Obstacles of Organizational Development Theorists

What unique challenges if any do OD practitioners face when dealing with a public sector intervention rather than a private sector one? Explain thoroughly. Certain concepts of organizational development are common to all organizations, such as the idea that people function differently in groups and the need to motivate individuals to perform their essential organizational functions with transformational as well as purely transactional rewards. But not all organizations are created alike.

It is important for organizational development (OD) practitioners to keep this in mind when assisting organizations in the public versus private sector. Public sector entities are not constructed to make a profit but, as their name suggests, exist to serve the needs of the public. They have different accountability structures and often have very different organizational cultures.

In fact, according to Stupak & Moore (1987), one of the first challenges of any organizational development practitioner dealing with a public entity is the cultural obstacles they will encounter, namely that public sector organizations do not have continuous improvement and OD theory as part of their inherent worldviews. Bureaucracy rather than what will be more efficient often dictates policy. Government regulations may limit what practitioners can accomplishment, which can frustrate OD specialists.

The ability to use a wide array of rewards to motivate employees, including increases in salary to superior workers, may be stymied by government policies. Employees are aware of the fact that promotion is based upon a civil service system or seniority rather than upon demonstrated excellence.

Unlike private organizations like Apple, Google, and Facebook which are famous for their unique motivational strategies regarding their employees, government entities cannot use free yoga classes and generous compensation packages in addition to salaries to create a culture which makes employees want to go “the extra mile” in achieving a particular performance goal. Public entities are therefore more likely to be subjected to external constraints and are therefore likely to have a greater sense of inertia than public organizations.

When there is a “failure to change” this can, of course, “erode public and private con?dence in these organizations” (Schraeder, Tears, & Jordan, 2005, p. 494). There is also less responsiveness to dissatisfaction amongst service providers in the public sector.

In a private, for-profit firm, a failure to change is an issue of great concern, given that a firm which fails to address the needs of its customers is likely to go out of business and employees in the public sector can rapidly shift from job to job if they perceive greater opportunities elsewhere. But in the public sector, there is far less pressure to change, given that there are no incentives for market competition.

Of course, this does not mean that a shift in visionary leadership is impossible within the private sector, and employees can still be appealed to with transformational approaches. But OD specialists must confront the reality that their ability to make concrete shifts in the defined may be far more limited.

As noted by Harrison & Baird (2015), “outcome orientation” and “innovation” are still areas in which public sector organizations lag behind, namely the ability to rapidly shift desired outcomes and to realign their structures to meet the needs of those outcomes (p.613).

Even if public sector employees themselves are eager for a shift in thinking about how and why they do their jobs, the official purpose of the organization itself, its structure, and the definition of its desired outcomes may already be defined by an outside entity in the form of government.