Customer Service Improvements · Web viewProfessional Perspective Today’s organizational development practice was initially practiced by human resource specialists, applied social

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR1

Organization Development in the Public Sector

Richard H. Carson

Washington State University

Author Note

Richard H. Carson, is an Individual Interdisciplinary Doctorate Program (IIDP) student at

Washington State University. This research was conducted with the assistance of Dr. Lee

Bolman, Dr. David G. Carnevale, Dr. Thomas G. Cummings, Dr. Jerry D. Goodstein, Caryn A.

Tilton, and Dr. Christopher G. Worley. Thanks to everyone for the assistance.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard Carson, 12920

NE 227th Avenue, Brush Prairie, WA 98606. Email: [email protected] .

This paper is written as required by the American Psychological Association style guide.

July 26, 2013

http://www.apastyle.org/

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

This is a 600 level course paper completed at Washington State University Vancouver in

Summer 2013. Washington State University defines a 600 level course as an “independent study,

special projects, and/or internships.” I am a doctorate student in the Individual Interdisciplinary

Doctorate Program (IIDP). My doctorate degree research proposal is Does the effectiveness of

public agencies, in communicating and managing relationships with internal and external

stakeholders, increase the likelihood of successfully managing organizational change? This

paper defines the field of public sector organizational development historically, explores how it

is being implemented, and assesses whether it is succeeding in achieving its goals.

One of the major findings of this paper is that while there is some consensus about what

organizational development is in general, it is viewed very differently by academics and

practitioners. So the research is not about explaining a universal theory of organizational

development. Rather it is about finding the commonalities of individual perspectives in this new

and growing field.

Keywords: organizational development, municipal government, communication,

stakeholders


Introduction to Organizational Development in the Public Sector

Definition

There are as many definitions of organizational development as there are authors who

wrote books about the subject. As a term, the phrase goes back to the early 1900s. However, the

term took on a more sociological meaning. For the purposes of this paper the definition is the one

used by Cummings and Worley (2005):

Organization development is a system-wide application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures and processes that lead to organization effectiveness.

It is important to keep in mind that other definitions also emphasize technology,

research, problem-solving, planned interventions, data collection, diagnosis, self-

renewing capacity and collaboration.

David Carnevale (2005) explains that organizational development as a philosophy

that says:

OD…manifests a normative, re-educative education philosophy because it encourages individuals and groups to reexamine core values, beliefs, and operating assumptions about themselves, other people, and the way their organizations function.

Introduction and Purpose

The purpose and goal of the study is to create an understanding of organizational

development that local governments can utilize in the pursuit better managing organizational

change. It will provide a qualitative review by which local governments can achieve change and

a quantitative process to measure and monitor such change.

This research project is an extension of my WSU doctorate research question. The

Individual Interdisciplinary Doctorate Program (IIDP) “Proposed Plan of Study” asks the


Research Question, “Does the effectiveness of public agencies, in communicating and managing

relationships with internal and external stakeholders, increase the likelihood of successfully

managing organizational change?” This is the research question approved by the IIDP Advisory

Committee and the WSU Graduate School.

My personal interest in this topic is both professional and academic. I have spent 30 years

working at the city, county and state government level in Alaska, California, Oregon, Utah and

Washington. Most of this time was spent as a top level government manager. For the last five

years I have worked as a consultant, working with local government on creating organizational

change that leads to greater efficiencies and communication. My academic interest is an

extension of my professional interest.

Revising the Research Question

The first task was to change the research question to one that was more concise and that

lent itself to an improved research project. It is important to note that I have made some changes

to my initial research question. The second task was to do so in manner that conforms to the

norms of academic research terminology and practice.

The proposed new research statement is now “Do municipal corporations that effectively

communicate with their stakeholders better manage organizational change?” It is shorter and

more specific, and will make for a better research result. I have reduced the scope from “public

agencies” to “municipal corporations.” In political science terms this means that federal, state,

regional, county and city governments are now limited to city and county governments. I think

this will limit the research because municipal corporations operate differently and at a different

scale that state and federal agencies.


The phrase “communicating and managing relationships” is changed to “communicate.”

“Managing relationships” is no longer an explicit consideration. This is not a concern since it

could end up as a recommendation or consideration of the research.

The topic statement phrase “effectively communicate” is changed to “communicate” and

“successfully manage organizational change” to “better manage organizational change.” It is

easier to demonstrate an action without using nebulous adjectives like “effective” or

“successful.”

The terms “internal and external stakeholders” have been aggregated to just

“stakeholders.” There is a discussion to have about who is or is not an appropriate stakeholder in

such research. Whether this is a real reduction in research effort is questionable. The research

will still have to address both the internal and external groups. It could certainly limit the inquiry

to one or the other. The question is one more or less significant in terms of understanding

outcomes?

Research Methodology

There are three academic research methods used in the examination of organizational

development in the public sector. First, there is the literature review. Second, is an inventory of

best organizational management practices conducted by several consulting firms. The latter

reports are all a matter of public record. This consisted of numerous city and county

organizational audits. Third, structured interviews were conducted with open-ended questions

(see Appendix A) of five of the leading organizational development experts in the United States.

History of Organizational Development – Three Perspectives

Early History of Organizational Development


The need to address organizational change is as old as human society itself. Organized

society dates back some 2.6 million years ago to the Paleolithic Era. Dealing with unanticipated

events is ongoing because human life is full of imperfections and unforeseeable events.

Managing organizational change was historically a reactive necessity rather than a proactive

strategy.

One of the interesting findings I made was that organizational change was usually

preceded by the publication of some book or treatise. Four are provided here to underscore the

long history of public sector organizational development in the pre-industrial age. Understand

that this is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list of the forerunners to organizational

development. It is a short summary of some of the major people who, wittingly or unwittingly,

helped create the field of organizational development.

One of the earliest publications was The Art of War by Sun Tzu who lived from 544–496

BC (Cleary, 1988). This was primarily an instructional guide for warfare. In it he spent a lot of

time discussing strategic planning. However, much of his advice was equally applicable to

organizational management. Many of today’s business publications dutifully quote him because

his ideas are still relevant. For example, he said:

Plan for what is difficult while it is easy, do what is great while it is small. The most difficult things in the world must be done while they are still easy, the greatest in the world must be done while they are small.

The Prince written in 1513 AD by Niccolo Machiavelli, provided guidance on how to

publicly govern. It had extensive advice on how to manage change. One example of

Machiavelli’s organizational development advice on bureaucratic complacency and the status

quo is:


For such a prince cannot rely upon what he observes in quiet times, when citizens had need of the state, because everyone agrees with him… Therefore a wise prince ought to adopt such a course that his citizens will always have need of the state and him, and then he will always find them faithful. (Marriott, 1992).

Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) commented that “It is not the strongest of the species that

survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change (Darwin, 1859).” Of

course he was speaking biologically, but it still resonates politically.

Fredrick Taylor wrote an essay for Scientific Management in 1911. Taylor established

four principles: data gathering, worker selection and development, integration of science and the

trained worker, and redivision of the work of business). What is so important about Taylor’s

work is that he focused on organizational work. Today’s concepts of reengineering and process

engineering are attributed to him (Burke, 2002).

All of this advice could be found in any modern organizational development text. The

point here is that organization development as a concept is not recent, but the actual practice is a

a 20th century innovation.

Private Sector Perspective

Being proactive and managing organizational development, commonly referred to as OD,

is a recent innovation of the post-industrial revolution. With the advent of scientific management

in the early 1900s, a more systematic approach for managing business organizations evolved.

The private sector initiative came from several directions. In 1982, Thomas Peters and

Robert Waterman published their ground breaking book In Search of Excellence. Their basic

message was that “Innovative companies are especially adroit at continually responding to

change of any sort in their environment. They said that the “The nature and uses of

communication in the excellent companies are remarkably different from those their non-


excellent peers.” They went on to say that “The intensity of communications is unmistakable in

the excellent companies” (Peters & Waterman, 1982). I will explain how this applies later in the

report.

Also in 1982, W. Edwards Deming published Quality, Productivity and Competitive

Position. This too would become became a national business trend setter. Deming had long been

ignored by American industry and early on took his message to Japanese industry. It was only

when the Japanese started taking American market share in durable goods that American

industry took notice of him. Deming’s focus was quality control and statistical analysis. (Walton,

1986). He is considered the father of Total Quality Management. He also created the Fourteen

Points and Seven Deadly sins (Cummings & Worley, 2005).

He said that “The prevailing style of management must undergo transformation. A

system cannot understand itself. The transformation requires a view from outside” (Walton,

1986). In organizational development terms this is called an intervention.

Public Sector Perspective

The public sector response to In Search of Excellence was slow. It was eleven years later

that Osborne and Gaebler published Reinventing Government (1993). Even then the public sector

was not too enthused about embracing its tenets. The title’s subheading was “How the

entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector.” The authors spent a lot of time talking

about privatization and using business practices. The former meant a loss of government jobs

and the latter meant a fundamental change in how government does business.

The application of organizational development in the public sector took longer

historically because of perception and reality that private sector and public sector institutions


were functionally and normatively different. Public sector organizations are more concerned with

fairness than with competitiveness.

There are important distinctions between political democracy and corporate capitalism

(Cummings and Worley, 2005). These are values and structure, multiplicity of decision makers,

stakeholder diversity and intergovernmental relationships.

Values and structure. In the private sector, profit and competition are the primary

drivers. In the public sector it is governing for the greater good and responsiveness to the public.

The latter includes representation, respect for individual rights and social equity. Public entities

are more transparent and must provide open access to the public and especially the media.

Private companies are competitive, but public entities must be fair to all citizens and be

consistent in that fairness. So they are not allowed to be flexible and must abide by a strict set of

policies, rules and procedures. The only commonalities between the two are a desire for

efficiency and customer service.

Multiplicity of decision makers. For any given public policy there are multiple decision

makers. For example, water quality is regulated by several federal government agencies, state

agencies, the local government and a water district. So the citizen has access at various levels to

seek redress or receive answers. The private sector is much more singular in its decision making

and does not have to answer to the public at so many levels.

Stakeholder diversity. Public entities deal with numerous stakeholders. There are the

various levels of governments in terms of agencies and elected officials: special interest groups

representing citizens, environmentalists and businesses; internal groups like unions and safety

committees; and various non-profit partners that they contract with. All of these groups have


complete access to documents and records. The private sector has a lot less stakeholder

interaction.

Intergovernmental relationships. As noted, governments share responsibility with

many other groups on any given issue. Coordination is imperative for the efficient

implementation of any program. This also included shared and intermingled funding sources that

often come with numerous reporting requirements and spending limitations.

The current trends to improve government communication and organizational

performance can be traced historically back twenty years to Reinventing Government (1993).

This book was followed by Improvement Driven Government (Carr, 1995). Both books were

basically operationalized by the National Performance Review process during the Clinton-Gore

administration (Carr & Condon, 1995).

It is important to keep in mind that these antecedents proposed to transform the public

sector through a private sector model (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993). It has only been in recent

years that the efficacy of this transformation has been questioned. That is why I have placed

special emphasis on organizational change strictly in a public sector setting and in explaining the

historical context of its evolution and its separate evolution in the field of organizational

development (Carnevale, 2005).

I need to point out that improvement driven government is not a new concept. In fact, it

was President Woodrow Wilson who was a forerunner to Fredrick Taylor’s ideas on scientific

management. When he taught at Byn Mawr College he wrote an essay for Political Science

Quarterly (1887). In it he said that in terms of bureaucracy, there should “be a science of

administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less


unbusinesslike…” He went on to say there was a need to “expand into efforts to improve, not

only the personnel only, but also the organization and methods of government offices.”

Professional Perspective

Today’s organizational development practice was initially practiced by human resource

specialists, applied social scientists and behavioral scientists (French, 1999). The field itself grew

out of five backgrounds. These were the growth of the National Training Laboratories and the

concomitant development of training groups (a.k.a., T-groups, sensitivity training groups), action

research and survey feedback, the normative view that espoused a participative management

framework, focusing on productivity and quality of work life, and strategic change and

organizational transformation (Cummings & Worley, 2005) . I will explain much of this

terminology later in the paper.

What is unique about the field of organizational development is that it was the first

attempt to actually study the organizational change process. The forerunners to organizational

development were such endeavors as scientific management, the Hawthorne studies, survey

feedback, socio-technical systems and industrial psychology (Burke,2002).

The field also philosophically grew out of three schools of thought. These were the

Classic School of Thought, Human Relations School of Thought and the Human Resources

School of Thought (Rothwell, Sullivan & McLean, 1995). A generalization of these schools of

thought are:

Classic School of Thought: Work is inherently distasteful to employees

Human Relations School: Employees want to feel useful and important

Human Resources School: Employees want to contribute to meaningful goals


Today the field is transforming into the second generation. This transformation is driven

by the frenzied activity that occurred in the 1990s where there were increased mergers and

acquisitions, technical innovations, leveraged buyouts, downsizing and changes in law. The

second generation relies heavily on the theories and practices of the first generation, but had to

adapt new tools to address the changing landscape. The new organizational development

included interest in organizational culture, learning organizations, total quality management and

visioning (French & Bell, 1999).

Much of the ground work for organizational development was created by Kurt Lewin

(1898–1947). He is recognized as being the founding father of organizational development.

Lewin came up with the ideas of group dynamics and action research which are the basic

foundation of the organizational development process. Lewin played a key role in the evolution

of organization development as it is known today. Lewin experimented with a collaborative

change process using a three-step process of planning, action and measuring. This was the

beginnings of action research. Lewin participated in the beginnings of laboratory training (Child,

2005).

Literature Review

There are numerous papers and studies about the separate research topics of municipal

corporations, communication with stakeholders and managing organizational change. The most

important material addresses the point that among municipal corporations, the greater the level of

communication with stakeholders, the greater the level management of organizational change.

In the process of this literature review there are three objectives to keep in mind. First,

there is the issue of vocabulary to sort out. The variables proposed are municipal corporations,

communication, stakeholders and managing organizational change. The first step of the research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Lewin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Lewin


task is to find corollary terms in the literature that will lead to relevant research. The second step

is evaluating the relevance of the material in explaining the phenomenon. Finally, the review will

be to discover if there is any relevant statistical data.

Communication

George Bernard Shaw (1916) said that “The single biggest problem with communication

is the illusion that it has taken place.” The point being that most local governments exists with

the illusion that that they are communicating with their constituent stakeholders and believe that

they understand what their stakeholders want from their government. But it is an illusion because

they don’t document this hypothesis.

There is a qualitative study published by The Journal of Change Management in which

interviews were conducted with 25 employees from a range of organizations. The limitation here

is that these were not specifically public sector employees, so the questions need more scrutiny.

The result did produce a better understanding of how employees process information about

organizational change. Three examples are that line employees prefer information from their

direct supervisors, senior managers prefer more strategic information, and that employees who

believed they received quality change information accept the change better (Allen, Bordia &

Irmer, 2007).

The University of Nebraska conducted a study on public input methods in order to gain

trust and confidence. Their methodology consisted of telephone surveys and face-to-face

discussions, and an on-line survey. One of their questions was does it make a difference which

methods are used to solicit information. The findings were that the participants rated face-to-face

higher in terms of procedural fairness and trust/confidence. However, the variance was so

insignificant as to be negligible (Tomkins, 2010).


The same university group did a similar study with interesting results and said that “the

study design is correlational rather than experimental and data were not originally gathered to

test the identified hypothesis” (PylikZillig, 2012).

Organizational Change

In 1999, Linkage, Inc. conducted a study regarding organization and human

resource development. A survey asked human resource and organizational development

professionals which of five categories had the highest demand with organizations they

worked with. The results were Organizational Development and Change (4.6),

Leadership Development (4.5), Recruitment and Retention (4.27), Performance

Management (4.24), and Coaching and Mentoring (4.03). Clearly there is a demand for

organizational change (Carter, Girber & Goldsmith, 2001).

There is an article in Public Administration Review (2006) that focused on the related

public sector information (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). In this article Fernandez and Rainey

talk about the streams of research that contain various models and frameworks, and claim there

are empirical studies supporting them (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). However, the article did

not provide findings. The authors say:

The public-management literature contains evidence of the importance of determining the need for change and persuasively communicating it through a continuing process of exchange with as many stake-holders and participants as possible.

Another study done by Kuhn and Corman (2010), specifically did research “using

interviews, observations, and a unique discovery processing technique, a nine month case study

of one division of a municipal government organization.” Their study found that “traditional

examinations of organizational change overlook the complex interactive, structural, and


contextual forces that influence planning change” (p. 224). This study is by far the most

thorough and well-documented reviewed.

There is a lot of literature on the topic of organizational development and change. The

research measures and methods are easy to identify. Cummings and Worley (2005) provide such

information in their book Organizational Development & Change. The section on Collecting and

Analyzing Diagnostic Information is especially useful. It is worth noting that I have

corresponded with both of these professors and they are most helpful.

Cummings and Worley (2005) summarize data collection methods such as

questionnaires, interviews, observations and what they call unobtrusive measures. They also

describe specific measurement categories such as strategy, technology, structure, measurement

systems, human resource systems and culture.

It should be noted that much of the literature review findings related to organizational

development is to be found in the other sections of the report and did not require being repeated

here.

Performance Review

Perhaps the best opportunity to statistically document and validate the research

hypothesis will be through the use of performance review data. There has been a great deal of

effort placed on measuring and monitoring in order to improve government performance at the

city, county, state and federal level.

For example, the U.S. National Performance Review program has morphed over time, but

still keeps vast amounts of data. Similarly, the International City/County Manager Association –

which I am a member – has its own Center for Performance Management that maintains a huge


data base on city and county performance programs. Terminology is important here because the

study is looking for data on program performance and not personnel performance.

Stakeholders

The stakeholders are a key public participation variable that allows municipal

governments to translate perception into organizational change. Work done by the Institute for

Food Research took a look at public participation methods and evaluated them (Rowe & Frewer,

2000). The source is not tied directly to municipal government, but their research is applicable to

any stakeholder/public participation process.

There is a very interesting publication by the United Nations Development Programme

titled Multi-Stakeholder Engagement Process. It details a number of non-U.S. cases studies of

using a “structured processes that can be used to ensure participation on specific issues that are

based on a set of principles.” (UNDP, 2006).

Technology

Another prevalent theme in the transparency discussion is the use of technology to

better engage and communicate with the public. The technological argument focuses

mainly on the use of the Internet to provide data transparency, open participation and

improved collaboration (Foxworthy & Bingham, 2013).

Alfred Tat-Kei Ho (2002) of Iowa State University says that the e-government

initiative “emphasizes coordinated network building, external collaboration, and

customer services.” In his study, he did both content analysis of city Web sites and

surveyed web development officials. He was particularly interested in both internal and

external communication processes. His survey focused on 55 cities nationwide that


ranged in size from 300,000 to 7,300,000. He focused on web management

characteristics such as citizen feedback and improving customer service.

It is important to note that technology and e-Government take in numerous

opportunities such as government websites, social media and electronic surveys. For

example, a social media exploratory study was conducted in 2012 in order to understand

social media use by government specifically for managing crisis situations (Kavanaugh,

Fox & Sheetz, 2012). This is exactly the type of information that can inform the study

research.

Transparency

Most of the current literature talks about transparency in government. A recent PA Times

essay by Catherine Howard (2013) typifies the current concepts:

The performance management process is inherently a change management process and

highlights how, by integrating change management, performance management is

enhanced add supports not only achieving performance goals, but also goals related to

transparency, openness, collaboration and accountability.

In her essay, Howard lays out a five-stage process to achieve this goal. This

includes testing and the need to “conduct statistical analysis to determine correlations –

or the lack thereof as a means to validate.” She says that the organization needs to

develop the strategy statement, translate and communicate the strategy, plan the

operations in terms of human and monetary capital, monitor and learn about the change

process, and then test and adapt the strategy.

Another study done through the University of Illinois explores the relationship

between transparent and participative government in the United States. Although the two


would ideally go hand-in-hand, the reality is quite different. In a study of five local

governments, it was found that the police departments had the lowest levels of both and

the parks department had the highest levels of both. This raises the question of whether

this is because of the internal agency culture or the external public perception, or both

(Welch, 2012).

Organizational Development Best Management Practices

This is a review of some of the best organizational management practices conducted by

several consulting firms. The latter reports are all a matter of public record and consist of

numerous city and county organizational audits.

Interdepartmental/Interdivisional Coordination

Recommendation 1: Eliminate organizational silos between departments.i

Recommendation 2: Make staff pro-active participants in meetings.ii

Recommendation 3: Create a “one-stop shop” application center.iii

Management Support

Recommendation 4: Direct the department director to discuss and consider adoption of

the best management practices identified in the report.iv

Customer Service Improvements

Recommendation 5: Establish an ongoing customer service program.v

Recommendation 6: Institute an unanticipated service program.vi

Recommendation 7: Hold employees accountable to meet process times, and other

standards, such as returning phone calls with 24 hours.vii

Recommendation 8: Adopt a consistent policy for how fast line staff and supervisors

respond to phone calls and emails.viii


Recommendation 9: Beat the competition with a high-level of customer

communication.ix

Recommendation 10: Institute a program where employees “listen, hear, and appreciate

what their customers are saying.”x

Recommendation 11: All staff and particularly managers should be required to make a

few random phone calls to customers to look for important issues.xi

Recommendation 12: Institute effective performance measures in order to gauge

customer satisfaction.xii

Communication Improvements

Recommendation 13: With the assistance of a technical writer, provide a booklet

that clearly explains what the applicant can expect during the development review process, the

planner’s role, and the decision-making body that must approve the application.xiii

Recommendation 14: Avoid technical and bureaucratic jargon in all publications,

public notices and other communications.xiv

Recommendation 15: All handouts should be reviewed on an annual basis. Handouts

should immediately be amended whenever new changes occur.xv

Regulatory/Policy/Procedural Improvements

Recommendation 16: Empower representatives attending meetings with the authority to

solve development issues and make commitments for the Department.xvi

Recommendation 17: Develop an organization-wide sense of urgency and timeliness of

the processes; encourage, support, and promote staff that embraces this philosophy.xvii

Recommendation 18: Develop a procedures manual, which provides checklists for each

agency process.xviii


Recommendation 19: Develop a systematic procedures manual training program.xix

Recommendation 20: Expand the range of procedure manuals and checklists to

encompass all of the major processes undertaken by the department.xx

Recommendation 21: Update the procedures manuals and checklists on an ongoing

“Continual Improvement” basis; keep it on the Department staff meeting agenda.xxi

Human Resource Improvements

Recommendation 22: Redeploy professional staff in order to provide meaningful and

effective support to customers and stakeholders.xxii

Recommendation 23: Identify, empower and reward results-oriented employees across

departmental lines.xxiii

Recommendation 24: Conduct a new equity study to ensure salaries are reasonable with

the responsibilities they perform.xxiv

Recommendation 25: Conduct a training needs assessment for the Department.xxv

Recommendation 26: Establish professional development expectations for each

employee, including cross-training and career development.xxvi

Recommendation 27: Work the basics of environmental reviews in each employee’s

professional development program.xxvii

Recommendation 28: Conduct performance evaluations consistently and at regular

intervals.xxviii

Recommendation 29: Substantially increase the use of consultant/contract services to

manage workload.xxix


Performance Measures and Monitoring

Recommendation 30: Develop a set of meaningful performance measures directly linked

to cycle time performance indicators.xxx

Project Management/Case Management Systems

Recommendation 31: Institute effective performance measures that relate directly to

customer satisfaction with regard to timeliness and clarity.xxxi

Recommendation 32: Ensure an effective project management approach for project

review.xxxii

Recommendation 33: Develop and implement a system to ensure that mitigation

measures are passed through from project approval to later stages of subsequent permits

throughout the organization.xxxiii

Recommendation 34: Designate a project manager immediately and prepare a

timeline/milestone project-tracking document.xxxiv

Technological Improvements/Systems

Recommendation 35: Move to online application and payments

Recommendation 36: Prioritize ongoing training of employees on the computer

processing system.xxxv

Recommendation 37: Increase client communication through the website.xxxvi

Facility/Building Improvements

Recommendation 38: Institute a modern one-stop shopping center.xxxvii

Recommendation 39: Design an application center with both customer service and the

process in mind.xxxviii


Recommendation 40: The agency should do a space inventory to see how spaces could

be better utilized.xxxix

Document Management Systems

Recommendation 41: Ensure that once a file is ready for close out, that all documents in

the files are scanned to provide electronic copies (and access) for easy reference.xl

Recommendation 42: Pursue funding to more aggressively scan files for the last 5-10

years so they are readily available to staff.

Recommendation 43: Secure existing files into the file room/records center.xli

Recommendation 44: Until files can be scanned and maintained in the file room/records

center, relocate various files in one location so all files for a given year are together.xlii

An Organizational Development and Change Blueprint

This section reviews the basic practices of organizational development as they can be

adapted to public sector use. The program example set forth in this paper is based on the

literature search, a review by the professional interview panel and the author’s experience as an

organizational development practitioner. It is a sequential “10-step” program that is

comprehensive in scope. However, it may include more steps than would normally be utilized in

an average intervention. It should be understood as an illustrative series of tools in the

organizational development toolbox.

Step 1. Problem Identification

There needs to be an initial meeting with the organization’s elected and/or appointed

officials to ascertain what they think the problems are and what their expectations are in terms of

the intervention. It is important to keep in mind that their perceptions of what is working and not

working maybe total erroneous and based on a political agenda and bias. Elected officials are


especially prone to getting elected on a set of propositions that may not be true or effective.

Appointed officials suffer from a similar bias in that they believe any organizational problems

are being caused by someone else internally or externally.

Step 2. Program Kick-Off

Initial Group Meeting. It is important to pull together all members of the organization

early in the process. This is an opportunity to explain what will happen and when, and to allay

any fears that the process is meant as either retribution or as a method to purge unproductive or

unwanted employees. It provides for a common set of expectations.

Setting Ground Rules. It is important that a set of ground rules be established and

explained to the employees. These are rules that involve behavior and process expectations.

Employee Involvement. Knowing what is expected and when things will happen will

alleviate a lot of the pessimism. So will knowing that the employees will be intimately involved

in the process and provide input during the process.

Step. 3 Data Collection/Assessment/Analysis

Existing Vision, Mission, Strategy. This needs to be documented with the understanding

that there is both a written and unwritten sets of goals for the organization.

Human Dynamic. There needs to be a thorough understanding of the roles and

responsibilities of individuals, groups and the overall organizational culture. It is also important

to focus on the interaction between groups that work on specific processes.

Document Review. It is important to collect and cataloque all policies, procedures and

other written documentation that guides the organization’s operation.

Performance Measures. Progress cannot be measured unless a baseline is first created

regarding existing processes.


Step 4. Stakeholder Feedback

Surveys. Surveys are especially effective at gaining an understanding of the

organizational perceptions of internal and external groups of people. Such surveys can be done

by mailing or electronically. The challenge is to conduct a scientifically valid survey that reflects

a useful sample population (Singleton, 2010).

Focus Groups. These are useful for getting input from large groups of external

stakeholders. When it comes to municipal government the external stakeholders are usually

citizen activists, property owners, environmentalists, and business interests like retailers and

developers. Such groups are most effective when limited to 10-12 people. It is best to have both

a separate moderator and a note taker (Singleton, 2010).

Structured Interviews. There are always key individuals who are internal and external

to the organization who are better interviewed alone and not in a group. This is especially true of

the organization’s staff. They have the greatest insight into the organizations operations and

management, but may not be forthcoming in a group setting (Singleton, 2010).

Step 5. Preliminary Diagnosis

The major objectives are to understand and validate the issues and needs, identify

resistance and support, and clarify competence and commitment. So it is a matter of asking what

is the problem, what are the causes of the problem, what is the current situation and how do

people feel about it (Rothwell, 1995).

Step 6. Planning Change/Designing Interventions

It is important to development the need for change, establish a relationship between the

change agent and the client organization, and determine how to work toward the change (Burke.

2002).


In terms of the actual intervention, it is important to determine how the various units and

individuals will be involved. It is a matter of time and money. Some staff merely need to be

informed and other actively engaged at some level (Rothwell, 1995). This is more art than

science.

Step 7. Implementing Change/Action

Mapping of Processes, Procedures, Management Practices. Systems cannot be

improved until they are understood. It is often the case that the staff doesn’t really understand or

agree on the existing processes.

Reengineering Process. Once the current practices are understood and agreed to, then

the staff can proceed to reengineer the processes to make them more efficient, cost-effective, less

time consuming and transparent. The major complaints from customers have to do with cost of a

process, length of time it takes and not being able to understand what is wanted.

Step 8. Restructuring Organization/Managing Change

Mixed Implementation Teams. It is best to create teams to undertake specific areas of

the organizational change implementation. It is also important to create teams from different

units and with different levels of authority. Having implementation teams of like minded

individuals can result in the same set of problems being continued.

Strategic Planning. There is a enormous body of literature on this subject but here are

some basics. A multi-year action plan and budget are needed to move forward. All of the

changes needed to achieve organizational change cannot be created immediately. So a plan must

be established identifying what can be done in 3 months, 6 months, 12 months or in future years.

It is also important that one or more persons be assigned and held accountable for individual


actions. It is important to dedicate human and monetary resources commensurate to the

successfully completing or undertaking the task.

Step 9. Institutionalize Change

Employee Training and Development. Employees must be trained in the new policies,

processes and programs. Everyone needs to be on the same page and have a common

understanding in terms of organizational expectations.

Executive Leadership Coaching. Coaching the leadership is different from employee

training. The leadership needs to know what the organizational changes are and how to motivate

and lead the change. Bolman and Deal (1991) say that “success depends on developing the right

blueprint for the relationship between their organization’s structure and strategy, as well as on

finding ways to get that blueprint accepted.”

Cross Functional Training. Where possible and feasible, employees should be trained

to do more than one function. The fact is that employees go on vacation, get sick or take

maternity leave. Even having one employee out sick and another on a break creates a problem

when a customer has to wait 15 minutes to get an answer.

Customer Service Training. Not everyone is born with the innate ability to relate to

other people and be an active listener. Customer service training is essential to make sure that the

customer feels the employee is listening to their concerns and wants to help them. Too often an

employee’s answer is simply “No, you can’t do that.” There is no excuse for this. Like it or not,

there is always a process, however onerous, that the customer can pursue to achieve their goal.

This may include trying to convince the elected officials to legislate a change in process (Carson,

2004).


Team Building. This is important because too often individuals in a group create

problems by not participating in decision making about a process or implementing it

consistently. They can also be a disruptive influence if they don’t participate as part of the team.

Procedures Manual. It is important to document exactly how the new processes work

for two reasons. First all staff must understand the need for consistency. One of the major

complaints from citizens is the inconsistency of decision making from one staff person to the

next. In fact, some customers shop staff based on the customer’s perception of how a staff person

makes decisions. A manual is also important in order to train new staff on how processes work.

Establishing Performance Measures and Expectations. Once the reengineering is

complete, it is important to establish clear performance measures and expectations for all

employees. The use of a procedures manual is very important. Leadership needs to take

ownership of the organizational changes and make it clear to both mid-managers and front line

employees that these changes are to be taken seriously and will be part of future performance

reviews.

Performance Appraisal. Performance reviews are not the favorite task for any manager

to do. In many cases performance reviews either don’t occur or they are cursory at best.

Consistent and comprehensive performance reviews will result in better employee performance

and better organizational operations.

Total Quality Management. Attention to quality in terms of services.

Step 10. Maintenance

Monitoring Performance. In Step 3 a measurement baseline was established. The

saying is that “What measured gets done.” It is important to continually measure performance.

How often any activity gets measured depends on the circumstances. It could be daily, monthly

Public Sector Organizational Development Process

Phase I – Initiate the Organizational AuditStep 1. Problem IdentificationStep 2. Program Kick-Off

o Initial Group Meetingo Setting Ground Rules o Employee Involvement

Step. 3 Data Collection/Assessment/Analysiso Existing Vision, Mission, Strategyo Human Dynamico Document Reviewo Performance Measures

Step 4. Stakeholder Feedback o Surveyso Focus Groupso Structured Interviews

Phase II - Implement Organizational ChangeStep 5. Preliminary DiagnosisStep 6. Planning Change/Designing InterventionsStep 7. Implementing Change/Action

o Mapping Processes, Procedures, Practiceso Reengineering Process

Step 8. Restructuring Organization/Managing Changeo Mixed Implementationo Strategic Planning

Step 9. Institutionalize Changeo Employee Training and Developmento Executive Leadership Coachingo Cross Functional Trainingo Customer Service Trainingo Team Buildingo Procedures Manual o Establish Performance Measures/

Expectationso Performance Appraisalo Total Quality Management

Phase III – Maintain Organizational DevelopmentStep 10. Maintenance

o Monitoring Performanceo Sustaining Change


or annually. Today there are numerous soft-

ware packages that actually measure time spent

on specific process tasks. This can be useful in

determining if a particular step in the process

is taking too long or if a particular employee is

having problem completing the task in a timely

manner and needs further training.

Sustaining Change. Working the

strategic plan is paramount. Unfortunately,

most organizations create a strategic plan and

then put it on a shelf. The most effective way

to guarantee implementation is to appoint one

person to manage the strategic plan. This

person will monitor action deadlines and

deliverables and provide written reports to

management on a monthly or quarterly basis.

This person needs to attend all executive team

meetings and report on progress, or the lack thereof, on specific items. This puts everyone on

notice that they will be held accountable for their performance and that it is being documented. If

what get measured gets done, then what gets reported also gets completed.

Continuous Improvement. It is important to revisit and review processes and

procedures on an establish schedule. The work environment is constantly changing because of


technology, elections, state and federal legislation and current events. Continuing to operate

under the status quo is a recipe for disaster.

The Structured Interviews

The emphasis of the paper so far has been given to the literature review and history of

organizational development. Now the paper will provide the reader with the opinions of the

leading academic and practitioners in the field of organizational development (see Appendix B).

Each interviewee was asked the same questions, but they were opened-ended in terms of survey

research questions. The survey questions were conducted from July 12-22, 2013

This is the most interesting part of the report because there are no boundaries or

restrictions on their answers. It was important to limit questions to specifics in order to achieve a

level of both consistency and comparability. The dilemma was to summarize what they said to

me or just let quote what they said. So I decided not to translate what they said. It displays what

they really think. At the end of the paper, the author will summarize his thoughts about what they

said. It is important to say upfront that the paper does not speak for them. The following are the

email responses exactly as sent:

Lee Bolman (July 22, 2013):

1. Do you think that organizational development and change has been successfully implemented in the public sector? If yes, why? If not, why not?

There have been successes and failures, as in the private sector, but I don’t know how to quantify the balance.

2. In general, which best management practices (please choose 3-5) do you feel have the most significant impact on organizational change in the public sector?

I don’t know how to get my head around this question.

3. Can you give me a couple of examples of local governments that have successfully implemented organizational development?

Sorry, but this isn’t an area where I know enough to make a sensible answer.


4. How important is communication with stakeholders in terms of the effective management of public sector organizational change? What factors are most critical to effective communication with stakeholders during the organizational change process?

It’s vital, as in other sectors. It’s essential to hear from and communicate to the right stakeholders with the right message, and keep at it.

5. Are there any communication approaches you would caution against using that could lead to negative and inconsequential outcomes in the organizational change process?

I don’t really know how to answer this question. If you don’t communicate enough, or if you communicate the wrong message to the wrong people, your chances of success decline.

6. Do you have any other thoughts about the importance of communication in the public sector organizational development process?

Probably.

7. How does an organization sustain continuous improvement after going through the organizational development process?

That will depend on a number of things, such as how quickly people see positive results, how much people feel better or worse off as a result of the changes, how confident people feel that they know how to be effective in the new world, etc.

8. How do you change attitudes about good customer service in an organization that lacks it?

As with most of your questions, this is so broad that my mind boggles at trying to answer it. There are many possible ways to change attitudes on this, as on just about anything else you might want to change. You can put people in contact with customers, give them more information about customer experiences, train them in ways to serve customers better, change their perceptions of what they’re rewarded for, etc.

9. Are there any future trends in organizational development that you feel will be of particular importance and relevance to the public sector?

I don’t know.

David Carnevale (July 13, 2013):

Before you get too far, you need I believe to note what change is for you. There is everything in OD from helping just a leader for example to full system change, total transformation.

You might note that change agents can come from an internal Human Resources Administration unit to, what I am used to, the work of an external agent or external team of agents.

My experience is that there are precious few inside units facilitating change and most often the degree of change the employer seeks almost


always underestimates the degree of change necessary to achieve organizational ends.

It is good to note that change efforts are in the end less about techniques to realize goals than the reality always is political and deals with power relations which being disturbed bring forth the greatest change, and the most significant problems for the change agent.

"It all starts at the top" which means for me that no real change is possible without the support of the top executive in charge. It is important that the change agent have the visible support of the "boss."

You already raise a good point that needs to be dealt with -- sectorial differences matter -- dealing with a public agency as opposed to a private company are in several ways different. Jumping ahead I feel that communication is the essential variable affecting degree of change and that is especially true when one takes the position, as I do, that it is all about process and process and process why communication, openness, transparency and maintain a good public visible profile is the heart of the matter.

The first change effort centers around analysis of what is, and based on that diagnosis choosing where to start and with what techniques to bring to bear. The initial diagnosis is to likely change as the agent goes forward but getting in, working one's way in provides a solid feet on the ground dimension, then going forward from there.

Most important change agent skills -- facilitation, expertise brought to bear concerning group dynamics, and, again, political skills. In some way the agent is always "running uphill in the agency or unit" and is alone privately in her thinking save what she can share with other members of the external team of agents.

Trust is always in play. No change is possible if the agent(s) don't or can't generate trustworthy relations inside and throughout the unit seeking OD facilitation. If they don't trust you, leave, or stay in the toxic low trust atmosphere.

In the public sector, so unionized as it is, the agent needs the support of union leaders before really engaging things. This of course is a trust problem. So, no change is possible without union support and it truly impossible if change ideas are generated outside of the bargaining relationship between the parties. If a labor contract negotiations overlap with OD initiatives, then the agent needs to be at the table observing as a neutral. Getting welcomed is hard since the OD agent is seen as a creature of the boss and suspicion of her motives is always in play with the union. They will take the position that if these things are so important why is management not bringing to the table? Why is a "consultant" being used to affect change when the bargaining process can, and should, be the focus of change initiatives? In the City of Norman, I had OD program invited by the city manager. Three labor contracts were being bargained at the same time I tried to enter the group. I had to behave as a mediator in the labor talks if I wanted to be accepted as "an honest broker" in the OD program. Again,


public labor representing police, firefighters, teachers, and general unit personnel is quite strong. Ignore it at your peril.

The worst thing an OD agent can do is to concentrate at the top of the hierarchy, which has several implications, not necessarily good, about power in the organization. Start at the top and try to have change, the acceptance that change is necessary, cascade down from the top. It is a disaster in the making. I learned the hard way in the State Department of Health that, in the end, starting bottom up would have been better than my trying to make acceptance by the power elite my initial goal. OD really demands starting with employees down the line. Not to do that presents systemic trust problems. I learned my lesson in this case, not a happy journey being wrongheaded at the outset.

Tom Cummings (July 22, 2013):


Yes, Bob Golembiewski has done reviews of public sector OD efforts and generally they are no more or less successful than private sector OD projects. There is a fairly long history of OD in the public sector and there is growing competence in this area both in internal and external OD consultants. Also, public services more and more face competition with the private industry delivering these services; this opens the public sector to market forces which should push it more and more to get more efficient and change itself.


High-involvement work practices; team-based work practices; service quality interventions; process interventions.


Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, which implemented strategic changes (strategy, structure, etc.) to make it more adaptable to changing conditions including rising fiscal demands and more diverse public needs.


Participation and active engagement of multiple stakeholders is particularly essential in the public sector; must go beyond communication to get stakeholders involved in all stages of the change process. Also, must account for shifting power of different stakeholders in the public sector as the governance process changes.


Top down, one way communication; dialogue not communication.



Communication needs to account for multiple, conflicting values of different stakeholders; cannot assume shared values.


By putting in place an ongoing learning process which periodically cycles through change-feedback-learn/adjust processes as normal part of organization functioning

8. How do you change attitudes about good customer service in an organization that lacks it?Strong leadership, explicit service goals, contingent reward practices, and training and

development.


Almost all the current trends in OD (more strategic, more multiple stakeholders, more learning by doing, etc) are relevant to public sector.

Caryn Tilton (July 22, 2013):

Here are my answers. Please keep in mind that 90% of my public experience is with local government (city, county and district).

Regarding OD, I think there are huge opportunities to be had. But unfortunately, most local governments do not have the systems in place to take advantage of these opportunities. They continue with what is familiar avoiding the discomfort that could inspire badly needed change.


No. Very few government entities have the systems, programs and/or technology in place to take advantage of opportunities, efficiencies, and ongoing process improvements. They have many challenges including a diverse group of stakeholders, multiple layers of management, politics, and governance in part by unskilled leaders.


The following “best management practices” could have a huge impact on organizational change in the public sector if they had the skills, knowledge and abilities to take advantage of them:

o Process Reengineeringo Performance Managemento Strategic Planning



o Aztec, New Mexico – Strategic Planning (Mayor Sally Burbridge)o Madras, Oregon – Currently making strides in the area of Performance Management

and Strategic Planning (City Administrator, Gus Burril)o Boring Fire District – Strategic Planning (Council President Les Otto)

Sadly, due to lack of accountability, lack of leadership, failure to govern appropriately, and outdated and ineffective performance management programs most local governments are incapable of the efficiencies necessary to take advantage of OD. Some public entities like Aztec, NM have pockets of productivity but in my experience (30 years), I can’t name one single public organization that successfully undertook the task to develop all employees, the organization and the governing body to capitalize on existing opportunities.


While OD needs the support (maybe the directive) of the governing body, they are not the ones who will implement the changes. I think you should communicate anticipated outcomes to stakeholders (citizens, elected officials, special interests) and do it in a way that removes any risk from decision making that may be connected to the change. However, I think it is a mistake to involve stakeholders with methods, tools and strategy at the organizational level. Administration and the workforce will be the drivers of meaningful, interdisciplinary change. Effective change will most likely require culture change, behavior change, and measurable competencies at the individual, team, department, and organizational level.


o Communication that is untrueo Communication that creates unrealistic expectations. When the expectations are not

met, trust is lost and credibility dissolves.o Communication that is selective – passed on to a select fewo Communication that is not transparent o Communication that is not complete or thorough


Communication is the life blood of change. Thorough communication at all levels of the organization is imperative, it is critical, and your success absolutely depends upon it.



Process Reengineering is the silver bullet to continuous improvement and generally involves these steps:o Identify your customers (those who depend upon you or your team for products,

information, or services) and their expectationso Interview key customers to rate (1. How important on a scale of 1-7 is this product,

information, or service to you or your team? 2. On a scale of 1-7 what is the effectiveness of our delivery?

o Identify the steps in your current process.o Conduct process analysis exerciseso Redesign your processo Determine process and end result measures and data sourceso Measure and continuously improve

8. How do you change attitudes about good customer service in an organization that lacks it?It’s as easy as 1-2-3!o Hire the besto Provide a work environment that supports individual successo De-hire those who don’t measure upEvery public organization should have a Customer Service Policy and Program

including customer service standards for all positions. Employees should first learn about customer service and what the expectations are for their contribution during their on-boarding. Going forward, employees should be held accountable to meeting the customer service standards for their area and position. Like other expectations, failure to meet them is cause for progressive corrective action up to and including termination.

9. Are there any future trends in organizational development that you feel will be of particular importance and relevance to the public sector?No future trends that I am aware of….

Christopher Worley (July 22, 2013):

I Should Open With A Disclaimer…I Do Not Have Much Experience In Government OD. You Might Want To Contact Ray Patchett…Former City Manager For The City Of Carlsbad, Ca. Who Practices Od And Writes The Section On Od In The Public Sector For The Od Textbook That Cummings And I Write. Ray Patchett <[email protected]>


In General, No. First, For All The “Transparency” About Government Affairs And Processes, There Is A Fair Amount Of Information Hoarding – Information Is Power – And That Fundamentally Works Against Some Of The Core Values Of The Od Process. Second, Most Governments Are Under Cost Pressures And Cannot (Or Will Not) Justify The Costs Of An Od Internal Function



Again, Not An Expert Here… My Best Guess – Depending On How You Define “Management Practices” Would Be 1) Strategic Planning, 2) Process Improvement Technologies, 3) Organization Design


City Of Carlsbad, Ca – See Reference To Ray Patchett Above

4. How important is communication with stakeholders in terms of the effective management of public sector organizational change?

Sorry, rich, this seems like an odd question… of course it’s important. I don’t understand what you are trying to get at.

What factors are most critical to effective communication with stakeholders during the organizational change process?

o Clarity Of Messageo Timing Of Messageo The Medium (Face-To-Face, Email, Public, Private)o Level Of Trust Between The Parties


Blast Email



Rich, I’m struggling here. First, the question assumes that things will be sustained. In a world that is changing faster and faster, i find the notion of institutionalizing change (refreezing) an almost silly idea. Second, there are a ton of continuous improvement methodologies – six sigma, total quality management, lean, and so on that would work fine. I’m still not understanding what you are looking for.

8. How do you change attitudes about good customer service in an organization that lacks it?Whose attitudes? The workers? The public’s?There is a whole literature on attitude change in social psychology… my own approach would be based on a combination of social learning theory and socio-technical work design.


I would go to ray’s section in the OD text… I think he does a good job describing the current state of the field in public sector organizations.


Organizational Development Trends

The need for organizational development evolves with societal change. The following

trends and potential issues are ones identified through the literature review, structured interviews

and discussions with colleagues. These observations were put forward by Cummings and Worley

(2005).

Global, Cultural Interdependencies

The globalization of politics means that organizations must become more sensitive to

ethnic and cultural difference when it comes to communication and interactions. Knowing about

your counterpart is extremely important in order to make sure that understanding is not lost in

translation.

Ecological Awareness

Society is becoming more aware of the human impact on the environment. Government

institutions are specifically charged with taking a leadership role in addressing climate change,

resource conservation, recycling. The organizational development practitioner needs to keep

pace with such issues.

Social Justice and Responsibility

There is a growing desire on the part of employees to contribute more to society than just

their daily labor. Some organizations encourage and financial support community action and

participation by their employees.

Age, Gender, Lifestyle and Ethnicity

The workforce is aging and there will be more retirees. This requires a succession

strategy component. There are also changing lifestyle expectations by the incoming younger

generation and the outgoing older generation to consider. The population is experiencing a


growing ethnic mix and minorities are becoming the new majority. Understanding cultural

expectations and traditions of the minority groups is important.

Technological Change

The speed of technological change and improvements is accelerating. We have moved

from type writers, to punch cards, to personal computers, to lap tops, smart phones and tablets.

There is no way of knowing what will come next, but it will come. This also has a generational

impact when it comes to employees and their acceptance of new technology in the organization.

Employee Expectations

There is a trend toward creating new and innovative employee reward systems beyond merit

pay. Employees are beginning to expect more non-monetary personal fulfillment.

New Economy

The new economy is characterized by layoffs, downsizing, mergers and acquisitions. This

leads to people working part-time, unemployed or underemployed. This means that

organizational development must now take into account these impacts on the organization.

Improve Employee Health

More and more employees expect on-site facilities to keep healthy. This is also a concern

for employers who want to reduce the health care costs.

Systems Integration

There is an increasing trend toward integrating administrative, human and technological

systems that the practitioner needs to keep pace with.

Best Practice Solution

Given the changing organizational trends, it is difficult for organizational development

professionals to keep pace with the need for information and cutting edge solutions. One answer


is to first conduct a situational analysis and then create teams of professionals who understand

the separate and specific issues that need to be addressed. For example, if an organization has a

large ethnic group involved, then someone with experience working with such a group would be

extremely useful. So the future of organizational development is that it will become more

interdisciplinary.

Summary

This paper began with the premise that the research thinking and the conclusions would

be based on the literature review. However, the structured interviews were the very insightful.

These are consulting and academic professionals on the cutting edge of the new world of public

sector organizational development. So they became the academic heart of the paper.

Organizational development in the public sector has its roots going back

centuries. However, the modern day field of organizational development is only starting to

impact the public sector organizations like municipal corporations. Part of the problem is that

they are considered rule-bound. But many, if not most, of the procedures are simply historical

antecedents and not organizationally logical in terms of performance.

As a 30-year government manager and a current doctorate student in organizational

development, I struggle with the reality that municipal governments are regulatory machines that

grind on daily without ever questioning what they are doing. Reality is that the management of

municipal governments changes on four-year elections cycles. The staff does not.

So the challenge of public administration is the theoretical fire-wall between public

policy by elected officials and public management by appointed officials does not exist at the

municipal corporation level. The opportunity for long-term organizational change and

development is often challenging at best.


I have provided a 10-step plan for long term organizational development and change. The

challenge is to find political leadership to implement it over time. That will be difficult

depending on the situational analysis of any municipal corporation. It is often said that you get

what you pay for. In local government, you get who you elect. So the question goes back to my

doctorate thesis. The question is “Do municipal corporations that effectively communicate with

their stakeholders better manage organizational change?” I believe the answer is “Yes.”


Appendix AStructured Interviews

Introduction Script

Thank you for taking the time to answer a few questions about public sector organizational

development. I have 10 questions and this will probably only take about 15 minutes. Please note

that all answers are confidential and I will not be attributing answers to anyone I interview.

Interview Questions

1. Do you think that organizational development and change has been successfully implemented in

the public sector? If yes, why? If not, why not?

2. In general, which best management practices (please choose 3-5) do you feel have the most

significant impact on organizational change in the public sector?

3. Can you give me a couple of examples of local governments that have successfully implemented

organizational development?

4. How important is communication with stakeholders in terms of the effective management of

public sector organizational change? What factors are most critical to effective communication

with stakeholders during the organizational change process?

5. Are there any communication approaches you would caution against using that could lead to

negative and inconsequential outcomes in the organizational change process?

6. Do you have any other thoughts about the importance of communication in the public sector

organizational development process?

7. How does an organization sustain continuous improvement after going through the organizational

development process?

8. How do you change attitudes about good customer service in an organization that lacks it?

9. Are there any future trends in organizational development that you feel will be of particular

importance and relevance to the public sector?


Appendix B

Dr. Lee G. Bolman, University of Missouri - Kansas City, Bloch School of

Management. Author of Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. Education:

Yale University, Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior and Yale Law School.

Dr. David G. Carnevale, Florida State University. Education: Ph.D. in public

administration from Florida State University. Author of Organizational Development in the

Public Sector. Professor Carnevale has served as the Samuel Roberts Noble Presidential

Professor at the University of Oklahoma, where he is currently a Professor of Human Relations

and Political Science.

Dr. Thomas G. Cummings, University of Southern California. Co-author of

Organization Development and Change. Thomas G. Cummings, is chair of the Department of

Management and Organization and executive director of the Leadership Institute. Education:

MBA from Cornell University and Ph.D. socio-technical systems University of California at Los

Angeles.

Caryn A. Tilton. Caryn is President of CT Consulting and has owned and operated CT

Consulting since 1984 providing programs and supporting services in management consulting,

organizational development, employee training, board development, strategic planning,

performance management, executive coaching, and process re-engineering.

Dr. Christopher G. Worley, Pepperdine University. Dr. Worley consults with

organizations in the health care, high technology, and natural resource industries on strategy and

organization design. He is the co-author of Organization Development and Change, the largest

selling textbook in the field of organization development.


Attachment C

Richard H. Carson12920 NE 227th AvenueBrush Prairie, WA 98606Phone: (360) 635-8161Email: [email protected]: www.richcarson.org

June 25, 2013

To:

My name is Richard Carson and I am a doctoral student at Washington State University. I am currently working on a research paper in preparation for my dissertation.

The goal of the dissertation is to construct a framework that local governments can apply to better manage the process of organizational change. It will provide a qualitative road map by which to achieve the desired organizational changes and a quantitative process to measure and monitor the results of these changes.

The research question I am pursuing is, “Does the effectiveness of public agencies, in communicating and managing relationships with internal and external stakeholders, increase the likelihood of successfully managing organizational change?”

My personal interest in this topic is both professional and academic. I have spent 30 years working at the city, county and state government level in Alaska, California, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Most of this time was spent as a top level government manager. For the last five years I have worked as a consultant, helping local governments create organizational change that leads to greater efficiencies and communication.

As part of my research, I would like to conduct several structured interviews with academic, non-profit and for-profit professionals who are working in the field of public sector organizational development. In light of your experience and insight in this field, I would like to be able to interview you if you are available. The interview consists of 10 questions and I expect the time commitment will be 15-20 minutes. The interviews can be done in one of two ways. I can arrange to call you at your convenience and ask you the questions. I can also send you the questions by email and you can return your responses to me by email.

I would like to schedule my interview with you before July 12th. I will email you the questions in advance. You can also return the email questionnaire back by July 12th. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration and I look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

Richard H. Carson


References

Allen, J., Jimmieson, N., Bordia, P., Irmer, B (2007). Uncertainty during Organizational Change:

Managing Perceptions through Communications. Journal of Change Management. 7, 187-210.

Bolman, L., Deal, T. (2001). Reframing Organizations. Artistry, Choice and Leadership. Josey-Bass,

San Francisco, CA. 434.

Burke, W. (2002). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications. 19-20, 21-26.

Carnevale, D. (2005). Organizational Development in the Public Sector. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press. 1-2, 21-26.

Carr, D., Littman, I., Condon, J. (1995). Improvement Driven Government: Public Service for the

21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Coopers and Lybrand. 42

Carson, R., (December 2004). Changing the Culture of “NO”, Planning, 70,16-19.

Carter, L., Girber, D., Goldsmith, M. (2001). Best Practices in Organizational Development and

Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. xii-xiii.

Child, John (2005). Organization: Contemporary Principles and Practice,Hoboken, NJ, Blackwell

Publishing, 292.

Cleary, T. (1988). The Art of War. Boston, MA. Shambala Publications. 2.

Cummings, T., Worley, C. (2005). Organization Development & Change. Mason, OH: Thomson-

Southwestern, 6-7, 13, 91, 114-131,320, 597-602, 611-625, 661-670.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/strategy/adapt-or-die

Fernandez, S., Rainey, H. (2006 April-March). Managing Successful Organizational Change in the

Public Sector. Public Administration Review. 168-176.


Foxworthy, S., Bingham, L. (2013 Jan/Feb/March). Open Government 2.0 – Creating a Model for

Transparency in Government. PA Times. 3. 3, 27

French, W., Bell Jr., C. (1999). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for

Organization Improvement (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 46-48.

Ho, A. (2002 July/August). Reinventing Local Government and the E-Government Initiative. Public

Administration Review. 62, 434-444.

Howard, C. (2013 Jan/Feb/March). Enhancing Transparency through an Integrated Performance and

Change Management Process. 14-15

Kavanaugh, A., Fox, E., Sheetz, S., et al. (2012 October). Social media use by government: From the

routine to the critical. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 34, 480-491.

Kuhn, T., Corman, S. (2003, September).The Emergence of Homogeneity and Hetergenity in

Knowledge Structures During a Planned Organizational Change. Communications Monographs.

198-229.

Osborne, D., Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is

Transforming the Public Sector. New York, NY: Penguin Books. 3.

Marriot, W. (1992). Niccolo Machievelli – The Prince. New York, NY. Random House, 47.

Peters, T., Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence. Harper and Row. New York, NY. 12,121-

122.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2010, April 18). The People and Their

Government: Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor. Retrieved from www.people-

press.org on March 14, 2013. 13,15, 19.

PytlikZillig, L., Tomkins, A., Herian, M. et al. (2012). Public input methods impacting confidence in

government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 6, 92-111.

http://www.people-press.org/

http://www.people-press.org/


Rothwell, W., Sullivan, R., McLean, G. (1995). Practicing Organization Development. San Diego,

CA: Pfeiffer and Company. 14-18, 23.

Rowe, G., Frewer, L. (2000 Winter). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.

Science Technology Human Values. 25, 3-29.

Shaw, G. Pygmalion, (1916).

Singleton, R., Straits, B. (2005) Approaches to Social Research (5th ed.). New York, NY, 2010,

Oxford University Press, 325, 309-353.

Tompkins, A., Zillig, L., Herian, M., Abdel-Monem, T., (2010, May 1). Public Input for Municipal

Policy Making: Engagement Methods and Their Impact on Trust and Confidence. Public Policy

Commons. 41-50.

United Nations Development Programme (2006 November). Multi-Stakeholder Engagement

Processes. Conference Paper #7. 4.

Walton, M. (1986). The Deming Management Method. Putnam Publishing. New York, NY. __, __

Welch, E. (2012 March). The relationship between transparent and participative government: A

study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Services.

23, 93-115.

Wilson, W. (1887), The Study of Administration, Political Science Quarterly,___.


References (reviewed but not cited)

Barnes, C. (2000 Autumn). Information and Communication Technologies: assessing public attitude

and local government resolve. Public Policy and Administration. 15, 20-31.

Bryson, J. (1988). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet Politics. States, citizens, and New Communication Technologies. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Coleman, B. (2013, March 7). Old ways of local government communication not enough in today’s

society. State and Local Connection. SAS Software.

http://blogs.sas.com/content/statelocalgov/2013/02/15/

David, F. (1991). Strategic Management (3rd ed.). New York, NY. Macmillan Publishing.

Hahn, D. Dudley, P. (2004) How Well Does Government do Cost Benefit Analysis? AEI-Brookings

Joint Center Working Paper No. 04-01.

Lerner, A., Wanat, J. (1992). Public Administration: A Realistic Reinterpretation of Contemporary

Public Management. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.

Miller, K. (2011). Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes (6th ed.). Belmont,

CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.

Nutt, P., Backoff, R. (1992). Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (3rd ed.). New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.

Prachett, L. (1999, December 22). New Technologies and the Modernization of Local Government:

An Analysis of Biases and Constraints. Public Administration. 77, 731-751.


Steiner, G. (1979). Strategic Planning. What Every Manager Must Know. New York, NY. The Free

Press (Macmillan Publishing).

Taleb, N. (2010). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (2nd Ed). New York, NY.

Random House.

Tushman, M., O’Reilly III, C., (2002). Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading

Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

United States Census Bureau (2010). City and County Data Book. Washington, D.C.

Wohler, T. (2008). E-Government: Trends and Sophistication at the Local Level of Government.

Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics.6, 49-55.

Wong, W.,Welch, E. (2004, April). Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative

Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability. Governance, 17, 275-297.

i Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008ii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008iii Prothman Associated, City of SeaTac - 2010iv Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008v Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008vi Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008vii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008viii Management Partners, City of SeaTac - 2007ix Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008x Bruce McClendon, Mastering Change - 1972xi Paul Zucker, The ABZs of Planning Management - 1983xii Richard Carson, Tips for Planning Agency Managers - 2009xiii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xiv Elaine Cogan, Successful Public Meetings - 1992xv Paul Zucker, City and Borough of Juneau - 2009xvi Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xvii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xviii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xix Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xx Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxi Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxiii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County -2008xxiv Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxv Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxvi Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxvii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxviii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxix Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxx Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxxi Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxxii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxxiii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxxiv Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxxv Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxxvi Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxxvii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xxxviii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County – 2008 xxxix Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xl Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xli Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008xlii Citygate Associates, Sacramento County - 2008

Documents

Customer Service Improvements · Web viewProfessional Perspective Today’s organizational development practice was initially practiced by human resource specialists, applied social