• Who do I report to while this change is happening?
• How do I give feedback on the proposed structure?
• Does this mean that my current manager may not be managing me if the proposed structure goes ahead?
• The proposed structure shows that part of our current team will be sitting under one Executive Director and the rest of the team under another.  Does this mean that we will not be working as a team anymore?
• Can I apply for one of the new Executive Director roles?
• Will this be the only change that will be happening to the structure?
• What support is there for us through this time?
• How will staff in the branches outside of Auckland know what is happening?
• What happens to our feedback?
• What do we tell the members (clients)?
• When will we hear what the final structure will look like?
• Is recruitment frozen?
• It’s a senior management restructure but will other parts of the organisation’s structure be changed further down the line?
• Under People & Culture, you mentioned functions being outsourced?  Which ones, specifically?
• Why is the timeframe for consultation so short?
• Under the proposed structure, I would have two managers – how will that work?
• Is it realistic to expect our clients to be “delighted” with our services?
• What is the timeframe around completion of the proposed management restructure?
• The workload of the EDs, particularly the DCCS role, seems huge – is it too much for one person?
• Is retaining current staff part of the ED People & Culture role?
• Will the proposed restructure assist staff in regional offices?
• Will Needs Assessors be expected to sell equipment to raise funds?
• Why such a major restructure? Why not simply fine tune what we already have?
• Why have Community Committees been separated from Volunteer Services?
• Why does PR not come under Marketing & Fundraising?  Is this not the most logical place?
• Will organisational values be developed as a result of the restructure?
• Will the Executive Directors have access to feedback received as part of the consultation?
• Why was such little notice given for Sandra's presentations to staff?
• Under the proposal, different elements of some current roles and teams are now split across different areas, reporting to different Executive Directors.   How will that work?
• Why have changes in the accounts team been implemented before the consultation on the restructure has ended?
• In the past, and currently, we've undertaken quite a lot of external reviews.  Will those still be needed under the proposed restructure?
• Will staff be involved in the new services project teams in all areas?
• Why isn't Guide Dog Services a stand-alone service?
• If our main focus is our clients and their journey, how can we focus on being businesslike at the same time?  The two don't seem to fit.
• How will this restructure develop leadership through the organisation that consistently supports, encourages, values respects and motivates staff to do their job well?
• Will support be offered to those affected during the implementation of the restructure?
• Why is AIC mentioned when it no longer exists?
• Will there be room for flexibility within the proposed new structure, in particular in terms of service delivery to clients across the country?
• Will there be any strategies in place to minimise the risk of specialised skill loss under the proposed new service delivery model?
• Will the Executive Directors have to be Auckland-based?
• I'm a member and I don't like the term "client" – it fits more with paying for service and doesn't recognise the special relationship between the organisation and its members.
• How will PR relate to all of the different teams?
  
• Aren't supporters and donors our clients too?
• Why are Adaptive Communications Instructors part of Access, Innovation and Enterprise and not Direct Client Contact Services?

Who do I report to while this change is happening?

You will continue to report to your current manager.  There will be ongoing communication to ensure that you are aware of what changes will take place and when those changes are likely to occur.

How do I give feedback on the proposed structure?

There is a form that you can complete and send to Raewyne Lovich, Sandra’s PA.  The forms are available on the website at www.rnzfb.org.nz/management_restructure . She will be collating these for Sandra.  You can also email your views to Raewyne at  rlovich@rnzfb.org.nz

Does this mean that my current manager may not be managing me if the proposed structure goes ahead?

Your manager may or not be managing you. If the proposed structure is accepted, people will be invited to apply for the new roles.  Your manager may well choose to apply and if they are successful, will be appointed.  If they are not successful, you could have a new manager.

The proposed structure shows that part of our current team will be sitting under one Executive Director and the rest of the team under another.  Does this mean that we will not be working as a team anymore?

       
The objective of the changes is to create a Foundation where the client is at the centre of everything that we do and we work as one team.  This may mean that our current way of delivering services needs to change. 

As we have looked at the services that we are currently delivering and need to deliver in the future, we believed that the service to our clients will be improved by grouping the services differently to how they may be currently structured.

Can I apply for one of the new Executive Director roles?

At the end of the consultation period, once the feedback has been considered and the final decision made on the structure, applications will be sought for the Executive Director roles from inside and outside of the Foundation.  If you believe that you have the required competencies and experience, you can certainly apply.

Will this be the only change that will be happening to the structure?

Once the final structure of the Lead team is confirmed, we will be working with staff to “fine-tune” the structure of the levels underneath those new roles.  We want to involve you in this work.

We want to complete this work as soon as possible, with the least interruption to you and to our clients.  We will be communicating with you what is happening and what the timeframes are. 

What support is there for us through this time?

We have asked the team at Grafton Consulting Group to provide you with support.  You can contact Jenny Manson at 09 358 9751.

How will staff in the branches outside of Auckland know what is happening?

Sandra is going around the country over the next few days to brief them on the proposed changes.  They will also be able to see the information on our website.

What happens to our feedback?

Sandra will review the proposed structure taking into consideration your feedback and suggestions.  Any changes that you suggest that have merit or improve on what is proposed will be incorporated into the final structure.

What do we tell the members (clients)?

Our current clients should not see any difference in our service delivery during the change.  They should certainly see an improvement in the service when the changes are complete.  You can tell them that we are going through some internal restructuring to improve the level of service that we offer them.

When will we hear what the final structure will look like?

The consultation period finishes at 5.00pm on Thursday, 22nd May 2008.  Sandra will present the final structure on the 26th May 2008

Is recruitment frozen?

As the proposed restructure is currently in the consultation stage, it is “business as usual” and recruitment is not currently frozen.  A decision will be made on this once the final structure is announced.

It’s a senior management restructure but will other parts of the organisation’s structure be changed further down the line?

I anticipate that, as a result of the proposed restructure, some further work around service modeling by the Executive Directors and the new teams will take place.  As I’ve said to staff in my presentations, I expect the Direct Client Contact Services and Access, Innovation and Enterprise will be the first areas to undertake service redesign and organisational design.   The new teams will bring their expertise to arrive at the best solutions for our clients. If there were any changes in roles or functions, it would be as a result of this process.

Under People & Culture, you mentioned functions being outsourced?  Which ones, specifically?

We already outsource some aspects of our systems support in payroll, IT and some training programs. My vision for the organisation and this proposed restructure is to streamline systems and processes which could open up the possibility of outsourcing certain elements of our activity. No decisions have yet been made as to which areas may be outsourced in the future.

Why is the timeframe for consultation so short?

The timeframe is brief for a number of reasons.  Most importantly, I want to give everyone enough time to respond to the proposed restructure but at the same time not to stretch things out for those who are affected.  Times of change are difficult and not made easier by long periods of uncertainty before decisions are reached.   I also want to get the leadership team on board now to have input into, and complete, the work that has commenced on the Foundation’s major strategic 2020 project.

Under the proposed structure, I would have two managers – how will that work?

As the proposed restructure is intended to encourage better working within and across teams, some roles may be affected in this way.  Where that is the case we will look at where the closest synergies exist and where the role may sit most logically.   How the responsibilities that relate to the other team and manager will need to be worked through with the new teams and the individuals involved. This proposed restructure is all about developing internal relationships so we can deliver the best service to our clients.

Is it realistic to expect our clients to be “delighted” with our services?

By saying that part of my vision is that clients are delighted with our service, I mean that I want clients to feel that they’ve received the best possible customer service and have expressed satisfaction with the way we do things at every stage of their journey with the Foundation.  In light of feedback from staff I take on board that wording could be revised to better reflect this.

What is the timeframe around completion of the proposed management restructure?

This will be dependent on the recruitment process and timing around when the proposed Executive Directors can be in place. 

The workload of the EDs, particularly the DCCS role, seems huge – is it too much for one person?

The proposed ED roles will focus on strategic, rather than operational leadership.  This means they will oversee activities in their areas and consider the bigger picture.  Staff nearer to the client will be empowered to make decisions on service delivery.

In terms of the ED DCCS role, drawing all direct client contact services under one team is crucial if we are to achieve the aim of the integrated journey for our clients.

Is retaining current staff part of the ED People & Culture role?

The essence of the People & Culture role is around not only attracting new talent but retaining valuable staff. The whole focus of the role is to ensure this is achieved, from developing a learning culture, to developing talent through career progression opportunities and a proposed ‘accelerator’ talent programme.

Will the proposed restructure assist staff in regional offices?

The image I used in my presentation is one of three circles.  Our clients are in the middle circle – at the centre of everything we do.  Staff who directly deliver services to our clients are in the circle surrounding them and the leadership team along with the Board are in the outer circle.  In my vision, it is the leadership team’s responsibility to support our staff and others to their job well, with the tools, skills and systems that make it easier for them to deliver great services to our clients.   This applies to all staff, in every region and at every level.

Will Needs Assessors be expected to sell equipment to raise funds?

Equipment Services will be adopting more of a commercial approach and it will be their responsibility to effectively market our range of equipment both to members and those outside the organisation. 

Why such a major restructure? Why not simply fine tune what we already have?

To improve client service delivery and ensure future sustainability a significant change is needed to lift internal capability. This requires more than tinkering with different parts of the business.     It is my desire to develop the Foundation as a high performing organisation with a leadership that develops a client-focused workforce and a positive and open culture that not only says it has the client at the centre of everything we do, but demonstrates it.  Crucial to achieving this will be a strong leadership team, working together.

Why have Community Committees been separated from Volunteer Services?

Under the proposed restructure, Community Committees have been mentioned as a key stakeholder under Stakeholder Relations as I'd like to further nurture and develop this relationship, primarily for consultation and advocacy purposes.

The work that Community Committees undertake on our behalf with our members does have strong synergies with Volunteer Services, indeed those sitting on Community Committees are frequently volunteers.  It has also been suggested to me that Community Committees might be a good fit within Direct Client Contact Services.

I'm grateful for all feedback on this issue and will be giving all options due consideration before announcing the final structure.    As I have said in my presentations, this proposed restructure is all about developing internal relationships so we can deliver the best service to our clients.  So wherever Community Committees "sit" there will be strong linkages to all other areas where synergies exist.

The Community Committee review currently being undertaken will further assist in defining the future role and function of community committees.  A report will be presented to Board in June.

Why does PR not come under Marketing & Fundraising?  Is this not the most logical place?

The PR function, by its nature, has synergies across all teams.  I agree that there exists cross over with Fundraising & Marketing, in particular in the areas of branding and promoting one consistent message.

However, the PR function encompasses much more than this, including: reputation management, profile building, corporate communication, media relations and internal communication.  I'm keen to promote greater linkages with the education and awareness team, so am proposing that the PR function sits with education and awareness under Stakeholder Relations.

As I've stated in my presentations, this proposed restructure is all about developing internal relationships, in essence moving away from a silo mentality.  Wherever the PR function sits there will be strong links and interrelationships with all other areas that involve a PR, Communications or branding element, particularly Marketing & Fundraising.

Will organisational values be developed as a result of the restructure?

The Board and I are committed to developing the Foundation as a high performing organisation with a leadership that develops a client-focused workforce and a positive and open culture that not only says it has the client at the centre of everything we do, but demonstrates it.  Crucial to achieving this will be a strong leadership team working together and upholding the organisational values.

Our current organisational values are:

• Member-centred
• Working as one team
• Innovative
• Learning and evidence-driven
• Committed to continuous improvement and long-term sustainability

The Board and I are continue refine these values and Project 2020 has identified further suggestions which will form part of the ongoing work.

Will the Executive Directors have access to feedback received as part of the consultation?

Absolutely.  Much of the feedback received includes a level of details that it is not possible to look at as part of this consultation, which is focused on the bigger picture.   These detailed observations and suggestions will be will be vital to the new leadership team when they come on board.   The feedback will give them an immediate snapshot of thoughts and suggestions concerning their area.  This will be valuable in informing the organisational design and effective service modelling which they will be working on with their project teams.

Why was such little notice given for Sandra's presentations to staff?

I acknowledge that little notice was given in advance of my presentations to staff. This was unavoidable given the nature and scope of my announcement.  I wholeheartedly thank all staff, especially field staff, for arranging their schedules to ensure they could attend and have been pleased that I was able to present to so many of you in person.

Under the proposal, different elements of some current roles and teams are now split across different areas, reporting to different Executive Directors.   How will that work?

As I've said in my presentations, the proposed restructure is intended to encourage better working within and across teams, and some current teams and roles may be affected in this way. 

In the proposed restructure, I've tried to look at where the closest synergies exist and where the role may sit most logically.  

The detail on how those interrelationships will work in practice will be the responsibility of the Executive Directors and their teams and I anticipate that this is an area they will look at with their project teams.  This work may see some minor modifications to the final restructure as the Executive Directors begin work on the organisational design and service modelling.

Why have changes in the accounts team been implemented before the consultation on the restructure has ended?

The proposed senior management restructure, which I’m currently consulting on, and the review of the Awhina House accounts team roles and responsibilities are two separate projects.

The changes to the accounts team are the result of a separate, internal consultation involving only the accounts staff and management.   The consultation was prompted by the Central Processing Unit’s move from Accounts into Fundraising.  The process was completed and announced by Gerard Rahman by email to staff on Tuesday 6 May.

The time period from the consultation with accounts staff and the changes taking place has been quite short.  As such, many staff outside of accounts will have been unable to anticipate the changes.

However, the whole accounts team was heavily involved in the consultation process and individuals affected were given the opportunity to work through their options and the best choices for them.    This is my approach with any restructure and my utmost priority is to ensure that the people affected are treated with respect and dignity.

In the past, and currently, we've undertaken quite a lot of external reviews.  Will those still be needed under the proposed restructure?

The aim of the proposed restructure is to build internal capability.  It would be my hope that in the future we could implement such reviews, which are important in evaluating our services, in-house using our own expertise.  However some additional project expertise may still be necessary in some areas.

Will staff be involved in the new services project teams in all areas?

A priority for all the EDs will be the detailed organisational design work to define functions and service modelling.  This will be undertaken by project teams from within the respective portfolios alongside external facilitators to help encourage fresh and innovative ideas.

Why isn't Guide Dog Services a stand-alone service?

I believe that guide dogs are an important option available to our 11,700 clients as part of their journey with the Foundation.   As such, alignment with our other key client services is essential.

Like all staff, the GDS team will be closely involved in the organisational design and service modelling of their area and working to develop close synergies with other client contact services.

I acknowledge that the National Manager GDS position remains vacant despite ongoing recruitment efforts. The appointment of a National Manager for the service will be one of the first priorities for the new Executive Director.

If our main focus is our clients and their journey, how can we focus on being businesslike at the same time?  The two don't seem to fit.

During this consultation, I've been delighted to hear staff really embrace the client (member)-centred focus which is at the heart of my vision for the Foundation.

The client-centred approach and achieving businesslike operations are not mutually exclusive.

With the client at the centre of everything we do, surrounded by direct services staff, the leadership focus is ensuring that our people are well supported to provide the best service to our clients.  

To achieve this, it is the responsibility of the Board and management to ensure that government funding and the charity dollar are used in the most effective way.  This, along with the organisational service modelling, requires a businesslike approach.

How will this restructure develop leadership through the organisation that consistently supports, encourages, values respects and motivates staff to do their job well?

My philosophy is focused on the fact that we achieve success through our people.  To do that, we - the Board and the leadership team - have a responsibility to develop our staff.

As I said in my presentation, I am strongly committed to building a culture that develops and supports our staff to build internal capabilities and to do their job well.   The People & Culture ED role has been designed specifically with this in mind.

In addition, each ED has a specific accountability within their role that requires them to create a high-performing, open organisational culture within their portfolio.

Will support be offered to those affected during the implementation of the restructure?

 

Times of change are difficult for those involved and it's my priority to ensure that anyone affected during the proposed restructure is treated with respect and dignity.  Any individuals affected will be given the opportunity to work through their options and the best choices for them and a full programme of support will be developed as part of the implementation plan.
 

Why is AIC mentioned when it no longer exists?

 

This was an oversight within the presentation and I appreciated this being highlighted.  I do understand that the former AIC roles are part of Accessible Format Production.
 

Will there be room for flexibility within the proposed new structure, in particular in terms of service delivery to clients across the country?

The new restructure is all about creating consistency and promoting internal relationships to deliver the best service to our clients.  Whilst promoting common principles, any new model must provide a level of flexibility.  This is especially true for the Foundation.  A client-centred focus must, by its nature, be flexible to best suit individual clients, each of whom has different needs.   A "one size fits all" approach will not work.

Will there be any strategies in place to minimise the risk of specialised skill loss under the proposed new service delivery model?

Any new service delivery model will be defined with the team's input. Issues relating to workforce skills and capabilities will be a critical component of this.

 

Will the Executive Directors have to be Auckland-based?

 
There are advantages to having the leadership team in one place.  That said, the most important thing is finding the right cultural and strategic fit for the positions.   There are a number of mechanisms for good communication that we are currently looking into, such as video and teleconferencing, which would assist working relationships across the country.
 

I'm a member and I don't like the term "client" – it fits more with paying for service and doesn't recognise the special relationship between the organisation and its members.

The reason for using client within the proposed structure change is to encourage staff to focus on delivering excellent customer service and to ensure that members/clients are at the centre of everything we do.

Our members of course remain members of the Foundation. This internal reference to clients in no way impacts the governance arrangements brought in as part of becoming of, and not for, the blind. 

How will PR relate to all of the different teams?

There is a responsibility around PR and communications in every team, not just Stakeholder Relations and Marketing & Fundraising.  This is crucial to achieving one consistent message both within the Foundation and when promoting our organisation to external stakeholders. This in turn helps build and reinforce a clear brand for the Foundation and what we stand for.

To achieve this, I don't envisage a PR role within each activity or service.  Rather, teams will work in close conjunction with the PR function, using the team as an important resource.      

The proposed restructure is all about developing internal relationships to provide the best service to our clients.   That means increasing our in-house capabilities and encouraging these relationships so that we can put our collective expertise and specialist knowledge - of which we have huge reserves - to best use.

Aren't supporters and donors our clients too?

Our members are our ultimate clients and everything we do must be focused on providing the very best services to them.

But some teams will have their own additional set of clients that must also sit at the centre of activities in order to achieve our Vision.   

Donors and supporters are Marketing & Fundraising clients, colleagues in other teams are PR clients, staff are clients of People & Culture, and so on.

Why are Adaptive Communications Instructors part of Access, Innovation and Enterprise and not Direct Client Contact Services?

The intention with the ACI roles is to really focus the service, avoid duplication of effort and eliminate any existing confusion over where the Adaptive Technology service stops and where the ACI roles start.

Currently ACIs are part of Rehabilitation and to me the clearest synergy under the proposed restructure is within the Access, Innovation and Enterprise team.

This is not to ignore the fact that a huge part of the ACI role is training our members.  A number of colleagues have indicated that this team might be a better "fit" under Direct Client Contact Services for this reason.

As I've stated in my presentations, this proposed restructure is all about developing internal relationships so we can deliver the best service to our clients.   ACIs proposed position within the Access, Innovation and Enterprise team does not get in the way of collaboration with other teams.  Quite the opposite, as those relationships will be crucial.