Change Management in the Public Sector

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

(July 2014)

By

Ian Jordan, D.M.

1
 Paper Outline

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present an emerging theory many scholars have about

organizational change management; specifically public sector organizational change. From

exploration of current literature, an analysis of change management perspectives and research

findings in the area of organizational studies will be used to support the premise that public

organizational change management is more successful when viewed as a framework of process

in flux, rather than a series of separate steps. A process view is therefore considered to give a full

account of the purpose, scope, and success of public sector organizational change. Process has

emerged to be the accepted way this researcher views the approaches to successful change

management initiatives.

2
Body of Research

This paper provides a framework to conduct change management initiatives in public

sector organizations, specifically aspects associated with public sector change management. The

use of "best practice" approaches from various scholars and practitioners will be evaluated in

order to get more theoretical guidance on effectiveness from the development of established

efficiency processes in public sector organizations.

Identification of Policy Alternatives:

This traditional style of public administration causes friction among public sector

management and staff quite frequently due to the rigid reporting environment. In the pursuit of

change in this type of organization, especially a public management policy change, management

must be made cognizant of the current culture of the workforce and the public. Management

must also be advised of other public management models that are available as alternatives. The

concept of a new public management model that has all the appropriate functions the traditional

model provides, but also brings additional functions such as improved customer service, better

employee involvement and morale, better public/private relations, and overall better effective

functions of government would be the overarching goal. The subject of change in public sector

organizations is very diverse so the initial aim is to spell out the relationship and issues

surrounding the key stakeholders. The culture of political organizations changes due to external

and internal influences. Changes could be viewed as both positive and negative, so focus will be

aimed at why government organizations need to change from the existing public administrative

perspective to a new public management approach. This allows for a comparison of the

effectiveness and the long term ramifications of implementation. Research would seek to identify

3
several views on public and private administrative changes that worked, and those that did not

due to a lack of agreement. The exploration of the difficulties associated with various types of

changes in government will also be part of this paper.

Literature Review:

The approach to this type of change is not to be taken likely. Only 19 percent of these

types of cultural change initiatives are successful (Leban, 2008) so a well thought out and

carefully initiated strategy is the only way to approach this type of change. This strategic

thinking identifies the problem to be solved by policy, but to actually get the ball rolling on the

new initiative requires a change agent that understands the dynamics associated with political

change. This person must “unfreeze” the status quo; make the proper adjustments, then

“refreeze” the changes when satisfied with the adjustments. Leadership is a key requirement is

this process.

The change agent responsible for putting together the process required for a public

administrative change initiative can draw from the several years of study in to the matter. The

literature provides guidance to the approach, implementation, management, and solidification of

research into a public sector organization.

The approach to making changes first requires the identification of a need to change. In

the book Smart Choices, the authors John S. Hammond, Ralph L. Keeney, and Howard Raiffa

(1999) sum up the definition of a decision problem this way “You can make a well considered,

well thought out decision, but if you’ve started from the wrong place-with the wrong decision

problem-you won’t have made the smart choice. The way you state your problem frames your

decision. It determines the alternatives you consider and the way you evaluate them. Posing the

4
right problem drives everything else.” (Hammond et al. 1999). The authors were clear to point

out that problem identification is the first step in any research under serious consideration.

According to Leban (2008) “Change management is a systematic process whereby an

organization responds and adapts to the forces in its micro and macro environment in order to

increase its effectiveness and ensure its survival. In short, managing change is all about moving

an organization from its current state to some future desired state.” Leban (2008) posits that

change is not merely based on coincidence, but on long term strategic problem solving. This

dilemma is facing both public and private organizations. In fact the global economy puts even

more pressure on these organizations in light of emerging global economic ties.

Prichett (2008) argues that rigorous evaluations of public policies are missing in most

government organizations. Prichett (2008) also suggests that problems associated with public

policies are rooted in the failed understanding of how to evaluate and measure performance in a

governmental organization. According to Prichett (2008), “advocates” are not always involved

with a change in public policies. This causes implementation problems and often leads to

conflicts between “advocates” who are described as lobbyists that represent competing public

and private concerns.

As an example, NASA was quoted by Leban (2008) as having to change its

administration under pressure by political and legal forces. One example of these forces is the

investigative report for the crash of space shuttle Columbia which was released on August 25,

2003. The report was a strong indictment of NASA and the way it failed to prevent this disaster.

The independent investigating board suggested in its final reports the changes that needed to take

place at NASA:” NASA’s organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as foam

5
did,” the investigators wrote, adding that the chain of events [decision making] that led up to the

crash showed that NASA had failed to learn or forgotten the lessons of the 1986 Challenger

disaster, which also killed seven astronauts. The report said the space agency will have to make

profound changes to its way of doing business if it is to avoid future calamities “the scene is set

for another accident” it wrote. NASA does not have effective “checks and balances, does not

have an independent safety program and has not demonstrated the characteristics of a learning

organization” it added. The panel, headed by retired Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., said it

expected that its recommendations will go unheeded unless the NASA culture can be remade. In

all, the panel issued 29 recommendations, some necessary before shuttle flights resume and

others that should be adopted to make the shuttle safer over the long term. “the changes we

recommend will be difficult to accomplish-and will be internally resisted,” the investigation

wrote.” (Leban 2008).

Defining what the current administrative model is becomes the second element in the

process. LaGuardia (2008) expressed this definition of organization culture.” Organizational

culture is different from world cultures, those tapestries of shared histories, languages, beliefs,

and foods, which are the source of our identity.” This statement supports the notion that

organizational culture connects all areas of world culture, especially in the political and public

arena. Cultural change in government can therefore be looked at as a local, national, or

international matter. This creates special problems for agents who seek change in the

governmental or public sector. Some governmental operations have multiple cultures

overlapping both the workforce and the general public.

Leban (2008) acknowledges this respect for employee impact on cultural change

initiatives. The following excerpt features some of the ideas he wrote about relating to cultural

6
change. “Employee satisfaction and engagement have shown to be related to organizations

outperforming their competition. Employee engagement cannot only make a real difference, but

it can also set the great organizations apart from the merely good ones. A combination of the

right business environment and a culture that creates wants instead of requirements place few

limits on what employees can achieve.” This statement summarizes the difficulty of trying to

change an organization, especially a governmental entity, without the “buy in” of the employees

and the public.

Paarlberg and Perry (2007) evaluated and focused on change management, values

management, and public service motivation. Paarlberg and Perry (2007) explored the efforts by

the US Department of Defense to align individual behavior with corporate goals. In addition to

this effort, the process by which DOD management systems fostered the creation of shared

values (culture) was also studied. The authors’ state that values and culture is developed through

employee experiences with the formal institution, indoctrination, communication, and rewards

for goals achieved (Paarlberg & Perry 2007). Lencioni (2008) explained the dilemma faced by

executives in finding change agents. Lencioni (2008) believes the best leaders are in every area

of business, not just the big companies. “People begin to take greater interest in their colleagues,

helping them find meaning and relevance in their work and find better ways to gauge their own

success. This gives them a greater sense of meaning while creating a sustainable cultural

advantage” (Lencioni 2008). Zaffarano (1992) cites Charles Manz and Henry Sims’ argument

that in order for any organization to achieve excellence, it is critical for the leadership to teach

employees the nature of leadership. In their view all employees can be leaders. According to

their super leadership vision, Manz and Sims believe that “to be effective, a leader must

successfully influence the way people influence themselves” (Zaffarano 1992). This supports

7
the notion that leaders are created, not born and corporations that are considered high

performance show an affinity for change, while those that struggle show a lesser degree of

change acceptance. Cultural change being one of the most difficult change initiatives must

certainly be more successful in high performing organizations than in those that resist change.

The role of leadership in implementing a public management model mandate those in charge to

act in the best interest of the public.

Organizational change is a topic viewed as central and important to organizational

studies, but the meaning of organizational change and how to study it is very much still in

dispute ( Van de Ven & Poole 2005). According to Brown and Duguid (2000) “organizations

that reengineered their business processes would gain sustainable competitive advantage, so an

emphasis on change management is important to the success of any organization”. The major

concern in organizational change management seems to be focused on the definition of what an

organization is and is not. Organizations can be viewed as things or nouns, or as a verb or

process, and in terms of strong and weak forms of organizational change (Van de Ven & Poole,

2005). Van de Ven and Poole (2005) also presented the argument in their academic article that

the true value of these distinctions lies in viewing them in ontological terms. That requires

viewing the organizational world in two versions: a world in which processes represent change in

things, and a world of processes in which things are reifications of processes (Van de Ven &

Poole, 2005). Furthermore, two definitions of change are often used in organizational studies: an

observed difference over time within an organizational entity, and a narrative describing a

sequence of events on how development and change unfold (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005).

The view that change is constant and not static is very important to the change

management perspective. (Organizational) Transformative process, as an example, is considered

8
an interaction between people, and the goal is to use the forces generated by this interaction to

produce outcomes that promotes organizational systems development (Karp, 2005). Karp

(2005) also considered this process to be constant and effective at various levels of

organizational reality. Collective levels, conceptual levels, and individual levels are all

considered aspects of transformative process and thus represent the working tiers of this

conception. The type of theorizing considered by Karp (2005); Van de Ven (2005); and Poole

(2005) is beneficial to the lay researcher looking for qualitative validation of the view that a

change management perspective is better viewed as a process rather than as a static “thing”.

Process work is further understood as a dynamic relationship between context, content, and form.

Each variable is thought to be acting on each other according to Karp (2005). The use of

feedback mechanisms are unequivocally crucial to any process, as well as the acknowledgement

that organizational processes are humanistic and non linear in nature (Karp, 2005). Furthermore,

this non linear organizational model include efforts that are collective and individual, therefore it

could be argued that most processes in organizations should focus on the interpersonal and

intrapersonal aspects of individuals (Karp, 2005). Group identity that is form orientated, as well

as group tasks that are content orientated represent the output from these individuals in

organizations according to Karp (2005). Karp (2005) states” we should also acknowledge that

biological and organizational evolutions are similar complex adaptive systems. Accepting this

premise, we can further argue that the evolution of social systems (as organizations), including

the evolution of mental content can be discussed by applying the same principles that underlie

biological evolution.”(Karp, 2005, p159)

The ecology of the organization is another important consideration to make when dealing

with organizational change (lomi et al., 2005). They postulated that an empirical historical study

9
is essential to the overall understanding of organizational change partly because organizations

have shown a propensity for automatic changes over a period of time (Lomi et al., 2005). As

organizations endeavor to control this phenomenon, pressure is placed on the structures,

processes, and boundaries of the organizational construct (Graetz & Smith, 2005). Graetz and

Smith (2005) further acknowledges that as organizations try to understand how to be more

attentive and responsive to environmental trends, customer needs and expectations, emphasis is

placed on experimentation with various forms of organizing. Focus is placed on changes to

structures that allow for more autonomous decision making as well as more collaborative

information sharing (Graetz & Smith, 2005). A quantitative method of measuring and evaluating

process change must also consider a management performance framework that tracks all services

to micro measures and specific accountabilities according to Graetz and Smith (2005).

Bresnen et al. (2005) argues that project based organizations present a particularly

complex and dynamic change management issue. This insight is due to the view that in the

context of project based organizations operating in project environments, the understanding of

change in routines and their relations to management practices are particularly difficult because

of idiosyncrasies with the nature of project based organizations (Bresnen et al., 2005). The

application of project based organizational change is further complicated by the unique nature of

project tasks and the finite duration of project lifecycles in these types of organizations (Bresnen

et al., 2005). Overall, the concept of organizational change has been studied and evaluated

extensively. Often the views of the academics and practitioners vary and conflict with each other.

By (2005) states “theories and approaches to change management currently available to

academics and practitioners are often contradictory, mostly lacking empirical evidence and

10
supported by unchallenged hypotheses concerning the nature of organizational change

management”. (By, 2005, abstract)

The grounded theory approach, considered exploratory in nature, was employed to

conduct the research By (2005) conducted using a constant comparative method to design the

study. By (2005) recommends further empirical research of organizational change management

in order to develop a better framework, and to further expand the research into the nature of

change. Due to By (2007) making the assertion that failure rate of change initiatives hover at

approximately 70 per cent, By (2007) recommends an “implicit communications strategy, a

stronger emphasis on the importance of continuous change and a more explicit link between

change readiness and the successful management of change”(By, 2007). Oakland and Tanner

(2007) conducted research into the very issue espoused by By (2007) in their article Successful

Change Management. Oakland and Tanner (2007) argued that experience shows that change

initiatives often fail to deliver. Furthermore, Oakland and Tanner (2007) stated that change

initiatives do not always totally fail, but get stalled misdirected, or only partially achieve the

required results. The main purpose of the research conducted by Oakland and Tanner (2007)

addresses the apparent gap between the often seen approaches and the “best practices”, with the

results of their study providing a framework to support future initiatives (Oakland & Tanner,

2007).

Conclusion:

From this exploration of current literature, an analysis of change management approaches and

research findings in the area of organizational studies will be used to support the premise that

public organizational change management is more successful when viewed as a framework of

process in flux, rather than as a series of separate steps. Prior academic and practitioner research

11
into this matter shows each aspect of the change process is deemed related and dependent on

both past and future change management aspects in order for the change to be successful. A

process view is also considered by many academics and practitioners of organizational change

management to give a full account of the purpose, scope, and success of organizational change.

Process has emerged to be the accepted way to view the approach to change management. From

this literature review we can focus on specific approaches to gathering data through the

qualitative method in order to expand the body of knowledge in relation to organizational change

management.

Items to consider when conducting research into organizational change management include the

following:

o Identify the topic you should investigate prior to the research process.
o Identify the steps of the research process
o Apply guidelines that will enable you to facilitate effective communication
during the research study
o Identify the types of questions you should ask during the study
o Identify measurement characteristics of the research subjects (or focus)
o Apply the guidelines you should follow when this research becomes
challenging.
o Study the data

As noted, many scholars and practitioners view empirical research study of organizations to be

essential in expanding the knowledge of what to study, how to conduct the research, why we

should research, where to look for data (answers), and when to conduct organization change

processes.

12
References:

Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. (2005). Organizational Routines, Situated Learning
and Processes of Change in project change organizations. [Article]. Project Management
Journal, 36(3), 27-41.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing Act: How to Capture Knowledge Without Killing
It. [Article]. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 73-80.

By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. [Article]. Journal of

Change Management, 5(4), 369-380.

By, R. T. (2007). Ready or Not. [Article]. Journal of Change Management, 7(1), 3-11.

Graetz, F., & Smith, A. (2005). Organizing forms in change management: The role of structures,
processes and boundaries in a longitudinal case analysis. [Article]. Journal of Change
Management, 5(3), 311-328.

Karp, T. (2005). An action theory of transformative processes. [Article]. Journal of Change

Management, 5(2), 153-175.

Lomi, A., Larsen, E. R., & Freeman, J. H. (2005). Things Change: Dynamic Resource
Constraints and System-Dependent Selection in the Evolution of Organizational
Populations. [Article]. Management Science, 51(6), 882-903.

Oakland, J. S., & Tanner, S. (2007). Successful Change Management. [Article]. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 18(1/2), 1-19.

Van De Ven,Andrew H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying
organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377-1404.

Hammond, J., Keeny, R., Raiffa, H. (1999) “Smart Choices-a practical guide to making better
decisions” Harvard Business School Press, Boston Massachusetts

LaGuardia, D. (2008) “Organizational Culture” American Society for Training & Development,
dorian.laguardia@thirdreef.org

Paarlberg, L., Perry, J. (2007) “The American Review of Public Administration-values

management; aligning employee values and organization goals” Sage publications,
retrieved 8/20/2008 from: Http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/4/387

Lencioni, P. (2008) “Leadership Excellence: Greatest leaders-many dwell in obscurity”

Executive Excellence Publishing USA

13
Leban, B., Stone, R (2008) “Managing Organizational Change- 2nd edition” Wiley Press

Zaffarano, Mark A. (1992)”Understanding leadership concepts for the professional court

manager: an examination of leadership roles, leadership styles, and effective time
management by judicial branch leaders” John Jay publishing

Kets de Vries, M F. R. (1984) “The neurotic organization: diagnosing and changing

counterproductive styles of management “Pub.: San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-
Bass, c1984.

Kuhner, J. (2008) “Our moral crisis” Washington Times 10/5/2008

Pritchett, L. (2002) “It pays to be Ignorant: A simple political economy of rigorous program
evaluation “Journal of Policy Reform Vol. 5 Issue 4, p251, 19p

14