Kurt Lewin’s three-stage model of change is known as the Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze model. This model simplifies the complex organizational change process by breaking it down into three phases. The refreezing stage, being the last phase, is particularly significant as it ensures that the changes implemented during the change phase become solidified and entrenched in the organizational culture. Without refreezing, changes can revert, leading to wastage of time, resources, and effort. In the context of managing a team with high absenteeism, the refreezing stage ensures that newly established habits and rules concerning attendance become the norm and are maintained consistently.
Examples of Refreezing in Healthcare Settings
Implementation of Nursing Information Systems
Bozak (2003) sheds light on the challenges experienced by nursing teams when transitioning to computerization in healthcare. For instance, while some nurses might have been excited about the prospects of digital record-keeping for efficiency, others might have resisted due to apprehensions about adapting to new technologies. Utilizing Lewin’s Force Field Analysis Model, the process of successfully integrating a nursing information system is unveiled. It is about recognizing and balancing the forces that both propel and oppose the change. During the refreezing phase, the organization can anchor this change by organizing regular training sessions for the staff. Furthermore, establishing feedback channels to gauge the system’s performance and addressing issues in real-time is essential. Commending teams or individuals who effectively use the system and swiftly addressing challenges ensures the digital shift is sustained and becomes a regular part of the nursing routine.
The Model of Cascading Change
Edwards et al. (2020) discuss a successful change model employed at a prestigious cardiology department, perhaps akin to those at world-renowned institutions like the Cleveland Clinic or the Mayo Clinic. Their cascading change model encapsulates a synergy of top-down directives and bottom-up feedback. For instance, after implementing a new patient monitoring system, the refreezing phase in this model might see monthly review meetings instituted. During these sessions, top management could evaluate the system’s effectiveness, gleaning insights from nurses, technicians, and doctors who interact with it daily. This structured review mechanism ensures that the change becomes entrenched and swiftly addresses any emergent concerns, ensuring seamless patient care and team collaboration.
Peer Mentorship Programs
In another global example, a European hospital introduced a peer mentorship program for newly registered nurses to help them transition smoothly into the demanding hospital environment. Once the program yielded positive results in reducing early career absenteeism, the refreezing stage involved formally incorporating this mentorship into the hospital’s induction process (Erwin, 2009). This approach ensured that every new nurse was paired with a mentor.
Organizational Learning during Sudden Change
Karanika-Murray et al. (2023) delve into the challenges confronted by healthcare organizations during sudden upheavals, such as pandemics. One such example was seen at St. Peters Healthcare Trust during the 2022 pandemic. Initially faced with soaring absentee rates, they introduced flexible working shifts, remarkably decreasing absenteeism. In the refreezing stage, learning from this success, the Trust decided to embed this practice into their standard operations. They proceeded to invest in remote work technologies and offered specialized training for staff on digital patient consultations. By doing so, they solidified a solution to the absenteeism problem and fortified themselves against similar disruptions in the future, proving the efficacy of embedding learnings during the refreezing stage.
Supporting Others to Ensure Change Remains
For the changes to be effective in the long term, support is paramount. Managers and leaders must proactively offer guidance and resources for team members, ensuring that the changes made are not just temporary (Karanika-Murray et al., 2023). In the case of high absenteeism, this can mean providing counseling for those struggling with personal issues, addressing workplace concerns, or even offering flexibility in scheduling. Regular feedback sessions can be invaluable, allowing employees to voice their concerns or suggest further improvements. Also, recognizing and rewarding those who exemplify the desired behavior can motivate others to follow suit (Karanika-Murray et al., 2023). It is essential to remember that the refreezing phase, while crucial, is not a one-time event but an ongoing process of reinforcement and support.
Conclusion
Lewin’s refreezing stage is pivotal in solidifying the fruits of the change management process. In grappling with challenges like absenteeism in healthcare settings, astutely leveraging this stage becomes paramount. By doing so, organizations not only stabilize and sustain beneficial changes but also foster a more conducive workplace environment. Furthermore, these embedded improvements enhance patient care and service delivery, leading to a healthier, more satisfied community and a highly resilient healthcare system.
References
BOZAK, M. G. (2003). Using Lewin’s force Field analysis in implementing a nursing information system. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 21(2), 80-85. https://doi.org/10.1097/00024665-200303000-00008
Edwards, K., Prætorius, T., & Nielsen, A. P. (2020). A model of cascading change: Orchestrating planned and emergent change to ensure employee participation. Journal of Change Management, 20(4), 342-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2020.1755341
Erwin, D. (2009). Changing organizational performance: Examining the change process. Hospital Topics, 87(3), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.3200/htps.87.3.28-40
Karanika-Murray, M., Whysall, Z., Liu-Smith, Y., Feltbower, C., & Challans-Rasool, E. (2023). Understanding organizational learning in a healthcare organization during sudden and disruptive change. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 16(4), 257-280. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwhm-09-2022-0145
write