Date post: | 19-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | edward-chambers |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
LEADING CHANGE IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS
Advanced Research Seminar
ESADE – Institute for Public Governance and Management
13th March 2014
Joris van der Voet
SHORT BIO
Born in Leiden, The Netherlands, 1986 2004-2008: Studied Public Administration at
Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) Msc. in Human Resource Management and
Change Management in Public Organizations 2008-2009: Academic teacher at EUR 2009-2013: Ph.D. in Public Management at
EUR Thesis: Leading change in public organizations
2013-2014: Researcher on COCOPS project 1st March 2014: Post doctoral researcher at
ESADE
OUTLINE
Introducing myself
Introducing the research theme
‘The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization’ Objectives Theory Methodology Results Conclusions and implications
Main conclusions of my Ph.D. research, and practical implications
PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS AND CHANGE
PARADIGMS OF REFORM
PARADIGMS OF REFORM?
A (desired) changing role of government should have consequences at the organizational level
Without changes in the way public organizations operate and the behavior and attitudes of civil servants, nothing will change!
This makes organizational change in public organizations a relevant research theme
SHORTCOMINGS OF THE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT LITERATURE ON CHANGE
Kuipers et al. (in press at Public Administration): Review of the literature 2000-2010: 141 articles
on change in the public sector
Use the strengths of (different) theoretical approaches
In-depth empirical studies of the change process Work with practitioners (empirical evidence) Incorporate attention to the outcomes and
successes of change More emphasis on leadership Discrepancies and interactions between micro- and
sector-level changes Comparative studies of the management of change
SHORTCOMINGS OF THE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT LITERATURE ON CHANGE:
1. Often focused on reforms on the national or sector level, rather than change on the organizational level
2. Attention is focused on the content of changes rather than on the process through which organizational change comes about
3. Research designs often lack an outcome variable that allows the formulation of conclusions about the effectiveness or results of change implementation
4. Do not theorize how the specific characteristics of public sector organizations affect the process of change or its outcomes
THE SPECIFICITY OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS Environmental factors
No market environment but budget mechanisms Presence of elaborate formal restraints Presence of intensive political influences
Organization/environment transactions Public organizations produce ‘public goods’ and are often monopolists Public managers are subject to more intense scrutiny Role model: expected to have higher degree of fairness, honesty,
openness and accountability Organizational roles, structure, processes
Multiple, conflicting and vague goals More red tape, more complex organizational structures and
procedural requirements Less-decision making autonomy for managers Vulnerable to intervention of external groups Greater caution, reluctance to innovate
Adapted from Pollitt (2003) / Rainey (2003) / Boyne (2002)
The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public
organization: Transformational leadership and a
bureaucratic organizational structure
Joris van der Voet
Forthcoming in the European Management Journal
OBJECTIVES
Observations in the literature: Much of what is known about change management is
based on private sector research, cases and examples. In studies that do focus on public organizations,
1. Little attention for implementation processes2. Little focus on effects, outcomes or ‘success’ of change
implementation3. Little attention for the specific context of public
organizations
Focus of the study: What factors contribute to effective implementation in
public organizations? To what extent does the distinctive nature of public
organizations make the implementation of change specific?
THEORY:‘CHANGE MANAGEMENT THEORY’
Two central premises:
1. Change is most easily implemented when there is support for change among employees
2. Employee support for change is not only dependent on ‘what’ changes in the organization, but also on ‘how’ the change comes about
THEORY: DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO CHANGE
Change management literature: planned vs. emergent change
Leadership as a central factor
Planned change Emergent change
Top-down, episodic and programmatic
Bottom-up, continuous and open-ended
Detailed objectives are formulated at the beginning of the process
Only a general direction is known
Emphasis on the content of change
Emphasis on the process of change
Employees are passive recipients
Employees are active participants
THEORY: CHANGE LEADERSHIP
Leadership believed to be crucial for implementing change ‘Leading change’ is concerned with motivating
and stimulating others (i.e. employees) to implement the change
Research is mostly focused on individuals at the top organizational level
It is about behaviors and activities, rather than traits or personal characteristics
However, there little evidence of the contribution of leadership during change, especially in the public sector
THEORY:THEORY OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
‘Transformational leadership’ (Bass, 1985): Transformational leaders can ultimately transform the
organization “by defining the need for change, creating new visions, [and] mobilizing commitment to these visions” (Den Hartog et al., 1997: p. 20).
Multiple dimensions (Podsakoff et al. 1990): Articulating vision (inspires with future plans) Provide appropriate model (is a good example) Foster acceptance goals (gets people to work together) High performance expectancy (insists on high
performance) Individual support (considers personal needs and
feelings) Intellectual stimulation (inspires to think in new ways)
THEORY:WHAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP IS REQUIRED?
Planned change Emergent change
Type of leadership activities needed
-Initiating change-Creating a vision-Communicating the vision-Being a role model-Creating commitment
-Redirecting ongoing change-Making others accountable-Creating connections-Fostering experimentation-Taking a step back
Theoretical connections
-Transformational leadership (Bass, 1985)-Management guru’s (Kotter, 1996; Kanter, 1990)
-‘Laissez faire’ leadership-Servant leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2009)-‘FRAMCAP’ (Higgs, 2010)
Metaphor ‘Superhero’ ‘Invisible man’
THEORY: HYPOTHESIS 1
In planned processes of change, transformational leaders can be expected to be uniquely effective change leaders (Eisenbach et al., 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2011)
Hypothesis 1: A higher degree of transformational leadership of direct supervisors will increase the effectiveness of a planned process of change, but it will not increase the effectiveness of an emergent process of change
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES:HOW TO ASSESS ‘EFFECTIVENESS’?
Employee support is crucial for ‘effective’ or ‘successful’ change
Focus on willingness to change (Metselaar, 1997: p. 42):
“a positive behavioral intention towards the implementation of modifications in an organization’s
structure, or work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization’s member
side to support or enhance the change process”
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES:THE ‘SPECIFICITY’ OF CHANGE IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS
Public organizations are often argued to be characterized by a bureaucratic organizational structure (Andrews, Boyne, Law & Walker, 2009; Pandey & Moynihan, 2006)
A bureaucracy is an organization in which in which operations are to a large extent predetermined and predictable (Mintzberg, 1979)
Characteristics: Centralization Formalization Red tape
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES:BUREAUCRACIES AND PROCESSES OF CHANGE
Conceptual arguments (but no empirical evidence): A planned approach to change is most suitable for rule-based,
rigid organizational structures (Coram and Burnes, 2001) A top-down bureaucratic management style is associated with
planned change, while a more decentralized, flexible management style corresponds with emergent change (Burnes, 1996)
Bureaucratic organizational structures are negatively related to: Innovative solutions (Atuahene-Gima 2003, Damanpour 1991) Centralization is related to stability, while innovative,
prospecting organizations are characterized by decentralized decision-making structures (Andrews, Boyne, Law & Walker, 2009; Walker, 2008
Adaptation and learning (Hage & Aiken, 1970; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1979; Mintzberg, 1979)
Experimentation (March & Simon, 1958)
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES:HYPOTHESES 2 AND 3
H2: The more bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more employee willingness to change is positively influenced by a planned process of change.
H3: The less bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more employee willingness to change is positively influenced by an emergent process of change
METHODOLOGY:DESIGN AND CASE SELECTION Case study design
Urban Development Rotterdam Local Government organization Result of recent merger of Development Agency
Rotterdam (DAR) and Agency of City Construction and Housing (ACCH)
Many ongoing changes aimed at improving efficiency and performance (NPM) and more collaboration, “less rowing, more steering” (NPG)
Reasons for case selection Different change approaches between the many
departments within the organization Differing degree of perceived bureaucracy
between DAR and ACCH departments
METHODOLOGY:METHODS
Quantitative methods
Online survey among all employees in May 2012 about the ongoing changes, the organizational change, and their direct supervisors
580 of 1353 employees completed the survey (42,8%)
METHODOLOGY:MEASURES
Planned change and emergent change Transformational leadership style Bureaucracy
Centralization Formalization Red tape
Willingness to change Control variables: gender, age, education
level, tenure, supervisory position
PROCEDURE AND TECHNIQUES DAR departments are significantly more bureaucratic than
ACCH departments
In order to test the moderating effects of bureaucratic organizational structure, we compared a high bureaucracy model (DAR) with a low bureaucracy model (ACCH)
Regression analyses and plotted moderating effects
RESULTS
General model
Low bur model
High bur model
Planned Change .169* .113 .251*
Emergent Change .139 -.038 .237*
Transformational Leadership .142* .199 .154
Planned*Transformational L. -.173* -.124 -.085
Emergent*Transformational L. .046 .222* -.106
GENERAL MODEL
Low planned High planned1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low transfor
High transfor
Will
ingn
ess
to c
han
ge
LOW BUREAUCRACY MODEL
Low emergent High emergent1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low transfor
High transfor
Will
ingn
ess
to c
han
ge
RESULTS
General model
Low bur model
High bur model
Planned Change .169* .113 .251*
Emergent Change .139 -.038 .237*
Transformational Leadership .142* .199 .154
Planned*Transformational L. -.173* -.124 -.085
Emergent*Transformational L. .046 .222* -.106
CONCLUSIONS H1: A higher degree of transformational leadership
of direct supervisors will increase the effectiveness of a planned process of change, but it will not increase effectiveness of an emergent process of change
H2: The more bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more employee willingness to change is positively influenced by a planned process of change.
H3: The less bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more employee willingness to change is positively influenced by an emergent process of change
IMPLICATIONS Both planned and emergent change can be used to
create support for change in public organizations
High levels of bureaucracy do not impede the effectiveness of emergent approaches to change
The leadership of direct supervisors may be an important contribution to create employee support for change
In fact, in emergent processes of change, leadership role is a crucial factor
However, in highly bureaucratic organizations, the leadership role of direct supervisors contributes little to emergent change
Leading change in public organizationsA study about the role of leadership in the
implementation of organizational change in a public sector context
Main conclusions and practical implications
RESEARCH QUESTION
To what extent and how does leadership affect the implementation of change and its
outcomes, given the specific context of public organizations?
Focus on: Complex organizational environment Bureaucratic organizational structure
MAIN CONCLUSIONS
1. Their environmental and structural characteristics cause public organizations to favor the adoption of a planned change approach, while an emergent change approach results in more support for change among employees.
2. Despite the tendency of public organizations to adopt a planned change approach, both senior and lower level managers may contribute to the adoption of an emergent change approach.
3. Although favorable for support for change among employees, organizational change in public organizations requires a more elaborated type of change leadership than a mere transformational leadership style.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Employees
Stimulate them to participate IKEA-effect
Direct supervisors Make them more important and complementary in planned
change Invest in leadership development of lower level managers!
Senior managers Fight the urge to adopt a planned approach to change (don’t
become a ‘superhero’) Allow others to develop and lead the change
Political leaders Politicians have tendency to ask for detailed time plannings,
step-by-step plans, etc. Successful change requires front-line participation,
experimentation and ownership
Managing Organizational Change in Public Services: International issues, challenges and cases
Editors:Prof. Rune Todnem By (Staffordshire University)Dr. Ben S. Kuipers (Erasmus University Rotterdam)Dr. Joris van der Voet (ESADE)
METHODOLOGY:MEASURES
Centralization (Aiken & Hage, 1968; Pandey & Wright, 2006; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)
There can be little action taken here until a supervisor approves a decision.
A person who wants to make his own decision would be quickly discouraged here.
Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer.
I have to ask my boss before I do almost anything. Any decision I make has to have my boss' approval.
Red Tape (Pandey & Scott, 2002) If red tape is defined as burdensome administrative rules and
procedures that have negative effects on the organization’s effectiveness, how would you assess the level of red tape in your organization?
METHODOLOGY:MEASURES
Formalization (Deshpande & Zaltman, 1982; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)
I feel that I am my own boss in most matters. (R) A person can make his own decisions without
checking with anybody else. (R) How things are done around here is left up to the
person doing the work. (R) People here are allowed to do almost as they please.
(R) Most people here make their own rules on the job. (R) The employees are constantly being checked on for
rule violations. People here feel as though they are constantly being
watched to see that they obey all the rules.
METHODOLOGY:MEASURES
Planned change (Farell, 2000) Emanates from senior management.+ Occurs through company-wide change programs. Occurs through changing individual knowledge and attitudes.+ Occurs in an unplanned fashion.+ (R) Occurs through a systematic process of well-managed events. Is monitored through regular progress surveys.
Emergent change (Farell, 2000) Occurs through continually learning about our environment. Occurs by encouraging employees to understand and adapt to
changing circumstances in our environment. Is part of an ongoing process of adapting to our environment. Is a slow process, which emerges over time.+ Is about matching the organizations’ capabilities to the business
environment.
METHODOLOGY:MEASURES Transformational leadership (Podsakoff et al., 1990) My direct supervisor …
Is always seeking new opportunities for the organization.
Inspires others with his/her plans for the future. Is able to get others committed to his/her dream. Leads by “doing,” rather than simply by “telling.” Leads by example. Provides a good model for me to follow. Fosters collaboration among work groups. Etc.
METHODOLOGY:MEASURES
Willingness to change (Metselaar, 1997)1. I intend to try to convince employees of the benefits
the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam will bring.
2. I intend to put effort into achieving the goals of the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam.
3. I intend to reduce resistance among employees regarding the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam.
4. I intend to make time to implement the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam.