Implementing change in the workplace is a dynamic process. While change itself can be controlled and limited to some extent, innovation is fundamentally even more dynamic. This dynamic and unpredictable process introduces vulnerabilities, which can lead to employee frustration. Just as the scenario faces, many individuals are motivated by the thought of change and innovation; however, change does not occur because of resistance or other obstacles. Much of this resistance comes from the unpredictability and vulnerability of the process. Managers must be able to prevent or manage resistance by using tools and strategies to facilitate the process. Preventing resistance is most effective when implementing change. Preventing the burden of inertia in the workplace allows change to occur in a timely manner with minimal issues. As Lee (2004) points out, leaders have the ability to bring about change and performance. If someone is responsible for the results and bad habits, the results will improve. The manager must show an attentive attitude to the change process and welcome every positive innovation. This caring attitude will become contagious to the employees working under him and will become a priority for them too. Approaching change in an accepting and open-minded manner can reduce the vulnerability and frustration associated with change. How the change is presented can make the biggest difference in the outcome of the change. The manager must demonstrate that blame will be avoided at all costs. We will only ask why, not who, to avoid the feeling of belittlement. This can allow employees to feel comfortable expressing their opinions and mistakes, which can allow for an even wider range of improvement. The manager must also encourage… half of the document… procedures are now monitored to improve clinical processes. Ensuring these processes are implemented in a timely and effective manner can also improve the quality of care provided to patients. Process management ensures accountability for the effectiveness of care, which, as previously mentioned, improves outcomes. Finally, providing reimbursement based on quality of care and not quantity also reduces “waste” and overuse of supplies. Previously, providers felt the need to do more than necessary to meet a certain quota based on the amount of supplies or other interventions used. Changing this goal can significantly reduce the cost of care by utilizing the supplies needed to provide effective, high-quality care. I look forward to this implementation of change and hope to see others encourage an increase in high-quality healthcare.