Public sector and private sector resource comparison in public administration

Organizational Change in the Public Sector

This research proposal explores the feasibility of management in the public Sector as an organizational paradigm and new model in organizational development. The literature review reviews numerous journal articles that explore on the key concepts of change management strategies from a public sector project management perspective. The authors suggest that employee's participation, effective feedback across the board, and empowerment of subordinate staffs is a major step in transforming public organizations. This proposal further hypothesis that establishment of long-term and productivity advantages are crucial throughout the organization.

SCOPE AND PURPOSE

Research Questions

Hypotheses:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Factor 1: Need for change

Factor 2: implement a Plan for change

Factor 3: create political internal environment for Change

Factor 4: Support and Commitment from managers

Factor 5: enhancing External Support

Factor 6: Provide Resources for change

Factor 7: establish Change

Factor 8: ascertain comprehensive Change

Determinants of implementing change in organizations

Change efficiency

Social cognitive theory

Change valence

Motivation Theory

Testing the Hypothesis

22 CONCLUSION

23 BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

One of the most challenging aspects of organizational change is defining a compelling enough vision for associates and employees to concentrate on so they see the value of changing how they work and why. The following proposal for a capstone project focuses on the qualitative factors that contribute the most to change management programs that are effective over the long-term. These factors are also for successful change management programs that lead to long-term associate and employee motivation. By taking this step in the proposal, the foundation of long-term and solidified learning further makes change management and development permanent in an organization (Egan, 1988).

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Most public organization's change management efforts fail even with carefully formulated strategies, structures and processes, the changes implemented overlook the aspects the readiness of organization members to embrace change. Even though the change initiatives are less likely to influence organizational development procedures, they usually require a defined and a compelling vision so that the organization may acknowledge the significance of change. Change management depends on whether the organizational members value the significance of change, and whether they commonly agree to embrace change (Egan, 1988).

SCOPE AND PURPOSE

Change Management practices intends at giving direction and guidance to public sector bodies undertaking change. The practices are therefore very prescriptive and simple to follow. The compilation of the research proposal revolves around Change Management literature focusing on focuses on the qualitative factors that contribute the most to change management programs that are effective over the long-term.

Research Questions

1. What are the key success factors included in change management strategies that also create a foundation of long-term learning and organizational development?

This research question concentrates on which key factors successful leaders include in their change management programs and initiatives to ensure a high level of adoption. In conjunction with these key success factors, the ability of leaders to include strong core components of autonomy, mastery and purpose are included in this research question as well. Various research experts show conclusively the determining factors that contribute to long-term learning that results to successful organizational change management.

2. Do successful change management programs and the development of long-term learning increase production efficiency?

Change management is essential for any organization to continue growing over time, staying in step with development demands while having the ability to deal with threats and quick enough the benefits of change. This second question of how organizational change affects production efficiency focuses on how well an organization has constructed its organizational structure, information systems and set a foundation of effective change management. All three of these factors are essential for production efficiency to occur over time while an organization continually evolves to stay.

Hypotheses:

H1: is the change and development important in public organization?

H2: -is the change of long-term successful?

Key Points in the Research

Change management is the most critical success factor in any public sector project as it can literally mean the difference between success and failure of the initiative, and affect the long-term morale of employees. It is ironic that the most unquantifiable aspect of an organizations' success has the greatest impact on its performance. This research concentrates on the aspects of change and development management in the public sector.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review will include the key concepts of change management strategies from a public sector project management perspective (Kallio, Saarinen, Tinnila, 2002), followed by an assessment of the best practices in change management and the definition of frameworks for unifying change management, long-term learning and productivity gains (Price, Chahal, 2006). All of these factors will be applicable in the context of creating a change management model for participative management as well (Pardo-del-Val, Martinez-Fuentes, Roig-Dobon, 2012).

Reform projects sweeps through governments in the United States and in foreign countries, repeatedly bringing news about endeavors to reinvent, transform, or reorganize government agencies (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002). Inquisitively, however, this recurring premise of change in government organizations is yet to provoke a high volume of articles that overtly address the topic in public administration academic journals. There are outstanding exceptions to this observation (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002). Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002) and journal articles concerning subjects related to organizational change (Berman and Wang, 2000; Brudney and Wright, 2002; Hood and Peters, 2004).

Articles addressing on research and theory with labels reading "organizational change" and with that subject as a central topic, however, emerge with much less promptness in public administration academic journals than in research journals addressing on general management and organization theory. In that literature on organization theory, Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila (2002 addresses a count of numerous journals relating to organizational change. This entire literature proliferates with difficulties, including multiple and inconsistent theories and research findings and a good bit of inconclusiveness. This difficulty presents a tremendous challenge to both public administrators and public administration.

In addressing that challenge, this literature offers an overview of the organizational change -- a review illustrating its complexity but also bringing some essential order to the literature. Here, the evaluation identifies points of consent among researchers on organizational transformations: ideas linking large-scale, planned, strategic, and administrative change (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002). These points function as testable suggestions for investigators to evaluate in future research and as main considerations for leaders of change inventiveness in public organizations.

Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector

The diversity of theoretical perceptions is essential in determining the benefits of change in organizations. Various theories that supports change process offers insights into the nature of organizational change, especially, the causes of change and the role those organizational members play in the implementing change. Some of these theories play a larger role in making decisions about the necessary organizational changes (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002, Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002). However, environmental, cognitive, and resource factors place restrictions on such action (Tushman, Michaeland Elaine Romanelli, 1985). These key theoretical perceptions demonstrate researchers' different perceptions about the reasons for change in organizations, particularly the ability of organizational members to bring about change.

Regardless of the conflicting reasons by organizational members on whether they value change or not, a noteworthy body of research illustrates that organizational member's initiate change in their organizations (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002, Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002). Public sector studies also offer proof of the significant role that public managers play in bringing about organizational change (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002, Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002).

Discovering that both managers and organizational members can determine change leaves us in suspense, however, about whether an intentional change actually happens and about the best approaches for effecting change. Fortunately, a variety of research exists that embraces various theories and models that support implementation of change. For example, Lewin's model highlights the different points of change. These research studies describe the procedures of bringing change in organizations and identify factors leading to success (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002, Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002).

Regardless of the differences present in the models theories that support change, there are remarkable similarities among them. This is in addition to empirical studies behind them (Tushman, Michaeland Elaine Romanelli, 1985). It is possible to discern from the literature a consensus that change leaders and change participants ought to pay special attention to eight factors, each offering propositions suitable for further testing and refinement in future research (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002, Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002).

In addition to discussing the theoretical perceptions, that necessitates change management in public organizations, the literature review here brief discusses the various factors included in change management strategies that also create a foundation of long-term learning and organizational development (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002, Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002). The following section briefly discuses the eight factors proposed for implementing organization change. These eight factors affect the outcome of results of change organizational levels during the change process.

This discussion also considers each factor as potentially leading to the successful implementation of change or improving implementation process. Conclusively, in spite of what some researchers might view as the coherent nature of these determinants and suggestions (Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002).

Factor 1: Need for change

It is the role of managerial leaders to authenticate and convincingly address the need for change. Research shows that the discharge of intended change usually requires that leaders confirm the need for change and plead with other members of the organization and significant external stakeholders that it is indispensable (Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001). The process of persuading with other members of the need for change often starts with developing a convincing vision for it. A vision offers a picture or reflection of the future that is simple to communicate and that organizational members find interesting (Middlemist & Hitt, 1988).

It offers general direction for the change process and works as the basis from which to create specific approaches for arriving at a future final state. Some study on private organizations illustrates that it is simpler to persuade individuals of the need for change when leaders develop a vision that provides the hope of liberation from anxiety or distress. Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002, Mani, 1995; Wise, 2002, even propose establishing discontent with the modern well-being in order to get organization members to accept change. To induce the organization of the need for and desirability of change and to commence the process of "unfreezing" the organization, Abramson & Paul, (2001 propose applying efficient written and oral communication and forms of vigorous involvement among employees.

The public-management literature holds proof of the significance of determining the requirement for change and convincingly conveying it through an enduring process of exchange with numerous stakeholders and participants (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001). Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001, assert that successful discharge of new schemes relies on top management's capacity to spread information about the change and induce employees of the exigency of change. Abramson & Paul, (2001) illustrates how efficient local government managers substantiate the need for change through "listening and learning" and then convey those needs in directions that develop support for change.

Research studies have also noted public sector leaders' endeavors to take advantage of mandates and political opportunity, and external influences to confirm and convey the need for change (Richards & Rodriguez, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001).

Factor 2: implement a Plan for change

Managerial leaders must create a course of action or approach for executing change. Alluring the organization members of the need for change is apparently inadequate to bring about real change. There must be new transformation into a course of action or approach with objectives and a plan for accomplishing it (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001). This approach functions as a road map for the organization by providing direction on how to reach at the ideal end state, discovering challenges, and proposing steps for surmounting over those challenges.

As Abramson & Paul, (2001) suggest, the essential components of the vision should follow an approach essential for accomplishing that vision so that the change does not fragment into a set of disparate and mystifying directives and activities.

Two aspects of a course of action that seems vital for organizational change in the public sector comprise the precision or degree of specificity of the approach and the degree to which the approach rests on implementation theories. Policy implementation analysts confirm the significance of apparent, specific policy objectives and rational causal thinking about the connection between the inventiveness that requires implementations and the preferred outcomes (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001).

Specific objectives assist make certain that the steps implemented in the field match with the proper policy by restraining the ability of implementing officials to change the policy objectives and providing a standard of responsibility. As Abramson & Paul, (2001) and Wallin (1997) affirmed, policy uncertainty can cause confusion, making public managers to reinterpret the policy and execute it in a style that brings about few of the changes that policy makers planned (Abramson & Paul, 2001).

Finally, a command for change based on both cognitive and motivation theories assists eradicate contradictory or conflicting directives that can underestimates endeavors to implement change. Wise, (2002), indicates how he and others advocating for major organizational changes developed an apparent, well-conceived and organized plan for the change process.

Factor 3: create political internal environment for Change

Managerial leaders have an obligation of building change and decrease resistance to it through extensive involvement in the change strategy and other means. Those that strive for key organizational changes typically confirm that triumphant leaders acknowledge that change comprises a political process of creating and fostering support from key stakeholders and organizational members. Mostly those in organizations refuse to give in to change for diverse reasons (Bruhn, Gary and Al-Kazemi, 2001; Carnall, 1995; Berman & XiaoHu, 2000) -- for instance some thoughts for change are rather ill conceived, unfounded, or pose negative impact to organization members.

Even after embracing a well-justified and well-planned change idea, nevertheless, leaders must create internal support and overcome resistance. Researchers observe that a predicament, a shock or even a strong external challenge to the organization can assist decrease resistance to change. Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole, (1995) illustrates that because organizational members are highly adjustable to steadily rising conditions, a shock or stimulus of considerable degree is typically necessary for them to embrace change as predictable.

In a related vein, Kotter cautions managers against the risk of disregarding the involvement of organizational members in implementing change (Kotter, 1995). Van de Ven observed in some of the successful cases cited in organizational change that poor leadership can result to poor change management practices (Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole, 1995). For many years, social scientists supports the significance of efficient and ethical involvement, in addition to other means, in promoting group and organizational change and in reducing resistance to it (Denis, and Ann, 2001).

More recently, researchers have further diversified numerous approaches of reducing resistance to change. Wise, (2002), illustrates different approaches that managers can utilize to cut down resistance to change. They include threats and pressures from internal and external environment among others. With the exclusion of threats and pressures whose outcome is counterproductive effects and further augment resistance, he cites that these strategies can be efficient at reducing resistance to change (Denis and Ann, 2001).

The extent of engagement is also significant. Extensive participation in the change process is possibly the most commonly recognized strategy to surmounting over resistance to change (Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole, 1995). Numerous researchers whose core focus lies on private organizations asserts that planned change needs broad engagement by members at organization levels during all steps of implementation process (Robertson, and Sonal, 1995, Hood, Christopher, and Guy Peters, 2004; Denis, and Ann, 2001). The literature shows that engaging organizational members assists decrease challenges that bars change. This is possible through developing psychological ownership, encouraging the spread of significant information, and promoting employee response for enhancing the change in the process of implementation.

As Wallin, (1997) cites engaging organizational members in the steps of change can help minimize this kind of defiance. Wise, (2002), for instance, gives an account about continued process of meetings with all types of stakeholders to see that change occurs (Robertson, and Sonal, 1995, Hood, Christopher, and Guy Peters, 2004; Denis, and Ann, 2001). Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole (1995) too, illustrate how empowering organizational members plays a prime role in change management. Surprisingly, Christopher, and Guy Peters, (2004) assert that individuals should refrain from misjudging change resistance.

Several employees accepted reforms, and their endorsement requires liberation. Endorsing Schein's point, Robertson, and Sonal, (1995), Hood, Christopher, and Guy Peters, (2004) and Denis, and Ann, (2001), proposes that success may require involvement components for instance, delegating decision making to middle management and empowering workers implement changes. They cited, however, that top management still must play a significant function by supporting and rewarding modernization and showing support for the change. Successful implementation of organizational change, hence, often symbolizes a hybrid combining components of lower-level involvement and guidance from top management.

Even extensive engagement, however, does not require great efforts in order accept change, rather the, members require mutual agreement and embrace change (Carnall, 1995). Bruhn, Gary and Al-Kazemi, (2001); Carnall, (1995); Berman & XiaoHu, (2000), recommend that involvement ought to be extensive and cover all facets of the change process, but they emphasize that leaders must consider involvement seriously, dedicate time and effort in achieving it, and manage it appropriately. The failure to follow the right steps of success is counterproductive, leading to waste of time, morale, and vital resources (Carnall, 1995). Bruhn, Gary and Al-Kazemi, (2001) make a similar observation in their analysis of large-group methods used to diagnose problems and implement changes in organizations (Carnall, 1995).

Factor 4: Support and Commitment from managers

Managers should advocate for the cause for change. Support and Commitment from top-management for change play a special and noteworthy role in success (Van de Ven, Andrew H., and M. Scott Poole, 1995; Wallin, 1997; Wise, 2002; Tushman, Michaeland Elaine Romanelli, 1985). Some research studies that accentuates on organizational change emphasize the significance of embracing a single change agent in order to cause the transformation.

Managers are part of organizational member who uphold momentum and dedication to change, often engage in personal risks in the process (Berman & XiaoHu, 2000). Policy-implementation researchers illustrates some evidence of the way a dexterous and tactically placed leader can fruitfully manage the behavior of conflicting actors and trounce challenges by leveraging close individual ties and trailing informal avenues of influence (Berman & XiaoHu, 2000). For instance, organizational members have diverse reasons about the significance of change within the organization. Other authors emphasize the need to acquire a guiding alliance to advocate for change. A guiding alliance is a group of members who employ authenticity to the effort and organize the resources and expressive support needed to stimulate organizational members to change (Armenakis & Arthur, 1999; Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001; Bruhn, John, Gary Zajac, and Al-Kazemi, 2001). Walters, (1990) confirms some managers can launch organizational replenishment efforts, but "each time some average mass is unachieved early in their endeavors, nothing much valuable takes place" (1995, 62).

When change occurs through change agents or guiding alliance, substantial proof shows that top management support and devotion play a significant role in ensuring change in the public sector (Bruhn, Gary and Al-Kazemi, 2001; Carnall, 1995; Berman & XiaoHu, 2000; Armenakis & Arthur, 1999; Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001; Bruhn, John, Gary Zajac, and Al-Kazemi, 2001). Carnall, (1995) assessment of New Public Management reforms in different countries, for example, reports that Aucoin (1990) qualifies the collapse of these reforms in Canada to insufficient support from cabinet secretaries, who care less about the reforms.

Eventually, in the public sector, manager's support for change frequently demands the support of top-level career public servants as well as to politically appointed management. Furthermore, the urge for leadership progress and constancy elevates particular problems in the public sector caused by regular and swift employee's turnover in public sectors comparisons to private sectors. This clarifies why, contrary to stereotype, numerous major changes in government requires a driving force and motivation from the career civil servants (Carnall, 1995).

Factor 5: enhancing External Support

Managerial leaders must build up support from political environments and major external stakeholders. Organizational change in the public sector also relies on the extent of support from political environments and major external stakeholders. The influence caused by these actors on the overall result of change endeavors in part from their capability to cause legal changes and regulate the movement of significant resources to public organizations (Armenakis & Arthur, 1999). Political environment is capable of influencing the result of a planned change by developing and conveying a vision with the theme of desire for change, in addition to selecting political staffs who desires to embrace change and obtain knowledge and skills necessary for managing the transformation.

As Aucoin, (1990) proposes, getting support from governmental authorities and political actors involves huge challenges, given the restrictive measures imposed by the political atmosphere in which public organizations operate. Public agencies often have multiple political masters pursuing diverse objectives, and politically appointed executives often have very weak Regardless of the challenges faced by organizations while conducting change management, managers should not give in to those challenges, but should rather display skills in obtaining support from strong external actors. Public policy researchers observe the impact of support from political overseers or sovereigns on the result of policy implementation.

Factor 6: Provide Resources for change

Successful change usually requires sufficient resources to support the process. A steady finding in the literature is that change is expensive or without trade-offs. A planned organizational change comprises various aspects. For instance, reorganization or redirection of inadequate organizational resources toward a host of new activities, developing a plan or strategy for executing the change, conveying the need for change, retraining staffs, developing new processes and practices, reforming and reorganizing the organization, and testing and experimenting with novelty (Kallio, Saarinen, & Tinnila, 2002; Walters, 1990).

Failure to provide sufficient resources in support of a planned change leads to weak implementation efforts, higher levels of interpersonal pressures, and even overlooking of fundamental organizational activities and functions (Aucoin, (1990) review of research, for example, discovered that "resources" is one of the central factors for improving public services (therefore bringing about change). Policy implementation scholars accept the need for embracing sufficient ways of obtaining resources necessary for implementing change (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001).

Factor 7: establish Change

Managers and employees must efficiently institutionalize and implant changes. To establish an enduring change, organizational members must slot in the new policies or innovations into their daily activities. Practically, all organizational changes comprise changes in the behavior of organizational members. Worker must embrace them and routinize these behaviors in the short-term, and leaders must institutionalize them over the long haul so that new trends of behavior displace old ones (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001). Doing so, though, is not easy. (Aucoin, 1990) Abramson & Paul, 2001, Walters, 1990) developed a model for reinforcing and compelling change. It is also challenging that the change management must conform to organizational cultures, structures and visions.

For successful management, leaders must amend the formal structural organizations, procedures, and human resource management practices; employ rites and ceremonies; diffuse the innovation through trial runs and pilot projects; collect data to trail the progress of and commitment to change; and engage employees in active participation tactics that foster "learning by doing. Walters (1990) strongly accentuates the need to gather data and examine the execution process to keep managers aware of the degree to which organizational members have adopted the change.

Assessment and examining efforts should persist even after the adoption of change to guarantee that organizational members do not drift into old trends of behavior. However, the evidence is miscellaneous concerning the optimal pace for institutionalizing change. Some researchers emphasize the need to accept change slowly or incrementally on a small scale in order to develop momentum and to display the advantages of change (Price, & Chahal, 2006; Richards & Rodrigues, 1993; Middlemist & Hitt, 1988, Walters, 1990; Abramson & Paul, 2001). Others have stressed that a swift pace of change can surmount inertia and resistance (Armenakis & Arthur, 1999). Small-scale or slow implementation, however, may cause more of a challenge in the public sector than in business since frequent waves in political leadership and diminutive tenures or political appointees can cause loyalty for change to wane (Egan, 1988).

Factor 8: ascertain comprehensive Change

Managerial leaders must create integrative, detailed strategies to change that accomplish subsystem similarity. Numerous researchers emphasize that for occurrence of change behavior, managers accept changes within the organization. The changes implemented must conform to the preferred final state (Egan, 1988). Changing several or rather some few organizational will generate insufficient force to necessary for bringing organizational transformation (Price, & Chahal, 2006); Richards & Rodrigues, 1993); Middlemist & Hitt, 1988).

Still others sends a signal of caution, however, that implementing various changes in absence of knowledge on organization structure and level can incur additional costs and an extended implementation period than anticipated (Cumming & Huse, 1989; Kallio, Saarinen & Tinnila, 2002). (Price, & Chahal, 2006); Richards & Rodrigues, 1993); Middlemist & Hitt, (1988) further asserts that the real series of change matters; they discovered that commencing the change process by transforming "high-impact" decision-making constituents of the organization first assists to build drive for the wider array of changes that pursue.

Equally, Robertson, Roberts, and Porras winds up from their research on various organizations that managers ought to commence implementations efforts with organized changes in organizational setting and ascertain that the different work environments changes are similar with each other, sending unswerving indications to organization members about the new behaviors preferred " (1993, 629).

Supportive arguments are also available in public sector research. Egan, (1988) for instance, argues that t an effort to execute a participative culture in the United States Postal service collapsed because manager failed to change organizational subsystems for the preferred cultural change. Egan, (1988) also accentuates the unproductiveness of trying to change outlook and behaviors to more teamwork and involvement if the organizational structure maintains a hierarchical structure and fails to endorse a team orientation (Berman & XiaoHu, 2000). The understanding of this strategy notwithstanding Armenakis & Arthur, (1999) research analysis suggests that the similarity of organizational structure may be complex and hard to achieve in the public organizations as opposed to private organizations because implementing change in the public organizations have insufficient discretion than on the former (Egan, 1988).

Determinants of implementing change in organizations

Change efficiency

Social cognitive theory

Depicting from social cognitive theory, and particularly from the Gist and Mitchell [1992], I suggest that change efficiency necessitates change implementation in organizations. Organization members must cognitively evaluate some factors that support implementation capability. They include the demand tasks, availability of resources and the situational factors. As observed by Gist and Mitchell [1992] efficiency is a detailed review of the perceived ability to carry out a task successfully.