Case 10.2: Merger of two hospitals: stakeholder mapping

Developing the merger case presented in Case study 10.1, imagine that your initial vision for the new HR function is one where:

- There will be a core group of HR professionals working on strategic HR issues. Most day-to-day operational matters will be devolved to line managers. The HR department will only work on operational issues where there are clear benefits from providing a centralized service. These benefits could be cost savings or service quality.

- Training and development will be moved from nursing to HR, but some delivery - especially the day-to-day aspects of work-based training - will be based in operational departments.

- The HR function will be restructured. Instead of the two existing departments (based in the former hospitals), each providing a full range of services, work will be reallocated into two broad portfolios and will be managed on a new hospital-wide basis You (the new HR director) will manage one of these portfolios and the other will be managed by one of the heads of the two former HR departments

- You want to co-locate most staff on a single site but you feel this might be easier to achieve if everybody moved to a new location on one of the existing sites in order to avoid the feeling that one of the former departments has been 'taken over' by the other. However, you also feel it is necessary for HR to have a 'presence' on each site but you feel that on one of the sites this should be limited to a small number of staff who will work alongside line managers as advisers. Before you begin to test out this vision with others or start to develop a plan to move from the current situation to your vision for the HR function, think about the others who may have a stake in the change and how they might react using Change tool 10.1.

Case Study 10.3. Merger of two hospitals: Managing stakeholder relationships

1. Review the stakeholder map you produced in Change tool $10.1$ and indicate how you would attend to the concerns of stakeholders. Which stakeholders would you:
   - address proactively: do a great deal to address their concerns? Indicate with a 'P' on your stakeholder map.
   - accommodate: take a less active approach to dealing with their concerns? Indicate with an ' A ' on your stakeholder map.
   ignore: do the legal minimum or refuse to address their concerns? Indicate with an 'l' on your stakeholder map.
   Reflect on how the project might unfold and consider whether any stakeholders you decided to ignore might become more important at a later date.
2. What steps would you take to increase support or reduce opposition for your proposed way of managing the merger?

Price: $20.7

Solution: The downloadable solution consists of 8 pages, 1270 words and 8 charts.
Deliverable: Word Document