countries—was limited. However, the benchmark also highlighted many strengths that provided a basis for further improvement, such as common platforms and efficient product-administration processes.

To address the gaps, the company set the design principles for a target operating model for its operations and launched a lean program to get there. Using an end-to-end process approach, all the bank’s activities were broken down into roughly 250 processes, covering everything that a customer could potentially experience. Each process was then optimized from end to end using lean tools. This approach breaks down silos and increases collaboration and transparency across both functions and organization layers.

Employees from different functions took an active role in the process improvements, participating in employee workshops in which they analyzed processes from the perspective of the customer. For a mortgage, the process was broken down into discrete steps, from the moment the customer walks into a branch or goes to the company website, until the house has changed owners. In the front office, the system was improved to strengthen management, including clear performance targets, preparation of branch managers for coaching roles, and training in root-cause problem solving. This new way of working and approaching problems has directly boosted both productivity and morale.

The bank is making sizable gains in performance as the program rolls through the organization. For example, front-office processing time for a mortgage has decreased by 33 percent and the bank can get a final answer to customers 36 percent faster. The call centers had a significant increase in first-call resolution. Even more important, customer satisfaction scores are increasing, and rework rates have been halved. For each process the bank revamps, it achieves a consistent 15 to 25 percent increase in productivity.

And the bank isn’t done yet. It is focusing on permanently embedding a change mind-set into the organization so that continuous improvement becomes the norm. This change capability will be essential as the bank continues on its transformation journey.

A German Health Insurer Transforms Itself to Better Serve Customers

Barmer GEK, Germany’s largest public health insurer, has a successful history spanning 130 years and has been named one of the top 100 brands in Germany. When its new CEO, Dr. Christoph Straub, took office in 2011, he quickly realized the need for action despite the company’s relatively good financial health. The company was still dealing with the postmerger integration of Barmer and GEK in 2010 and needed to adapt to a fast-changing and increasingly competitive market. It was losing ground to competitors in both market share and key financial benchmarks. Barmer GEK was suffering from overhead structures that kept it from delivering market-leading customer service and being cost efficient, even as competitors were improving their service offerings in a market where prices are fixed. Facing this fundamental challenge, Barmer GEK decided to launch a major transformation effort.

The goal of the transformation was to fundamentally improve the customer experience, with customer satisfaction as a benchmark of success. At the same time, Barmer GEK needed to improve its cost position and make tough choices to align its operations to better meet customer needs. As part of the first step in the transformation, the company launched a delayering program that streamlined management layers, leading to significant savings and notable side benefits including enhanced accountability, better decision making, and an increased customer focus. Delayering laid the path to win in the medium term through fundamental changes to the company’s business and operating model in order to set up the company for long-term success.

The company launched ambitious efforts to change the way things were traditionally done:

• A Better Client-Service Model. Barmer GEK is reducing the number of its branches by 50 percent, while transitioning to larger and more attractive service centers throughout Germany. More than 90 percent of customers will still be able to reach a service center within 20 minutes. To reach rural areas, mobile branches that can visit homes were created.
• Improved Customer Access. Because Barmer GEK wanted to make it easier for customers to access the company, it invested significantly in online services and full-service call centers. This led to a direct reduction in the number of customers who need to visit branches while maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction.
• Organization Simplification. A pillar of Barmer GEK’s transformation is the centralization and specialization of claim processing. By moving from 80 regional hubs to 40 specialized processing centers, the company is now using specialized administrators—who are more effective and efficient than under the old staffing model—and increased sharing of best practices.

Although Barmer GEK has strategically reduced its workforce in some areas—through proven concepts such as specialization and centralization of core processes—it has invested heavily in areas that are aligned with delivering value to the customer, increasing the number of customer-facing employees across the board. These changes have made Barmer GEK competitive on cost, with expected annual savings exceeding €300 million, as the company continues on its journey to deliver exceptional value to customers. Beyond being described in the German press as a “bold move,” the transformation has laid the groundwork for the successful future of the company.

Nokia’s Leader-Driven Transformation Reinvents the Company (Again)

We all remember Nokia as the company that once dominated the mobile-phone industry but subsequently had to exit that business. What is easily forgotten is that Nokia has radically and successfully reinvented itself several times in its 150-year history. This makes Nokia a prime example of a “serial transformer.”

In 2014, Nokia embarked on perhaps the most radical transformation in its history. During that year, Nokia had to make a radical choice: continue massively investing in its mobile-device business (its largest) or reinvent itself. The device business had been moving toward a difficult stalemate, generating dissatisfactory results and requiring increasing amounts of capital, which Nokia no longer had. At the same time, the company was in a 50-50 joint venture with Siemens—called Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN)—that sold networking equipment. NSN had been undergoing a massive turnaround and cost-reduction program, steadily improving its results.

When Microsoft expressed interest in taking over Nokia’s device business, Nokia chairman Risto Siilasmaa took the initiative. Over the course of six months, he and the executive team evaluated several alternatives and shaped a deal that would radically change Nokia’s trajectory: selling the mobile business to Microsoft. In parallel, Nokia CFO Timo Ihamuotila orchestrated another deal to buy out Siemens from the NSN joint venture, giving Nokia 100 percent control over the unit and forming the cash-generating core of the new Nokia. These deals have proved essential for Nokia to fund the journey. They were well-timed, well-executed moves at the right terms.

Right after these radical announcements, Nokia embarked on a strategy-led design period to win in the medium term with new people and a new organization, with Risto Siilasmaa as chairman and interim CEO. Nokia set up a new portfolio strategy, corporate structure, capital structure, robust business plans, and management team with president and CEO Rajeev Suri in charge. Nokia focused on delivering excellent operational results across its portfolio of three businesses while planning its next move: a leading position in technologies for a world in which everyone and everything will be connected.

Nokia’s share price has steadily climbed. Its enterprise value has grown 12-fold since bottoming out in July 2012. The company has returned billions of dollars of cash to its shareholders and is once again the most valuable company in Finland. The next few years will demonstrate how this chapter in Nokia’s 150-year history of serial transformation will again reinvent the company.

Managing Director & Senior Partner

San Francisco - Bay Area

Managing Director & Senior Partner, Chairman of the BCG Henderson Institute

ABOUT BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP

Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholders—empowering organizations to grow, build sustainable competitive advantage, and drive positive societal impact.

Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range of perspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutions through leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corporate and digital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm and throughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clients thrive and enabling them to make the world a better place.

© Boston Consulting Group 2024. All rights reserved.

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at [email protected] . To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcg.com . Follow Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) .

Subscribe to our Business Transformation E-Alert.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 November 2019

Organisational change in hospitals: a qualitative case-study of staff perspectives

• Chiara Pomare   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9118-7207 1 ,
• Kate Churruca 1 ,
• Janet C. Long 1 ,
• Louise A. Ellis 1 &
• Jeffrey Braithwaite 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  19 , Article number:  840 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

21 Citations

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

Organisational change in health systems is common. Success is often tied to the actors involved, including their awareness of the change, personal engagement and ownership of it. In many health systems, one of the most common changes we are witnessing is the redevelopment of long-standing hospitals. However, we know little about how hospital staff understand and experience such potentially far-reaching organisational change. The purpose of this study is to explore the understanding and experiences of hospital staff in the early stages of organisational change, using a hospital redevelopment in Sydney, Australia as a case study.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 46 clinical and non-clinical staff working at a large metropolitan hospital. Hospital staff were moving into a new building, not moving, or had moved into a different building two years prior. Questions asked staff about their level of awareness of the upcoming redevelopment and their experiences in the early stage of this change. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Some staff expressed apprehension and held negative expectations regarding the organisational change. Concerns included inadequate staffing and potential for collaboration breakdown due to new layout of workspaces. These fears were compounded by current experiences of feeling uninformed about the change, as well as feelings of being fatigued and under-staffed in the constantly changing hospital environment. Nevertheless, balancing this, many staff reported positive expectations regarding the benefits to patients of the change and the potential for staff to adapt in the face of this change.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that it is important to understand prospectively how actors involved make sense of organisational change, in order to potentially assuage concerns and alleviate negative expectations. Throughout the processes of organisational change, such as a hospital redevelopment, staff need to be engaged, adequately informed, trained, and to feel supported by management. The use of champions of varying professions and lead departments, may be useful to address concerns, adequately inform, and promote a sense of engagement among staff.

Peer Review reports

Change is a common experience in complex health care systems. Staff, patients and visitors come and go [ 1 ]; leadership, models of care, workforce and governing structures are reshaped in response to policy and legislative change [ 2 ], and new technologies and equipment are introduced or retired [ 3 ]. In addition to these common changes experienced throughout health care, the acute sector in many countries is constantly undergoing major changes to the physical hospital infrastructure [ 4 , 5 ]. In New South Wales, Australia, several reports have described the increase in hospital redevelopment projects as a ‘hospital building boom’ [ 4 , 6 ], with approximately 100 major health capital projects (i.e., projects over AUD$10 million) currently in train [ 7 ]. In addition to meeting the needs of a growing and ageing population [ 8 ], the re-design and refurbishment of older hospital infrastructure is supported by a range of arguments and anecdotal evidence highlighting the positive relationship between the hospital physical environment and patient [ 9 ] and staff outcomes [ 10 ]. While there are many reasons why hospital redevelopments are taking place, we know little about how hospital staff prospectively perceive change, and their experiences, expectations, and concerns. Hospital staff encapsulates any employee working in the hospital context. This includes clinical and non-clinical staff who provide care, support, cleaning, catering, managerial and administrative duties to patients and the broader community.

One reason as to why little research has explored the perspectives of hospital staff during a redevelopment may be because hospital redevelopment is often considered a physical, rather than organisational change. Organisational change means that not only the physical environment is altered, but also the behavioural operations, structural relationships and roles, and the hospital organisational culture may transform. For example, changing the physical health care environment can affect job satisfaction, stress, intention to leave [ 11 ], and the way staff work together [ 12 ].

Redeveloping a hospital can be both an exciting and challenging time for staff. In a recent notable example of opening a new hospital building in Australia, staff attitudes shifted from appreciation and excitement in the early stages of change to frustration and angst as the development progressed [ 13 ]. Similar experiences have been reported elsewhere, such as in a study describing the consequences for staff of hospital change in South Africa [ 14 ]. However, these examples explored staff attitudes towards change retrospectively and considered the change as a physical redevelopment, rather than organisational change. Such retrospective reports may be limited in validity [ 15 ] as prospective experiences and understanding of change reported by staff may be conflated with the final outcome of the change. The hospital redevelopment literature has also prospectively assessed health impacts of proposed redevelopment plans as a means to predetermine the impact of a large change on the population [ 16 ]; while prospective, this research again considers redevelopment as a physical modification, rather than an organisational change. Thus, while the literature has reported retrospective accounts of staff experiences in large hospital change and prospective assessment of the impact of the change, there is little research examining the understanding and experiences of staff in the early stages of redevelopmental change in hospitals through a lens of organisational change.

Seminal research in the organisational change literature highlights that the role of frontline workers (in this case hospital staff) is crucial to implementation of any process or change [ 17 , 18 ]. Specifically, that the support of actors (understanding, owning, and engaging) can determine the success of a change [ 19 ]. This is consistent with complexity science accounts which suggest that any improvement and transformation of health systems is dependent upon the actors involved, and the extent and quality of their interactions, their emergent behaviours, and localised responses [ 1 , 20 ]. In health care, change can be resisted when it is imposed on actors (in this case, hospital staff), but may be better accepted when people are involved and adopt a sense of ownership of the changes that will affect them [ 21 ]. This may include being involved in the design process. For this reason, it is important to examine the understanding and experiences of actors involved in a change (i.e., hospital staff in a redevelopment), in order to understand and potentially address their concerns, alleviating negative expectations prior to the change.

This study is part of a larger project exploring how hospital redevelopment influences the organisation, staff and patients involved [ 22 ]. The present study aimed to explore the understanding and experiences of staff prior to moving into a new building as one stage in a multidimensional organisational change project. The research questions were: How do staff make sense of this organisational change? How well informed do they feel? What are their expectations and concerns? What are the implications for hospitals undergoing organisational change, particularly redevelopment?

The study protocol has been published elsewhere [ 22 ]. The Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines were used to ensure comprehensive reporting of the qualitative study results (Additional file 1 ) [ 23 ] .

Study setting and participants

This study was conducted at a large metropolitan, publicly-funded hospital in Sydney, Australia. The facility is undergoing a multimillion-dollar development project to meet the growing needs of the community. This hospital has undergone a number of other changes over the last two decades, including incremental increases in size. Since its opening in the mid 1990s (with approximately 150 beds), several buildings have been added over the years. The hospital now has multiple buildings and over 500 beds.

During the time of this study, the hospital was in the second stage of the multi-stage redevelopment. This stage included: the opening of a new acute services building, the relocation of several wards to this new building (e.g., Intensive care unit (ICU) and Maternity), increases in resources (e.g., equipment, staffing), and the adoption of new ways of working (e.g., activity-based workspaces for support staff). Essentially, the redevelopment involves the opening of a new state-of-the-art building which will include moving services (and staff) from the old to the new building, with some wards staying in the old building. For the wards moving into the new building, this change does not initially involve more patients in existing services, but is intended to increase the number of staff because there will be more physical space to cover and new models of care introduced (e.g., ICU changing to single-bed rooms, more staff needed to individually attend to patients). The current redevelopment includes space for future expansion to account for the growing population. In addition to the redevelopment of the physical infrastructure, the way staff work together is also planned to change. Hospital leadership is aiming to foster a cultural shift towards greater cohesion and unity; highlighting that the hospital redevelopment can be conceptualised as an organisational change of considerable importance and magnitude.

Participants were hospital staff (clinical and non-clinical) working at the hospital under investigation. Staff working on four wards were targeted for interviews, with the intention to capture diverse experiences of the redevelopment and the broader organisational change; two of these wards would be moving into the new building (ICU and Maternity), one ward was not moving (Surgical), and one ward had moved into a new building two years prior (Respiratory). Interviews were also conducted with staff who held responsibilities across wards (e.g., General Services Department: cleaners, porters). The hospital staff were purposively recruited by department heads and snowballed from participants. Fifty staff members were approached (until data saturation was met) with four refusing to participate because they did not have the time.

Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in private settings at the participants’ place of work (e.g., ward interview rooms, private offices). In the event a participant was unable to meet the researcher in person, interviews were conducted over the phone. A semi-structured interview guide was created in collaboration with key stakeholders from the hospital under investigation and following a literature review. The guide (Additional file 2 ) included questions aimed at exploring participants’: (1) understanding of the hospital’s culture and current ways of working; (2) understanding of the redevelopment and other hospital changes; and (3) concerns or expectations about the organisational change. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim by the first author who is trained and experienced in conducting semi-structured interviews. No field notes were made during the interview nor were transcripts returned to participants for comment or correction due to the time poor characteristics of the study participants (hospital staff). Participants were informed that the research was part of the first author’s doctoral studies.

Interview data were analysed via thematic analysis [ 24 ] using NVivo [ 25 ]. This approach followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis: familiarise, generate initial codes, develop themes, review potential themes, define and name themes, produce the report. Data were initially read multiple times by the first author, then descriptively and iteratively coded according to semantic features. The analysis included the use of inductive coding to identify patterns driven by the data, together with deductive coding, keeping the research questions in mind. Through examination of codes and coded data, themes were developed. The broader research team (KC, LAE, JCL) were included throughout each stage of the analysis process, with frequent discussions concerning the categorization of codes and themes. This process of having one researcher responsible for the analysis while other researchers then checked and clarified emerging themes throughout contributes to the trustworthiness of the findings [ 26 ].

In presenting the results, extracts have been edited minimally to enhance readability, without altering meaning or inference. Where extracts are presented, staff are coded according to their department (G: General – works across several wards; ICU: Intensive care unit; MAT: Maternity ward; RES: Respiratory ward; SUR: Surgical ward) and profession (AD: Administrative staff; CHGTEAM: Change management team staff; DR: Medical staff; GS: General services staff; MW: Midwifery staff; N: Nursing staff; OTH: Other profession).

Forty-six staff members participated in the semi-structured interviews. Interviews were typically conducted face-to-face ( n  = 41; 89.1%), with five interviews conducted over the phone. No differences were discerned in content between these different mediums. Hospital staff taking part in interviews included those from: nursing and midwifery, medical, general services, administrative, and change management (Table  1 ). Change management staff are external to the hospital staff, and do not report to hospital executives. Interviews ranged from seven to 33 min in length ( M  = 17 min). Participating staff had worked at the hospital for on average 10.5 years (range 5 months and 30 years).

Five themes were identified related to hospital staff’s understanding and experiences (i.e., expectations and concerns) of the change: staffing; benefits to patients; collaboration; fatigue; and adaptability. These expectations and concerns are schematically presented in Fig.  1 , with shades of red indicating negative expectations and concerns associated with the theme, and green representing positive expectations. Intensity of the colour demonstrated the frequency of positivity or negativity associated with that theme (i.e., deeper shades of red indicate frequency of negative discussion of this theme by different hospital staff). This figure also highlights the complexity and interrelatedness of these themes (e.g., the concern of inadequate staffing for the new building was linked with concerns about patient care, which could possibly impede the way the team work together, leading to staff feeling overworked and worn out; these expectations were all mitigated by the staff member’s understanding and awareness of the change). Explanations and examples are presented below.

Thematic visualisation of staff understanding and expectations of the change

Hospital staff consistently held staffing to be a major concern in this redevelopment. To them, the opening of the new building, and with it the increase in physical size and addition of new services, meant that an increase in staff was crucial to successfully implement the change: “ My biggest uncertainty at the moment is the fact that I’m really concerned about whether I’m actually going to get enough staff ” (GS1). Many participants suggested that this issue would determine the success of the new hospital building. This was particularly important for staff moving into the new building with a bigger work space: “ We just need more staff. Yeah I think that’s the main issue - if we fix that then I believe everything should be smooth ” (ICUN4). For the most part, staff were unaware about how many new staff they would have in the new building. This uncertainty involved two related issues: (1) will we get the budget for new staff that we need? And if so, (2) where will we find all these new staff to employ?

On the first point, staff reported concerns that they would not have enough staff to cover the increased physical space and new ways of working within the new building. This lingering uncertainty was the result of external factors, specifically unresolved budget issues: “ But I suppose some of the issues stem from the fact that you never know how many beds we are able to open based on the funding from the government, and that is what is still up in the air ” (ICUDR1).

Regarding the second point, staff noted that even if budgetary issues were resolved, and there was enough money to hire new staff to fill the new building, a challenge would be finding the staff to recruit: “ I don’t know where these new staff are going to come from” (GN3). Some participants suggested that they already encountered difficulties with employing enough appropriately qualified staff and reported concerns that this issue would be compounded when they moved into the new building: “ Excitement will be way gone. It’s more to deal with that stress and the workload of other staff ” (ICUN4). Participants working on wards that were not moving into the new building also reported concerns about staffing. They noted that, despite not being directly involved in previous stages of the redevelopment, they had still been affected by these changes, because their colleagues were taken from their ward without consultation and moved into a new area. Hence, even staff not moving in the next stage of the redevelopment had concerns that their staffing levels would be affected: “ We have been told that we are not moving in there. And hopefully they don’t take our staff there ” (SURN5).

Benefits to patients

Many hospital staff expressed a positive expectation of the move related to benefits for patients. This was consistent across wards, departments and professions. Staff expected patients to experience benefits including reductions in infection rates and improved satisfaction, due to staying in a well-controlled and physically appealing environment with natural light: “ Any new place will give some joy or some happiness to people… The major change will be that because there are individual rooms, the infection rate will be lower and that I’m very pleased with” (ICUDR1).

Despite these participants reporting the improved physical environment was expected to positively affect patients, they also raised concerns that being in the new building might negatively affect patient safety because the increased physical space could introduce more room for error with the greater workload: “ Brings with it the fear, of how will we treat so many patients with nursing when you have one to one and the rooms are closed. That is a constant worry ” (ICUDR1). Participants indicated that this issue would be compounded if staffing levels were not increased.

Collaboration

Staff expressed multiple negative expectations or concerns about how their ways of working together would be affected by moving into the new building. Staff understood the change as more than just a physical expansion, but as an organisational change that would affect their ways of working. This understanding led to concern regarding how to work together in the new building. Specifically, staff moving into the new building were worried about the new layout of ICU, where nurses would be working alone in rooms with single patients. This would disrupt their ability to easily ask for support currently done by asking the nurse at an adjacent bed, or signalling to someone visible across the room: “ Single rooms are great for patients and everything but I think it becomes a bit more isolated for staffing ” (ICUOTH1). These concerns were also recognised among staff working in the change management team, who may not be directly affected by the change, but acknowledged that this is a major consequence of the move into the new building: “ All the beds, they were able to see each other all the time whereas now it’s a different work environment. They’re a bit more isolated… So that’s what we find is the challenge” (CHGTEAM2). Further, staff were concerned about working in open plan spaces that limit opportunity for private discussions, for example with other staff about workplace conflict or personal matters: “ I’m very concerned about insufficient space for private stuff ” (ICUAD1).

Staff reported negative expectations of collaboration breakdown not only within wards, but across the hospital. The organisational change will include far-flung staff and expanded infrastructure, which may decrease opportunity to collaborate directly. For several participants, the growing size of the hospital was seen as a fracturing of the positive, cohesive culture of what was once a smaller hospital—“ It used to be that the general manager would walk through and know everybody by name, the cleaner, maintenance crew, everybody knew everybody’s name ” (GN1)—into more disconnected, subunits: “ Now we’re very separate ” (ICUOTH1).

During interviews, many participants reported feeling over-worked and under-resourced. While some described being fatigued and unhappy at work, the redevelopment was, nevertheless, clearly a positive: “ We’re not happy because we’re under so much pressure and stress. But, you know, we are looking forward to the new build, it’ll be a beautiful building” (GN3). For others, there were concerns that their feelings of being over-worked would not subside with the opening of the new hospital building and that there was a lack of time to even consider the change. This was expressed by staff moving in to the new building, as well as those not moving:

Who has got the time to go and look at those decorative things ! (SURN5).

I can’t see how it will make a big difference to me… I don’t pay a lot of attention to the looks (MATDR1).

It doesn’t really matter… I could be providing it [patient care] in a tent or a building . (MATMW2).

Further, hospital staff expressed frustration in having to endure poor resourcing, which tempered their excitement for the new building: “We’ve all put up with whatever since whenever and I’m done, I’m so done” (ICUAD1). Some participants reported negative expectations related to the increase in physical space in the new building, as adding to the work load of clinical staff and requiring they travel further to get supplies and attend to patients: “They are worried about, hang on I’m going to have to do so many more laps” (ICUAD1). Similarly, an issue expressed on behalf of staff in the General Services Department was whether they will be able to adequately clean and cater for physically larger areas: “ I’m sitting here and looking at [a previous building that was opened] and seeing how filthy it is ” (CHGTEAM3). Concerns about being over-worked in the face of the redevelopment were further emphasised by some interviewees who discussed a problem with turnover: “ We’ve actually had a few people, I have had three people, which is unusual for us, who have looked for other jobs and are probably resigning. You know which is sort of the opposite of what we’d expect at this time, we’d expect they’d be excited for the new building ” (ICUN5). However, most staff in more junior positions had not seen the new building and thus were unaware of the layout and the degree to which it may impact their work: “ Because I have not seen the actual structure of the area, and I don’t know what they based it on and how they figured out a way to be friendly for both staff and patients at the same time ” (ICUN3). The unawareness and lack of understanding accentuated concerns and negative expectations among staff as they expected the worst.

Also contributing to reports of experiencing fatigue, staff described numerous other large changes taking place at the hospital over the years, in addition to the redevelopment: “ Basically for seven years we’ve been undergoing changes since I’ve been here. It is utterly exhausting having this many changes all the time ” (GS1). This highlights that while this study captures prospective insights to the change, change is constant in health care. While the move into the new building has not yet occurred, the move is part of a broader organisational change grander than the physical expansion of infrastructure. While this was a major concern for many staff, some of the senior medical staff dismissed this as being an issue, suggesting constant change is part of health care and should not lead to staff feeling worn out: “ I think once you get to my level you get good at kind of jumping through hoops… As you get more experienced, you just go with the flow a bit more” (SURDR2).

Adaptability

An additional theme involved staff’s positive expectation that they would be able to adapt to the changes brought about by the move into the new building. Reflecting on past experiences of organisational and infrastructure changes at the hospital, staff expressed that it could take time to adapt and see the benefits of the change: “ At the beginning, of course, everybody was scared of the changes and stuff like that, but eventually we got used to it. ” (SURN3). However, some staff reported that they saw adapting to the new building as a concern, potentially because of a lack of knowledge pertaining to what the new building entails: “ I just don’t know. I’m worried because I don’t know what we’re walking in to ” (ICUN2). In general, staff expressed an understanding of the change as one of physical growth (hospital redevelopment) and changes in ways of working (organisational change): “Getting bigger. So, basically taking all of our acute services and putting it in a brand spanking new building where they’re significantly expanding” (GN1); “ The biggest change is changing the way they work. Changing the way they deliver care .” (CHGTEAM2). When asked why the change was happening, hospital staff were consistent in attributing the need for redevelopment to population growth: “ To develop more resources to accommodate for the growing number of patients ” (SURDR3).

Feeling uninformed and uncertain about the change was expressed by staff of different professions and different levels throughout the hospital. In fact, even wards that were not moving to the new building were unsure if this was the case: “ There’s been no communication from anyone really. I hear from different people yes we are moving and then somebody says no we’re not. We’re staying here in the old building. So, I’m not sure exactly who’s going” (SURN1).

Our findings suggest that in the early stages of hospital redevelopment, staff experience both positive and negative expectations that are dependent upon the level of personal understanding, awareness of the change to come, and how well-resourced they already feel. Interviews with hospital staff highlighted a general understanding of the change as involving physical expansion of the hospital. However, participants also reported feeling inadequately informed about what is to come and described a range of sometimes differing expectations about the organisational effects of this change (e.g., on collaboration, for patients). This supports the conceptualisation of hospital redevelopment as not only a physical change, but an organisational one too.

The present study is the first to empirically explore the experiences and understanding of staff in the early stages of a hospital redevelopment, and conceptualised this as an organisational change. This conceptualisation is an important contribution to the organisational change literature because we show that change, even when based on the best evidence-based design, can be disappointing and bring about negative experiences for staff. The concerns and negative expectations of the change expressed by staff in the present study echo past research that retrospectively explored the experiences of staff during a hospital change, in Australia [ 13 ], and elsewhere [e.g., 14]. In the present study, staffing was a major concern reported by hospital staff. This is consistent with other reports of hospital redevelopment in the Australian context. For example, in a report into the opening of a new children’s hospital, staff were frustrated about the progression of the change and that a lack of staffing impacted on service planning. Staffing was also emphasised as an issue in another Australian hospital redevelopment project, where the building opened with insufficient staffing and resources [ 27 ]. Additionally, hospital staff in the present study indicated that they felt fatigued, so much so that excitement for the opening of the new building was diminishing. Reports of low staff morale in hospital redevelopment projects has also been documented in other Australian and international studies [ 13 , 14 ]. Further, participants in this study reported a lack of awareness of the redevelopment, something that appears to be common with a report of hospital revitalisation in the United States reporting a similar finding [ 28 ].

One source of many of the issues expressed by staff was uncertainty, a common and often inevitable experience in health care [ 29 ], for example, systems uncertainty about staffing levels and uncertainty about whether collaboration and support would break down as the hospital expands. While some types of uncertainty cannot be eradicated, it is important to manage uncertainty in times where information is available. One way to do this is to make sure front-line actors have a platform to seek information and ask questions during organisational change; having access to information is a predictor of success for organisational change in healthcare [ 30 ]. This may help alleviate stress associated with change and make the transition period less uncertain for staff, particularly in early stages where uncertainty may be greater. While it is not always possible for all the concerns and expectations of staff to be individually acknowledged and addressed by those coordinating the change (e.g., change management team or hospital executives), an alternative is through the use of ‘champions’ or ‘opinion leaders’. Opinion leaders are actors with a brokerage role; they carry information across social boundaries, such as between groups of professionals or different hospital wards [ 31 ]. Otherwise referred to as a ‘champion’, by virtue of their trustworthiness and connectedness, these actors are able to lead the opinions of others and are integral in the adoption and diffusion of new phenomena. Successful champions are enthusiastic and motivated about the change they are promoting [ 32 ]. In this case, a successful champion in a hospital undergoing organisational change is a staff member who can inform others and influence acceptance, and provide a positive frame for the change.

Implications

While findings may be localised to the hospital we researched, it is important to note that the hospital redevelopment under investigation is similar to other hospital redevelopments in metropolitan cities in Australia [ 7 ] and worldwide [ 5 ]. Specifically, the redevelopment is an expansion of infrastructure to meet the growing needs of the community which the hospital serves. The perceptions and experiences maintained by hospital staff will differ dependent on the state of the new facilities; these findings broadly generalise to any hospital redevelopment where a newer, larger building is opened. The implications of this study provide broad suggestions for other hospitals undergoing this type of hospital redevelopment.

Firstly, hospital redevelopment should be considered as more than physical change, but as an organisational change, in order to recognise the ripple effects of changing the infrastructure and how this may influence social and behavioural processes. From this study’s findings of the expectations and present experiences of organisational change, we recommend four strategies to aid in the early stages of hospital redevelopment: engage actors; plan and train; learn from the past; and increase managerial engagement (see Table  2 ). These recommendations correspond with suggestions from a past review examining transforming systems in health care [ 33 ]. Effort must be taken to ensure staff are informed of the change and rectify any confusions about who, what, when, and how the change is taking place. This is consistent with organisational change theory that maintains that large scale change requires significant effort and planning to ensure its success [ 19 ]. Therefore, an implication of this study lies in the importance of exploring the understanding and expectations of staff preceding a large organisational change in order to aid in the acceptance of, rather than resistance to, the change [ 21 ]. Further, this study also highlights the importance of studying the experiences of actors not directly involved in the organisational change but who are a part of the broader system (i.e., wards not moving implied they will be affected).

Strengths and limitations

A strength of this study lies in the number of participants and variability in the professions that contribute to the transferability of the study findings. Further, checking and clarifying themes with other researchers throughout the coding process increases the trustworthiness of the findings [ 26 ]. As to limitations, interviews were on average 17 min long, with the shortest interview lasting seven minutes. While this may be perceived as a short duration for collecting interview data it was appropriate for participants who were incredibly time poor (e.g., nurses on shift who could only get a 10 min break to talk to the researcher). It is important that the opinions of these busy staff are captured to reflect the true nature of a sample of varied hospital staff. Further, the findings may not be generalisable to other instances of organisational change and may be specific to the four wards and hospital examined in this study. Wards were purposively chosen rather than randomised. While findings may be specific to the hospital under investigation, the research has been designed to optimise research credibility in this qualitative analysis. Further, considerable context was provided to help readers infer relevance to different settings. This in-depth analysis of how staff understand and interpret organisational change in hospitals provides the opportunity to uncover theoretical insights into the processes of change in the health care system and the perspectives of staff during times of organisational change.

This study explored the prospective understanding and experiences of staff in organisational change in hospitals, using an Australian hospital redevelopment as a case exemplar. Findings indicated that staff were concerned about staffing levels, fatigue, and the potential for a breakdown of current collaborative working. These concerns are similar to past reports of redevelopment in hospitals. This paper presents recommendations for the early stages of organisational change in hospitals. For present and future hospital organisational change projects, it is important that staff concerns are addressed and that staff are informed adequately about the ongoing changes in order to improve their engagement and ownership of the change.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to individual privacy, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Administrative staff

Change management team staff

Medical staff

General – works across several wards

General services staff

Intensive care unit

Maternity ward

Midwifery staff

Nursing staff

Other profession

Respiratory ward

Surgical ward

Braithwaite J, Churruca K, Ellis LA, Long JC, Clay-Williams R, Damen N, et al. Complexity science in healthcare-aspirations, approaches, applications and accomplishments: a white paper. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University; 2017.

Google Scholar  

Braithwaite J, Wears RL, Hollnagel E. Resilient health care: turning patient safety on its head. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015;27(5):418–20.

Article   Google Scholar  

Malkin RA. Design of health care technologies for the developing world. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2007;9:567–87.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ritchie E. NSW budget 2017: ‘hospital building boom’ at heart of $23bn deal. The Australian. 2017.

Carpenter D, Hoppszallern S. Hospital building report. The boom goes on. Hospitals Health Networks. 2006;80(3):48–50 2-4, 2.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aubusson K. Berejiklian government pledges $750 million for Sydney's RPA Hospital 2019 [5 Mar]. Available from: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/berejiklian-government-pledges-750-million-for-sydney-s-rpa-hospital-20190304-p511n4.html .

NSW Government. Health Infrastructure 2018 [Available from: https://www.hinfra.health.nsw.gov.au/our-projects/project-search .

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's health 2016. Canberra: AIHW; 2016.

Schweitzer M, Gilpin L, Frampton S. Healing spaces: elements of environmental design that make an impact on health. J Altern Complement Med. 2004;10:71–83.

Rechel B, Buchan J, McKee M. The impact of health facilities on healthcare workers’ well-being and performance. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(7):1025–34.

Berry LL, Parish JT. The impact of facility improvements on hospital nurses. HERD. 2008;1(2):5–13.

Gharaveis A, Hamilton DK, Pati D. The impact of environmental design on teamwork and communication in healthcare facilities: a systematic literature review. HERD. 2018;11(1):119–37.

Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service. Lady Cilento Children's Hospital clinical review. 2015.

Lourens G, Ballard H. The consequences of hospital revitalisation on staff safety and wellness. Occup Health Southern Africa. 2016;22(6):13–8.

Schwarz N, Sudman S. Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2012.

Dannenberg AL, Bhatia R, Cole BL, Heaton SK, Feldman JD, Rutt CD. Use of health impact assessment in the US: 27 case studies, 1999–2007. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(3):241–56.

Austin MJ, Ciaassen J. Impact of organizational change on organizational culture: implications for introducing evidence-based practice. J Evid Based Soc Work. 2008;5(1–2):321–59.

Fitzgerald L, McDermott A. Challenging perspectives on organizational change in health care: Taylor & Francis; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Todnem BR. Organisational change management: a critical review. J Chang Manag. 2005;5(4):369–80.

Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. Complexity science: the challenge of complexity in health care. Br Med J. 2001;323(7313):625.

Braithwaite J. Changing how we think about healthcare improvement. Br Med J. 2018;361:k2014.

Pomare C, Churruca K, Long JC, Ellis LA, Gardiner B, Braithwaite J. Exploring the ripple effects of an Australian hospital redevelopment: a protocol for a longitudinal, mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e027186.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Castleberry A. NVivo 10 [software program]. Version 10. QSR International; 2012. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2014;78(1).

Elo S, Kääriäinen M, Kanste O, Pölkki T, Utriainen K, Kyngäs H. Qualitative content analysis: a focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open. 2014;4(1):2158244014522633.

Braithwaite J. How to fix a sick hospital: attend to its stressed health carers the Sydney morning herald; 2018.

Baker JG. The perspective of the staff regarding facility revitalization at Walter reed Army medical center. Army Medical Material Agency Fort Detrick MD; 2004.

Pomare C, Churruca K, Ellis LA, Long JC, Braithwaite J. A revised model of uncertainty in complex healthcare settings: a scoping review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(2):176–82.

Kash BA, Spaulding A, Johnson CE, Gamm L. Success factors for strategic change initiatives: a qualitative study of healthcare administrators' perspectives. J Healthc Manag. 2014;59(1):65–81.

Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):158.

Damschroder L, Banaszak-Holl J, Kowalski CP, Forman J, Saint S, Krein S. The role of the “champion” in infection prevention: results from a multisite qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2009;18(6):434–40.

Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, Saul JE, Carroll S, Bitz J. Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q. 2012;90(3):421–56.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the hospital executives, ward directors and nursing unit managers for their support in recruitment of interview participants. The authors also thank and acknowledge the interview participants.

CP was funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) PhD Scholarship. JB is supported by multiple grants, including the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partnership Grant for Health Systems Sustainability (ID: 9100002). The funders had no role in the design, analysis and drafting of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, Australia

Chiara Pomare, Kate Churruca, Janet C. Long, Louise A. Ellis & Jeffrey Braithwaite

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CP and JB conceptualised the project. CP collected and analysed the data, and drafted the manuscript. KC, LAE and JCL assisted in the coding and interpretation of data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Pomare .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was approved by the relevant Ethics Committee in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (no: 18/233). Due to ethical requirements, the committee cannot be named because it may lead to the identification of the study site. Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist.

Additional file 2.

Semi-structured interview guide.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pomare, C., Churruca, K., Long, J.C. et al. Organisational change in hospitals: a qualitative case-study of staff perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res 19 , 840 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4704-y

Download citation

Received : 23 May 2019

Accepted : 31 October 2019

Published : 14 November 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4704-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Organisational change
• Health systems change
• Hospital redevelopment
• Hospital expansion
• Staff expectations

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

OrganizationalChangeandAdaptation →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Organizational change

• Business management
• Organizational development
• Organizational learning

9 Trends That Will Shape Work in 2021 and Beyond

• Brian Kropp
• January 14, 2021

Getting Your Team to Buy into a Big Change

• Namrata Malhotra
• Charlene Zietsma
• December 16, 2020

Unifying Your Company's Old Guard and New Arrivals

• Ron Carucci
• March 17, 2022

Coming of Knowledge-Based Business

• From the September–October 1994 Issue

Persuade Past Resisters

• Antonio Alves
• January 30, 2018

Leadership and the Psychology of Turnarounds (HBR OnPoint Enhanced Edition)

• Rosabeth Moss Kanter
• June 01, 2003

Reaching and Changing Frontline Employees (HBR OnPoint Enhanced Edition)

• T.J. Larkin
• Sandar Larkin
• February 01, 2000

Who Goes, Who Stays? (HBR Case Study)

• David A. Light
• January 01, 2001

Entrepreneurs vs. Executives at Socaba.com (Commentary for HBR Case Study)

• Regina Fazio Maruca
• Ted Murguia
• Christine Comaford
• Stever Robbins
• July 01, 2000

What More Evidence Do You Need? (HBR Case Study)

• Anthony R. Kovner
• May 01, 2010

Managing Change: The Art of Balancing (HBR OnPoint Enhanced Edition)

• Jeanie Daniel Duck
• November 15, 2000

When to Hire an Extreme Leader

• Gautam Mukunda
• September 04, 2012

Live the Vision

• Neil Gaydon
• March 07, 2011

Can We Simplify Financial Regulation?

• Ron Ashkenas
• November 06, 2009

Convincing Your Company Leaders to Invest in New Technology

• Sonya Dineva
• January 18, 2022

The Network Secrets of Great Change Agents

• Julie Battilana
• Tiziana Casciaro
• From the July–August 2013 Issue

Getting Serious About Diversity: Enough Already with the Business Case

• Robin J. Ely
• David A. Thomas
• From the November–December 2020 Issue

How the Fire Department of New York Changed After 9/11

• Gregory P. Shea
• Andre Kotze
• September 10, 2021

Use "Social Proof" to Change Behavior

• Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg
• June 16, 2015

Create Stories That Change Your Company's Culture

• Jay B Barney
• Manoel Amorim
• Carlos Júlio
• From the September–October 2023 Issue

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2009

• Jan W. Rivkin
• Michael A. Roberto
• Ranjay Gulati
• March 18, 2010

Puritan Drug Co.

• Rowland T. Moriarty Jr.
• February 11, 1985

Merck Latin America (D): Mexico

• Michael Beer
• James Weber
• March 12, 2001

First National City Bank Operating Group (C)

• John P. Kotter
• Andrew Burtis
• September 01, 1993

The AIDS Support Organization (TASO) of Uganda

• Sarah Kleinman
• Julie Rosenberg
• Julian Harris
• Andrew Ellner
• April 29, 2011

Hailing a New Era: Haier in Japan (A)

• Carlos Sanchez-Runde Sanchez
• Yih-teen Lee
• Sebastian Reiche
• Yen-Tung Chen
• Yuki Kotake
• November 22, 2012

Sothebys.com

• Roger Hallowell
• Abby Hansen
• May 25, 2000

Rhetoric of Change

• Nitin Nohria
• Brooke Harrington
• August 24, 1993

GE Money Bank: The M-Budget Card Initiative

• Michael L. Tushman
• Sebastian Raisch
• Christian Welling
• October 19, 2009

Codelco Copper Mines

• David M. Upton
• Bradley R. Staats
• Virginia A. Fuller
• August 08, 2007

Nike's Global Women's Fitness Business: Driving Strategic Integration

• Robert A. Burgelman
• April 23, 2007

Reinventing the Organization: How Companies Can Deliver Radically Greater Value in Fast-Changing Markets

• Arthur Yeung
• Dave Ulrich
• September 24, 2019

Creative Destruction: A Six-Stage Process for Transforming the Organization

• Richard L. Nolan
• David C. Croson
• March 13, 1995

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works: The Takeover Bid (B)

• Kavil Ramachandran
• Jayshree Suresh
• Navneet Bhatnagar
• November 01, 2014

Quiet Logistics (B)

• Robert Simons
• Natalie Kindred
• October 20, 2014

Bain & Co.'s IT Practice (A)

• Andrew McAfee
• September 01, 2005

Cargill: The Risky Business of Integrating Climate Change and Corporate Strategy

• Andrew Hoffman
• April 18, 2017

Peter Browning and Continental White Cap (A)

• Todd D. Jick
• Mary Gentile
• March 12, 1986

Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond (A)

• Ernest Gundling
• July 01, 2016

SMA: Micro-Electronic Products Division (A)

• May 10, 2000

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works: The Takeover Bid (A), Teaching Note

A digital transformation mandate: ensure a lifetime of fulfilment for those with down syndrome and their families, teaching note.

• Clare Gillan Huang
• May 01, 2019

Innovation @ ENEL: From Monopoly Power to Open Power, Teaching Note

• Henry W. Chesbrough

Social and Human Factors: Reactions to Change

• Harvard Business School Press
• December 04, 2002

Popular Topics

Partner center.

Purdue Polytechnic Institute

Global mobile menu.

• Departments
• Statewide Locations

Managing Change in Uncertain Times: A Case Study

Change management, defined as the methods and processes by which a company effects and adapts to change, has long been vital to the functioning of successful organizations. As John C. Maxwell said , “change is inevitable, growth is optional.” All organizations undergo changes during their lifespans, but not all organizations are able to effectively respond to change or harness it for success. 

This fact was made painfully apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. After businesses were forced to shut down in-person operations, many suffered catastrophic losses. The airline industry, travel and leisure industry, oil and gas industry, and restaurant industry were among the hardest hit . Thousands of businesses were forced to close for good, and thousands more suffered through significant profit loss, layoffs and downsizing. Still, some businesses made vital adaptations that carried them through the worst of the pandemic. Many restaurants, for example, shifted from traditional, in-person service and poured resources into curbside, takeout and delivery services, using technology to communicate with their customers and remain up and running. These adaptations built on services that the restaurants already offered, making the changes easier to implement and accept.

A Case Study in Change: Delta Airlines

Unlike restaurants, airlines did not have much existing infrastructure to carry them through a global pandemic. Airlines profit based on the tickets they book, and if nobody is willing to fly, airlines can’t just pivot to a “take-out” travel option. After the pandemic hit, airlines were faced with a crucial ultimatum: find an innovative solution or suffer catastrophic losses. Delta Airlines, one of the oldest and largest airlines in the country, decided to tackle the change head-on and immediately started working on a change management plan.

Delta structured changes to its operations around what would make customers more comfortable and ultimately found that customers were willing to pay for some extra peace of mind. Implementing the change was made easier by quick and effective communication across all levels of operation. Flight attendants, gate staffers and corporate communications professionals were given the tools they needed to communicate the company’s safety plan to prospective passengers and execute the new seating rules. As the immediate changes took effect and began yielding results, Delta worked on making the changes more efficient and seamless, refining its process every step of the way.

The Science of Change Management

Delta’s quick and effective response to a major change in business operations helped usher it through the worst of the pandemic without suffering bigger losses. Innovative research on best practices in change management is poised to help other businesses do the same. According to the Change Management Review , using technological and organizational tools to manage “the human side of change” is particularly important. Consider, many businesses were forced to move their operations online after the start of COVID-19, and this change affected employees most of all. The businesses who fared best after moving online were the ones who assisted their employees in adapting to the change by providing opportunities for virtual team building, socialization, and mental wellness checkups, for instance. By considering the effects of change on their employees, these businesses took a proactive approach to getting their teams through a daunting and sudden transition. 

David Michels and Kevin Murphy, two industry experts who research change management, have helped quantify what exactly makes some organizations excel at handling change. According to their study , there are nine organizational elements that contribute to an organization’s ability to manage change:

• Purpose and direction – the qualities that help organizations lead change.
• Connection, capacity, and choreography – the qualities that help organizations accelerate change.
• And scaling, development, action, and flexibility – the qualities that help organizations organize change.

Michels and Murphy also developed categories identifying the challenges many organizations face when dealing with change. They determined that organizations struggling with change were either:

• In search of focus, meaning they struggle to lead change, identify ambitions and map agendas.
• Stuck and skeptical, meaning they struggle to move beyond small-level changes and avoid big decision making.
• Aligned but constrained, meaning they struggle with change because of organizational barriers.
• And struggling to keep up, meaning they struggle with organizational fatigue and burnout. 

This kind of change management research gives organizations the opportunity to critically evaluate their responses to change and map effective plans for dealing with change in the future. Even without the pandemic factor, being able to change and grow is of primary importance in a world of fast-paced technological advancement and global communication. Change management specialists are in high demand in every industry, with 12% projected job growth (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics) and a median salary of $128,992 (Salary.com). 

Purdue Prepares Project Managers to Master Change

Purdue University’s 100% online Master of Science in IT Project Management prepares students for project management careers in the fast-growing information technology field. Students develop mastery of project management processes and procedures using program materials included in the Body of Knowledge developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI®). Courses are taught by industry experts in high-demand specialization areas such as change management,  risk management and security management.

Since the program is entirely online, working professionals can arrange their plan of study around their busy schedules and take classes from anywhere. The program is specifically tailored to industry-experienced go-getters who want to break into the IT field or advance their careers by developing project management expertise.

Professionals who want to grow their expertise without committing to a master’s degree can choose to complete a four-course graduate certificate in Managing Information Technology Projects. The credits from the graduate certificate can be applied towards the master’s degree if a student chooses to pursue the master’s after completing the certificate.

Learn more about the program and graduate certificate on the course’s website .

About the author.

Rachel (RM) Barton

Making Social Change: Case Studies of Nonprofit Service Providers

Building Movement Project developed this set of case studies as a response to numerous requests from groups looking for real-life examples of the often-challenging process of incorporating social change models into social service work. These case studies, geared toward practitioners, board members, and funders interested in this work, serve to complement two other Building Movement publications:  Social Service and Social Change: A Process Guide  (2006) and  Tools for Social Change  (2009), the latter of which provides online and offline interactive exercises and information for organizations ready to take this work to the next level. The organizations highlighted were selected not to lay out a set of best practices for all organizations but to serve as practical illustrations of how groups decide to extend their work to promote client/community voices and the challenges posed by that decision.

The five case studies in this publication offer examples of organizations that are integrating social change activities into their work. For the full report of  Making Social Change: Case Studies of Nonprofit Service Providers , complete with organizational profiles, a reflection guide and additional web resources, please click the PDF link in the sidebar. See below for brief organizational summaries for individual case studies included in the full report.

Queens Community House  in New York made a commitment ten years ago to find ways to return to its activist roots. The organization is dedicated to integrating constituent voices into its work despite the size and scope of its service delivery programs and the tremendous diversity of the people they serve.   Read the Queens Community House case study (beginning on page 7).  

Somos Mayfair  started as the foundation-sponsored Mayfair Improvement Initiative in San José, CA. Now as Somos Mayfair, the organization is using a culturally based transformative approach that emphasizes popular theater, peer-to-peer case management, and community organizing.  Read the Somos Mayfair case study (beginning on page 19). * Click here  for an update on Somos Mayfair’s fundraising for civic engagement! 

Bread for the City  offers health, legal, and social services as well as food and clothing to low-income residents in Washington, D.C. They have begun an organization-wide effort to bridge services and social justice activities and to create a formal structure for advocacy. Now they are figuring out what it means for staff members to support constituent involvement.  Read the Bread for the City case study (beginning on page 35).  

Family & Children’s Service  has drawn on their 130-year history of community advocacy and a focus on organizational values to recommit to strengthening communities and embedding client/constituent voice into their service provision in Minnesota. The organization has been particularly reinvigorated in this work by the influx of immigrants into the metropolitan area. Read the Family & Children’s Service case study (beginning on page 47) . 

Moving Forward Gulf Coast  emerged in response to Hurricane Katrina, providing emergency services to residents throughout the Gulf Coast region. Now the founder and executive director are moving from an emphasis on individual service to video advocacy while building deep collaborations with other groups. Read the Moving Forward Gulf Coast case study (beginning on page 61) .

  Reflection Questions  *  Additional Web Resources

Newsletter Signup

* Email address:

First Name Last Name

Organization

The focus area I am most interested in is... Leadership/Race To Lead Organizational Change Movement Building/Solidarity Is Building Blocks for Change

Netflix Change Management Case Study

Netflix is one of the world’s leading internet television networks with over 100 million members in 190 countries. It has a wide variety of award-winning original programming, documentaries, TV shows and feature films. 

Netflix offers a subscription services to its users to watch all its content online. Now Netflix is producing its own content and also adding quality content of other producers for its users. It has become one of the popular online video streaming web portals and been on first top 50 websites globally.

But Netflix transformed itself and it embraced change with ever changing technology and business market.

What is Netflix successfully change story? How it happened and what challenges it faced to cope with change?

For this questions, we are presenting here Netflix change management case study.

This case study will explore how Netflix has successfully managed change in the past and present. It will also provide recommendations for other businesses on how to approach change management.

The story of Netflix change management

Netflix is a streaming service for movies and TV shows. It has a library of over 200,000 titles that you can watch on your phone, tablet, computer, or TV. You can also download shows to watch offline. Netflix offers a variety of plans, including a basic plan that starts at $7.99/month and a premium plan that starts at $11.99/month.

Netflix was founded in 1997 by Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph. They started the company with the intention of offering a DVD-by-mail service. In 2007, they introduced streaming, which allowed instant streaming of TV shows and movies on your computer. In 2013, they introduced the concept of ” binge watching” with the release of House of Cards, which all episodes of the first season were released at once so that viewers could watch them all in one sitting. In 2015, they launched their own production company, Netflix Originals, which produces movies and TV shows that are only available on Netflix. 

Netflix has undergone several changes since it was founded. The most notable change was the introduction of streaming in 2007, which changed the way people watched TV and movies.

Netflix made two big changes since its started business. First, it introduced the subscription option in 1999 to store DVD rental. This option allows users to rent unlimited DVD rental without late fees. It was a drastic change in the business model of Netflix.

The second big change was happened in 2007, when it launched an online video streaming service. It was a highly disruptive change which completely revolutionalized the concept of watching movies and Tv shows online. Consumers also welcomed this change because this change was the need of time. Because everyone was using smartphone, laptops and computers and trend of going to cinema to watch a movie was on decline. Netflix also used social media and present its content to reach out their customers.  

Netflix’s Change Management Process 

Netflix’s change management process is a model for other organizations to follow. The company has a dedicated team that is responsible for managing change. This team works closely with Netflix’s engineers and product managers to ensure that changes are made in a controlled and safe manner. Netflix has also implemented a series of mechanisms to help prevent and mitigate the impact of changes. For example, all changes are assessed for risk before they are implemented. Netflix also conducts regular post-change reviews to identify any issues that may have arisen from the change. As a result of these measures, Netflix has been able to successfully manage change while minimizing disruptions to its business.

How Netflix manages organizational change forces

There are many factors that affect organizational change . But primarily these are two broad forces of organizational change: a) external and b)internal. Among the external forces there were rapid changes in technology, globalisation, social media etc. These all external factors led to organizational change at Netflix. .For instance, people’s expectation and behaviour, likes and dislikes in terms of watching content was changing due to new technology. New tools, techniques were also affecting business of movies watching and TV shows. But Netflix managed all those forces of change and responded in a big way to meet expectations of its consumers.

There were also internal forces of organizational change like new skills of employees and employees expectations, need of change in work environment, cost of business model etc. Netflix taken all these factors into consideration before going to execute change. And that’s the reason behind their successfully implementation of change.

How Netflix Uses Data to Drive Change 

Netflix’s data team is made up of over 800 people, including statisticians, analysts, and engineers. Their mission is simple: “to help Netflix understand its business and the world.” To do this, they collect and process tons of data every day. This data comes from a variety of sources, including things like clickstream data (what you watch and when you watch it), surveys, social media activity, third-party research, and more. 

Once all this data is collected, it’s organized and stored in a massive data warehouse. This is where things start to get really interesting. The team then uses a combination of qualitative analysis (looking at the meaning behind the numbers) and quantitative analysis (using statistical models to draw conclusions) to glean insights from the data. These insights are then used to inform everything from what new shows to green-light to which actors should star in them. 

For example, let’s say the team notices that a lot of people who watch Stranger Things also tend to watch You. They might then use this information to suggest Stranger Things to people who haven’t watched it yet or recommend You to people who have finished Stranger Things and are looking for something similar. This is just one small example of how Netflix uses data to drive change within its business. 

It’s clear that data plays a big role in everything Netflix does. From deciding which new shows to produce to suggesting content for individual users, data is at the heart of the company’s decision-making process. And as our watching habits continue to be tracked and analyzed, we can expect even more personalized recommendations and a more tailored streaming experience overall.

Learning from drastic changes

In order to maintain a successful business, it is important to occasionally review your company’s methods and make changes where necessary. This is especially true in today’s ever-changing marketplace. Netflix, a leading provider of streaming video content, knows this well. In 2011, the company made a drastic change to its business model that upset many of its customers. However, thanks to careful planning and execution, the change was ultimately successful and resulted in increased profits for the company.

The introduction of drastic changes can be a difficult process, but with proper planning and execution, it can be successful. Netflix provides a great example of how to successfully navigate a major change. By carefully considering the needs of its customers and taking the time to properly execute its plans, the company was able to weather the storm and come out stronger than ever before.

Final Words

Netflix is a great example of change management. Business organizations can learn from Netflix change management case study to keep up with the latest changes and trends. Netflix has been successful in managing change by using data to drive their decisions. There are multiple lessons for other business entities that how Netflix capitalised on its human resources and rightly understood needs of modern-day customers.

About The Author

Tahir Abbas

Related posts.

Step-by Step Guide to Calculate ROI of Change Management

How to Introduce New Technology to Employees

Johnson and Johnson Crisis Management Case Study