Transformation of a state fish and wildlife agency: Missouri Department of Conservation's effort to remain relevant in a changing world

Abstract

In 1935, the citizens of Missouri established the Missouri Conservation Commission in the state's constitution and in 1976 approved a conservation sales tax to ensure sustainable funding for those priorities. These two major citizen‐led initiatives have been the cornerstone of the Missouri model of conservation and key to the successful implementation of The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) mission for more than 80 years. Even with a successful track record, the health of an organization is only ever in two operating modes—growing or decaying. Beginning in 2017, the department began a focused and intentional effort to transform the agency in an endeavor to remain relevant to a changing citizenry and to better equip the agency to meet current and future challenges. The agency first developed a new strategic plan with three identified goals: 1) MDC takes care of nature, 2) MDC connects people with nature, and 3) MDC maintains public trust. Next, a team of internal staff were charged with creating an organizational design that empowered employees to work in a highly interdependent, team‐oriented environment that ensured efficiency of operations, supported the fulfillment of the strategic plan, and placed Missouri citizens at the center of everything the agency does. The new organizational model establishes a system of governance and organizational structure based on centralized guidance and regional implementation of the strategic plan utilizing interdisciplinary cross‐functional teams.

INTRODUCTION

This article is intended to illustrate one agency's response to the changing social-ecological climate of fish and wildlife management in the United States. The path of any organizational change will be dependent upon the need for change, internal support, and sources of resistance (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). While each agency will have a different journey and the specifics of conditions in each state are different, we believe there are lessons to be learned from our experience in organizational transformation. Here we will describe the formative years of the agency, discuss the forces that initiate change, the agency's response, a description of the outcomes to date and share lessons learned from this experience.

Foundational characteristics of the agency

The pre-1930s fish, forest, and wildlife management in Missouri mirrored that of nearly every other state in the United States. In 1935, 75 Missourians concerned with the influence of politics over the state's conservation management practices, formed the Restoration and Conservation Federation of Missouri, now simply known as the Conservation Federation of Missouri (Federation) (Callison, 1981). This event is largely accepted as the first step in the establishment of the Missouri Model of Conservation. The newly formed Federation quickly drafted Proposition No. 4, an amendment to the Missouri Constitution aimed at creating an apolitical conservation agency. The Federation desired to create a system in which the management of fish, forest, and wildlife resources would not be left to the whim of politics, as had been the case for the preceding decades (Callison, 1981).

The Federation sought a constitutional amendment, because in the words of Federation Executive Director E. Sydney Stephens, “If you get a law passed, what have you got? The next legislature could repeal or amend it and the politicians take over…But if you write the exact authority as you want it, put it on the ballot through the initiative and let the people vote it into the constitution—then you've got something permanent” (Callison, 1981). The Federation initiated a citizen-based campaign to garner support from numerous organizations across the state (Callison, 1981). On November 3, 1936, voters approved Amendment 4 to the Missouri Constitution, creating the Conservation Commission and the apolitical, science-based conservation agency with authority over fish, forests, and wildlife (MO Const art IV sec 40(a); Missouri Constitution, 2021).

Through the mid-1970's, MDC was funded like many other state fish and wildlife agencies, lacked adequate resources to hire quality employees, meet the growing demand for services, and respond to the Missouri Conservation Program Report, which called for expansion of programs and funding that serve a broader suite of outdoor recreational opportunities and uses related to fish and wildlife with particular focus on urban areas (Leopold et al., 1970). In 1976, after a few previous attempts, the Federation led a citizen-based initiative petition to pass a constitutional amendment that established a dedicated sales tax of one-eighth of a cent (Brohn, 1977 and Callison, 1981). This tax, known as the Design for Conservation, continues to provide a broad funding base for Missouri conservation that is not common for most fish and wildlife agencies across the nation. Many states that lack a dedicated sales tax or alternative funding sources are heavily reliant on the revenues generated from hunting and fishing permits, federal proceeds, and state general funds. The fluctuation of funding and political will or support available presents a variety of resource allocation challenges for their leadership.

The average Missourian now pays about $19 annually in sales tax revenues that not only supports conservation efforts but provides the Department's primary source of funding. According to the MDC's Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request with Governor's Recommendations (Missouri Office of Administration, 2020), the sales tax provided 61.5% of MDC's revenues in Fiscal Year 2019. Approximately 16.9% came from fishing and hunting permit sales while federal reimbursements contributed another 15.6% in revenues. The remaining 6% in revenues came from “other” sources. The MDC receives no funds from the state's general revenue fund. Therefore, the revenue generated from the dedicated sales tax has allowed the Conservation department to be responsive to the needs of Missouri citizens and the state's natural resources, by offering a wide variety of services to general, non-hunting and angling populations through urban nature centers, education and outdoor skills specialists and, extensive private land technical assistance. The sales tax and constitutionally established Conservation Commission have been instrumental in the success of the Missouri model of managing fish, forest, and wildlife resources.

The sales tax funding, has also afforded the agency the ability to support more than 1400 full-time employees that are able to implement broader and more comprehensive conservation approach, including expanding restoration and management to species of conservation concern, conservation access in urban areas, research to support more-informed decision-making, and extensive communication, education and outreach programs focused on engaging the public in the outdoors. This work could not be possible without revenue to support highly skilled conservation professionals: such as biologists, scientists, and education, outreach and communications specialists: as well as collaborative partnerships with urban and rural communities, including landowners that own more than 90% of Missouri land.

One often overlooked success story of the Missouri Model has been the stable leadership of the agency. The Conservation Commissioners are appointed, by the Governor to rotating 6-year terms, with no more than two Commissioners coming from the same political party. The Director of the Missouri Department of Conservation is appointed by the Conservation Commission, instead of being appointed directly by the Governor, which has insulated the leadership of the agency from the inevitable changes that come with each new Governor. As a result, Director Sara Parker Pauley is only the 9th Director in the agencies nearly 80-year history. Stable leadership and consistency of the agency mission has allowed the agency to enact long-term plans because it has minimized administrative and cultural disruptions, which has likely contributed to programmatic success (Hill, 2005; O'Toole Jr. & Meier, 2003).

Challenges to the status quo

For the Missouri model to remain strong, the Missouri Conservation Commission as the trustees of the state's fish, forest, and wildlife resources must maintain a citizen-based approach to conservation. Therefore, MDC must remain relevant to the state's citizens. In order to accomplish this feat, MDC must adapt to an ever-changing public that is increasingly urban, more diverse, and appreciates nature in a much different way than when the agency was established in 1937 (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and The Wildlife Management Institute, 2019; Jacobson & Decker, 2006; Jacobson & Decker, 2008; Jacobson & Decker, 2017).

The nature-based values orientation of Missouri's citizens, and those of other states, is shifting away from the Utilitarian wildlife values orientation to pluralism and mutualism (Manfredo, Teel, Don Carlos, et al., 2020). A 2018 survey of Missourians estimated that 38% held a traditionalist wildlife values orientation, while 25% were pluralist, 25% mutualist, and 12% distanced (Dietsch et al., 2018). Nationally, traditionalists only represent 28% of the population, while mutualists make up 35% of the population. Mutualism is strongly correlated with modernization, urbanization, education, income, and racial diversity. Therefore, as Missouri continues to shift toward a more urbanized and diverse state, it is likely citizens' value orientations will change as well (Manfredo, Teel, Berl, et al., 2020). Dietsch et al. (2018) found that 69% of Missourians felt they shared many of the same values as the Department of Conservation and 68% expressed trust in the agency to do the right thing for the state's fish and wildlife. However, Manfredo et al. (2017) found that, as a general trend among state fish and wildlife agencies, increasing the proportion of mutualists in a state's population leads to decreased trust in the state agency. This trend is believed to be the result of increasing distrust of the state agency arising from those with traditionalist values (Manfredo et al., 2017).

A 2018 survey of MDC employees revealed that 75% held the traditionalist values orientation, with only 2.5% holding a mutualist values orientation (Manfredo et al., 2018). Additionally, 88 and 99% of MDC employees participate in recreational hunting and fishing respectively, which is a significant departure from the estimated 10 and 22% of Missourians that hunt and fish. The divergence in cultural values between the agency staff and the public could lead to some constituents not seeing their values represented by the agency. Therefore, failure to address and acknowledgement of the varying wildlife values of Missouri's public could lead to long-term erosion of support for conservation (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and The Wildlife Management Institute, 2019).

The emergence of (1) wildlife diseases, like chronic wasting disease and white-nose syndrome and (2) invasive species, like feral hogs and an assortment of exotic plant species, has taken significant amounts of staff time and financial resources away from traditional habitat restoration and population management activities. In addition, MDC, like many other states are experiencing declines in the number of hunters. This is of concern because hunting and fishing permits, and the money generated by federal excise taxes, are a significant source of funding sources that support conservation efforts of MDC and many state fish and wildlife agencies (Figure 1). Therefore, the agency must be more efficient and effective in implementation of conservation actions.

FIGURE 1. Changing age-distribution of Missouri firearms deer hunters from 2001, 2010, and 2020

With the passage of the Conservation sales tax and the accompanying expectations for the Department to provide citizens with greater access to nature, the late 1970s through the early 2000s saw significant increases in both land purchases and infrastructure to enhance conservation and citizen engagement with nature (Figure 2). Citizens' increased access to nature and the Department's improved outreach to landowners—coupled with numerous wildlife conservation success stories—have without question contributed to public support for the agency (Jacobson et al., 2010). However, now more than 40 years after the passage of the sales tax, the agency is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of aging infrastructure built during a time of aggressive expansion, conservation initiatives and service to the public (Figure 2). The current portfolio of infrastructure is a real challenge as it takes a substantial amount of staff time and financial resources to maintain. It is estimated the agency currently has $1.37 billion dollars in infrastructure. Much of the conservation-related infrastructure, like hatcheries, boat ramps, parking lots, and managed wetlands, are in places subject to significant weather events and the associated damage that comes with those conditions. Additionally, not all the facilities with the primary purpose of engaging citizens are in the optimal places for remaining relevant to all citizens of the state.

FIGURE 2. Acres of land managed (owned or leased) and number of buildings (owned or leased) maintained by the Missouri Department of Conservation compared to the number of staff (fulltime equivalates [FTEs] equal to 2080 h worked per year) from 1978 to 2017

To address the diversity of challenges facing the agency, the Conservation Commission and agency leadership began the process of organizational transformation leading to establishment and implementation of clearly identified agencies priorities, and new system of governance and organizational structure.

NEW STRATEGIC APPROACH

The agency's leadership identified the need for better planning to address conservation challenges, budgeting and work planning to priorities, and governance principles within the agency as the most practical way to bring about organizational transformation (Figure 3). One of the first steps was to establish a strategic planning team which would be responsible for facilitating development of a new strategic plan. The team began its work by consulting with staff from across the agency to identify the most important work necessary for the agency to continue to deliver on the mission of conserving Missouri's fish, forests and wildlife and connecting citizens to those resources.

FIGURE 3. Conceptual model for the success of the Missouri Department of Conservation

An outcome-based approach was taken to deliver on the three identified goals of 1) taking care of nature, 2) connecting citizens to nature, and 3) maintaining the public trust (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2020). Two champions, each a key agency leader, were assigned to each outcome. The champions established cross-functional teams and defined the broad strategies, key initiatives, and measures of success for each outcome. The strategic planning team gathered input from staff and used data from the 2013 Conservation Opinion Survey of Missouri citizens to guide strategic planning (Rikoon et al., 2014). Additionally, the agency hosted a workshop with approximately 50 individuals from conservation related organizations from across the state, that the agency had a working relationship with at the time of drafting the strategic plan. The workshop directly engaged stakeholders in the review and development of outcomes and strategies. We directly sought feedback to ensure key elements had not been missed and that the plan incorporated the priorities of currently engaged stakeholders. Staff and stakeholder input was then incorporated into the final version of the strategic plan (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2020).

Immediately upon completion of the new strategic plan, the agency modified its work planning and budgeting process to ensure alignment with the new plan. The changes included development of regional workplans aligned with the goals, outcomes, and strategies within the strategic plan. Employees were required to develop SMART work objectives tied directly to the strategic plan (Bowles et al., 2007; Doran, 1981). Alignment with the strategic plan included development of annual employee performance objectives tied directly to the plan. Additionally, the agency developed a budget tracking system that aligns the internal expenditure plan (budget) with outcomes and strategies defined in the strategic plan.

The outcome team structure remains in place. Current efforts of the champions and their teams are focused on better defining strategic initiatives and impact-level measures of success and guiding the operational units in aligning program goals and priorities to the outcomes.

Establishing a new organizational structure, systems, and culture

Not all of the challenges faced by the Department could be addressed with simple changes to work planning and the budget process. True transformational change required us to take a much closer look at the system of governance by which the agency was operating to develop a better understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. This analysis would be the foundation to develop a model which would build the strengths and address the identified weaknesses.

The agency assembled another team (Org Model team) of staff from throughout the organization to create an organizational design empowering and enabling employees to work in a highly interdependent, team-oriented environment that ensures efficiency of operations, supports the fulfillment of the strategic plan, and places Missouri citizens at the center of the agencies work. Team members were carefully considered for their leadership characteristics, tenure with the agency, rank within the organization, statewide and regional responsibilities, and differing disciplines. The 17-member team had a chair and facilitator who reported directly to the agency's administration. Additionally, when taking on continuous improvement work at MDC we set ground rules that include “rank has no privilege,” which minimizes constraints on discussion.

During the initial phase of the Org Model team's work an outside consultant was brought in to offer outside perspective and expertise with the organizational change processes. The consultant independently conducted interviews and made recommendations to maximize capacity and improve efficiency. However, due to cost and timing constraints, we were unable to fully utilize consulting services to complete the process. Therefore, the team was responsible for facilitation and completion of the work.

The team met frequently over the course of many months and followed an adaptive process with three general steps: 1) assess the current state (evaluate current structure and conduct interviews and surveys), 2) define the future state (define success and identify capabilities), and 3) bridge the gap (design structural concepts) (Collins, 2001; Deshler et al., 2014; Galbraith et al., 2001; Heidari-Robinson & Heywood, 2016). Throughout the process, the team's work was informed by broad input from a comprehensive all-staff survey (607 respondents) and 207 individual in-person interviews. The team also conducted interviews with similar organizations that had recently pursued structural change.

The Org Model team identified five elements for assessment and redesign of the organizational model: 1) strategic plan alignment, 2) regional collaboration, 3) customer focus, 4) efficient delivery of programs and services, and 5) communication and decision-making (Collins, 2001, Deshler et al., 2014, Galbraith et al., 2001, Heidari-Robinson & Heywood, 2016).

The team defined the desired future state of the agency by describing what is working/what is not working, identifying barriers to success, defining tradeoffs and common threads from the new strategic plan, identifying high priority capabilities for a future organization (e.g., strategic unity and talent management), and conducting an exercise that identified programs and activities the agency should start, stop, or continue. The team conducted a thorough evaluation of the current organizational chart and core agency processes. The team documented findings on strategy, communication, people practices and reward systems, areas for increased capacity and expertise, processes and lateral capabilities, structure, leadership, and culture.

Next, the team developed two new structural options as part of a comprehensive organizational model to address structure, processes, and culture. Two new structural models were presented to administration and division leadership and then a modified version was developed that incorporated initial feedback, along with a final report and communication strategy. The team's recommendations were designed to close the gap between the desired future state and the current state and to align with the categories of findings listed above. The final report incorporated recommendations from the outside consultant.

Engaging stakeholders in agency change

Implementation of significant agency change can be extremely challenging in the absence of strong citizen support. The department has a long history of strong citizen support, which is reflected by the results of a 2020 survey of Missourians wherein 75% agreed that MDC is a name they can trust, 70% are confident MDC uses funds wisely, and 60% feel that MDC is a conservation leader (DJ Case & Associates, 2020). Because of strong citizen support, we did not implement an extensive public input process. However, like with the development of the strategic plan we did engage more than 200 partner organizations at two annual partner roundtables to further solicit feedback and describe the need for organizational change. Additionally, because we anticipated resistance from former agency employees, we conducted a brief workshop and open listening session with a small group of influential retirees. We will continue to monitor citizen support and trust in the agency through formal surveys.

OUTCOMES

The Org Model team used feedback from all levels to develop a series of recommendations, including a new organizational model of centralized guidance and regional implementation of the strategic plan. The new structure was intended to operationalize implementation of agency priorities, enhance continuity of operations, and allow for regional customization to meet different conservation challenges. Additionally, the new structure (Figure 4) featured consolidation of the traditional management divisions (i.e., fisheries, forestry, and wildlife), creation of a regional administrator role to enhance local and interdisciplinary decision-making, and realignment of statewide branches to meet the identified functions, and many other changes to address the findings of the Org Model team (Table 1).

FIGURE 4. New Missouri Department of Conservation organizational structure

TABLE 1 Recommendations of the Organizational Model Team

Strategy	Lack of strategic focus	Deemphasize low-priority programs: determine timelines and those affected, dimension impact, and develop communication
	Strategic action plan not operationalized	Operationalize the strategic plan and action plan using project management nomenclature and regional work plans; ensure work plans reflect strategic trade-offs
	Lack of measurable goals and targets	Continue to define measures and set targets at all levels of planning and use the targets to allocate resources; implement systematic program evaluation
Communications	Inconsistent communication channels	Utilize internal communication plans to create mechanisms for cascading informal and formal communication throughout the organization including regional meetings with agency leadership
	One-way communication	Create a feedback loop to ensure what was heard is aligned with the message delivered.
Decision Making	Lack of role clarity	Strengthen role clarity for groups and individuals by clarifying decision-making authority, criteria, and communication;
	Inefficient decision-making	Push decisions down to the lowest level of approval necessary
Process and Lateral Capabilities	Lack of a systematic planning process	Develop a systematic process for strategic and operational planning
	Duplicate approvals	Eliminate approvals for purchasing items that have already been approved in the budget
	Lack of standard work	Develop and implement the consistent application of department policies and processes (“the department way”)
	Lack of consistent customer experience	Develop a system to answer public inquiries and track contacts; update technology systems to enhance program delivery
People Practices and Reward Systems	Staff dissatisfaction with compensation	Continue to implement and refine a new compensation plan based on years of service, market-based pay, and performance pay
	Inconsistent accountability	Increase accountability through individual performance objectives and workload assessments
	Lack of non-promotional development opportunities	Increase opportunities for career ladder, committee assignments, remote work, and non-monetary rewards
Leadership and Culture	Us vs. them culture	Build a unified leadership team around a single department vision
	Disengaged employees	Develop an employee engagement strategy with measures and targets
	Lack of visible values	Review organizational values and expand associated behaviors
	Resistance to change	Develop and implement a change management plan during transformation
Structure	Silos reduce collaboration	Implement matrix management; integrate fisheries, forestry, and wildlife into public and private/community for multi-disciplinary service delivery
	Lack of local control	Establish eight regional administrators to facilitate accountability, decision making, and planning at a local level

Centralized guidance and regional implementation

Centralized branches were designed to establish high-level strategic direction, provide operational frameworks and statewide standards for regional decision-making, ensure key regional operations maintain statewide consistency, provide discipline-specific training and expertise, and ensure accomplishment of statewide objectives. Regional units were designed to scale down and deploy strategic direction within the regions. They are to operate within statewide frameworks and standards, conduct regional operations that require local customization, provide local expertise and perspective to strategic initiatives and planning, deployment of fish, forest, and wildlife management expertise to implement landscape or systems management, and collaborate with statewide programs to set priorities in annual budget and staff work plans, and ensure accomplishment of regional objectives. Solid-line authority over education, communication, wildlife code law enforcement, science, and information technology are maintained through statewide branches due to these programs relying more heavily on a statewide approach.

Newly established regional administrators have solid-line authority over regional staff in natural resource management, public use, private land conservation, community conservation, infrastructure management, and regional business services. Dotted-line authority is maintained for these regional programs through a cross-functional regional coordination team that includes liaisons to the statewide branches.

Focusing and prioritizing agency operations

Changes to the statewide branch structure were done to bring focus on high priority areas. A new relevancy branch was established to direct citizen science and volunteer programs, as well as provide guidance for public use, partnerships, hunter and angler engagement, and all other programs focused on enhancing the relevancy of the agency to broader constituencies (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and The Wildlife Management Institute, 2019; Jacobson et al., 2010; Kellert et al., 2017). An operational excellence section, reporting to the director, with dedicated positions for strategic and operational planning, continuous improvement, customer experience, and employee engagement was established. A new inclusion and diversity coordinator reports to the director and will be assisted by an internal inclusion and diversity council. The agency redirected vacancies from across the agency or consolidated work from other areas to form the new work areas.

Identification of new roles and capabilities

A few new roles were identified to enhance operational effectiveness and focus on strategic outcomes. Regional recreational use specialists were designed to alleviate oversight and direction for recreational use of conservation areas from the fisheries, forestry, and wildlife disciplines, allowing them to focus on species conservation and habitat management on public and private lands. Additionally, recreational use specialists were designed to work closely with the newly established Relevancy Branch to find ways to better engage the public in outdoor recreation on Department owned and managed lands. Regional contract specialists were created to alleviate some of the administrative burden on technical staff, ensure legal compliance, and increase efficiencies of program implementation.

Regional integration of discipline-focused staff in fisheries, forestry, wildlife, private land assistance, and community conservation required the creation of district supervisors reporting to the regional unit supervisors to maintain a reasonable span of control. Enhancing and standardizing the use of district coordination teams builds upon the agency's successful use of interdisciplinary planning and coordination. The regional administrators report to an assistant deputy director that is responsible for bringing consistency and cohesion to eight administrative regions.

Additional functions and increased staffing needs were identified across the agency including infrastructure asset tracking and planning, construction project engineering, data management, budget analysis, systems-based habitat management coordination (aquatic and wetland), community conservation coordination, and enhanced capacity and expertise focused on landscape ecology, fish and wildlife health, and social science.

Regional Administrators and Branch Chiefs were instructed to identify existing vacancies that would be redirected to fill the new capacity needs. As a result, there have been reductions in capacity across a number of areas within the agency, particularly habitat management and public use related area maintenance in low priority areas.

Implementing the new organizational model

The final step was the important work of implementing the new organizational structure. To accomplish this, a “core team” composed of three senior leaders and a facilitator was established to ensure the implementation of reorganization was completed in a timely manner. The team was directed to develop an implementation plan that included finalizing the organizational structure, transition planning for movement of staff throughout the organization, and communication of the changes occurring within the agency.

Because there was an extensive gap between the existing and desired structure, we had to take a comprehensive approach to vacancy management. Administration committed early in the process that there would be a place for everyone in the organizational structure, meaning everyone would have a job. This decision meant full implementation of the new model took longer to implement but increased employee trust and buy-in. New positions were prioritized, and as positions became vacant from retirements, departures, or promotions, deputy directors regularly reviewed and reallocated open positions throughout the agency. An important component of implementation has been addressing staff resistance to organizational change. We attempted to address this in a number of ways: 1) implemented a structured approach to communications, including a check-in process to ensure that leaders had targeted conversations with affected staff before information was made public; 2) talking points and change management coaching for leaders, and clear expectations for leader communications; and 3) we solicited the assistance of an outside change management consultant that helped survey staff to monitor impacts of the change on staff morale.

At the time of publication, the agency continues its efforts to define and implement the other critical parts of the new organizational model including people and practices, rewards system, culture, and process and lateral capabilities.

Measuring success

At the time of this publication, we are only 1 year into the new structure and still filling many critical vacancies. Therefore, it is premature to assess the effectiveness of the organizational change in meeting the previously stated objectives. However, we now have strategic measures in place to monitor successful implementation of the strategic plan and have recently completed development of program objectives and measures that will allow us to assess the effectiveness of the changes to the organizational structure and system of governance. Additionally, we instituted a more frequent (quarterly) conservation monitor survey to get frequent, high-level feedback from the public. We also continue to expand our use of targeted customer surveys to get immediate and actionable feedback on key products and services (website, magazine, nature programs, hunters and anglers, we are still working on an approach to conservation area visitors).

LESSONS LEARNED

It is nearly impossible to go through a process of any kind, much less one of this magnitude, without learning some key lessons. As a science-based organization, the tendency is to look for one optimal solution to the identified problems. If the transformation team develops this mindset, they are likely to become frustrated as there is not a perfect organizational model. Instead, we must choose among many good options and move forward confidently, measure outcomes, and adapt. This process itself was new to us as we are used to asking ourselves, “how long will this one last?” Instead, it is important that the organization review and adapt their organizational model regularly as a normal business practice to remain flexible and capable of adapting to new challenges. Next, we will share other lessons we have learned in this transformational adventure. Some are new, some have just been reinforced.

The work to transform an organization and make it adaptive to modern challenges is hard for governmental agencies with a long successful track record. It requires buy-in and support through all levels of the organization, making communication one of the key challenges that must be addressed. Leadership must understand that transforming an organization is more than reshaping the structure. Development of a change management plan early on would have helped identify the key communication needs. The most critical communication step is to develop an organizational change story that clearly communicates “why” change is needed for staff at all levels of the organization. The importance of explaining the “why” for change cannot be overemphasized. Leaders throughout the agency need to clearly, consistently, and frequently communicate the “why.” Additionally, key leaders throughout the organization must be vested in the change to manage the uncertainty and feelings of loss that are going to occur. It is often said that we do not fear change, we fear the loss associated with change. These feelings were revealed in several ways, including: the loss of discipline identity, individual authority, or being perceived as having failed. It will take time for staff to understand and accept the losses associated with organizational change. Presenting over-riding facts of the need for the change (e.g., limited budgets, aging infrastructure, need for integrated resource management, need for new skillsets [or capacity], need for rewarding staff, need to focus on the new strategic plan) is important; however, finding anecdotes helps staff relate to the need for change. For example, when meeting with regional staff to consider what could be accomplished if MDC's budgets and workplans were focused on “Conservation Opportunity Areas”—also known as prioritized landscapes well-suited to conserving Missouri's fish and wildlife—staff were overheard commenting on the opportunities that were possible if the region's resources were focused in a way that could make an even greater impact. Once staff catch the vision of the “why,” they are much more willing to participate in the investment of change as they see how the change is intended to move us toward the vision. Less than a year into our new model, we are getting feedback that many aspects of the new model make sense.

All staff were invited to biennial meetings in each region. Presentations on key topics, including the “why” and updates from the organizational model team chair, were shared. Breakout sessions included discussions on the “why,” aspects of the strategic plan, and how to focus the agency's work in alignment with the strategic plan. Additionally, during the planning process, the organizational model team conducted online surveys and in-person interviews. Results were shared at subsequent regional staff meetings and included in the team's final report. Staff appreciated knowing they had a voice and noticed when their input was considered.

The development of the organizational change plan did introduce competing views on the recommended approach. Specifically, the recommendations that structural change should be delayed until strategic tradeoffs and cultural change were achieved. Other experts consulted suggested that adequate cultural change and strategic alignment were only possible through significant changes to the organizational structure. The team, along with administration, had to reconcile competing expert advice. Ultimately, agency leadership also concluded that our cultural change required shifts in our structure to reinforce the process changes we needed to implement to prevent us from slipping back into old habits.

The structure should not be viewed by staff as a foregone conclusion when considering a new organizational model. Agency leadership should set a clear charge that the transformation team (Org Model) should consider alternative structures, including the status quo. Staff immediately assume structural changes are in the works and fear these the most. Agency administration and team leaders must frequently explain that an organizational model is more than just the organization's structure. Communications from agency leadership must make it clear, from the beginning, that all aspects of the organizational model are being reviewed to improve the Department to minimize the concern that structure changes are being made just to create change. We acknowledge that organizational transformation may be possible without structural change, if process, function, culture, or budgetary changes can sufficiently alter the system in which the organizational model functions. Additionally, major structural change should not be made without consideration to the other practices that make up an organizational model. While the structural changes continue to be the most visible part of the organizational model change to staff, agency leadership continues to push for a complete remaking of the organizational model centered around five principles of governance (or, “the way we will do business”): unified strategic priorities, integrated approach to natural resource management, regional empowerment and accountability, centralized standards guiding regional implementation, enhanced focus on continuous improvement, and greater customer focus.

Organizational transformation is hard and the physical and mental fatigue for staff and agency administration should not be underestimated. Developing a vision of this magnitude requires a tremendous amount of time and mental energy. Brainstorming sessions, extensive discussions, review and evaluation of governance principles among team members and peers in other organizations is taxing. Additionally, to be effective the effort requires consistent feedback and engagement with agency leadership. It was not uncommon to meet 3 days per week for several months during the most intense portion of the work, with additional follow-up necessary between meetings. We recognize that most transformation teams will be constructed of staff with a lot of operational responsibility. However, for the wellbeing of team members, they should be relieved of their normal, operational duties to the greatest extent possible by temporarily shifting duties to other staff in the organization. Organizational transformation is a critical investment in the department's future and worth the staff time dedicated to the effort.

Agency administration must also ensure they are providing team members the space, support and protection necessary to have candid deliberations without significant influence or intrusions by others in the agency. Additionally, a one-team approach should be encouraged. As an example, we are “One MDC” was continually communicated by agency administration and leadership. Administration was clear in their directives to the Org Model team members, that although they came from different divisions and levels in the agency and brought differing perspectives to the team's work—they were to represent the agency as a whole above all else. We also recommend providing staff with leadership training, team building activities, and other workshops as appropriate to build the skills and trust within the team necessary to carry out the work of organizational change.

Transforming an organization requires a significant commitment of staff time and resources. It may be tempting, to expedite the process and seek outside consultants to add capacity and expertise. This must be done carefully and with a clearly defined purpose. Two consultants were used over the course of our organizational model development, one was used early and was intended to help develop the model, and the other assisted with development of a communication plan that explained the change process to staff and partners. The consultants we utilized were a good source of independent, unbiased opinions. They were not familiar with the organization's jargon and culture. This allowed them to ask pressing questions that required deeper thought than we might ask ourselves and forced us to go beyond our assumptions. However, at times, their unfamiliarity with our terminology and culture was a challenge that occasionally led to unproductive question-and-answer sessions.

Consultants for this type of work can be costly. Do not expect the use of an outside consultant to be a way to save funds and staff time to get your plan developed. When writing your contract, be as explicit as you can and include your expectations for the process you wish to use. If you know what your vision is and have a rough process plan, discuss these with the potential consultant and include them in the contract. They often have their own methodology which they find easier to use and, as a result you may not get your desired outcome.

One of the biggest challenges in implementation of transformative change continues to be maintaining focus on the process and culture-related changes of the new organizational model. This is further complicated by the reality that it takes time to identify new roles within existing FTE/staffing numbers. We have had to wait on vacancies, conduct market-evaluations of these new positions, accept the time it takes to recruit and hire to implement the structural changes. If the process is to be done in a thoughtful and strategic manner, it is important to clearly communicate and manage expectations regarding the amount of TIME necessary for change to occur. It will never happen as quickly as one would like. Therefore, patience, encouragement and support of staff at all levels throughout the organization is critical.

Process and culture-related changes are less tangible, harder to achieve, and harder to measure than structural changes. MDC's post-structure change efforts include ensuring implementation of the new system of governance, clarifying roles and responsibilities for decision-making and authority, redesigning work processes to fit the new structure, and refining the agency's value statements and the associated behaviors to make culture more visible and provide tools for accountability. Without these components in place, the agency is at risk of losing the positive momentum gained by the extensive organizational changes. A change management pulse survey conducted in November 2020 indicated that 71% of all staff were feeling positive about the change framework described so far in terms of its potential to make the agency more successful. However, additional surveys need to continue to gauge progress.

The new model was designed to enable the agency to continually adapt its approach as the social, biological, and political landscapes continue to evolve. We must resist the temptation to remain stagnant and work to ensure that the continual adaptation of the model is an expected outcome of normal business operations. Because, without intentional and sustained change efforts, people tend to retreat to comfortable mindsets and old behaviors. When staff see a disconnect between what they were told is the desired future state, and the actions of leaders and managers, an organization's culture can weaken.

Efforts to transform any organization, but especially one that has a long and successful history, is never an easy undertaking. For agency leaders, the time, expense, and stress on staff that accompanies such an effort can serve as powerful deterrents to make necessary changes. But for fish and wildlife agencies in the 21st century facing myriad challenges in their quest to accomplish vitally important missions, the mandate to stay relevant, focused and prepared for the future must be addressed now. Time is of the essence to face these challenges head-on.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

No ethics review was necessary for this article. Quantitative data was not collected or used for this paper.