Change management in public reforms - Det Danske ...

Paper for the Danish Academy of Management conference titled ’A New Agenda for Management’,Copenhagen, 11-12 December 2006Change management in public reforms- lessons from the Danish police reformResearch paperRex DegnegaardPhD Fellow, Dept. of Management, Politics & PhilosophyCopenhagen Business SchoolPorcelaenshaven 18ADK – 2000 Frederiksbergrex@cbs.dk

Change Management in Public Reforms 2006change management models could be seen as resistance to change models at large or assimple excuses stemming from the ‘not invented here syndrome’ or for simply avoiding thedifficult reflections and decisions which change management tends to impose onmanagers. Rather than seeing the criticism as global truths and thereby rejecting the valueof change management as a management discipline for the public sector or simplyrefusing the criticism, this paper inquires into the content of the criticism in regards topublic management reform by asking; what are the implications of the differences betweenchange management in public and private organizations – and what are their implicationsfor public management reform.The paper concludes that traditional perceptions in theory as well as in practice of theroles of managers and employees may lead to stigmatization. By shifting theseperceptions the roles of managers and employees may be clarified and even broadenedthereby inviting reflection into the role of the other and into one’s own role. Thisbroadening may in turn lead to erosion of the stigmatization of managers and employees.The aim of this paper is to add to the development of research based perspectives andinsights into public management reform based on lessons from the Danish police reform.The paper shows how change management models can be used in public sector reformsto help overcome management challenges that emerge from the reorganization. Illustratedby the case of the Danish police reform, it is shown how change management models canpinpoint relevant management challenges which are often neglected. Descriptions ofpractice in the police force are based on participant observation field studies in theNational police and in local police districts.This paper is part of a three year PhD project which was initiated early this year. Thus it iswork in progress which will be supported by a strengthened theoretical foundation and byfurther empirical studies to provide a larger base of lessons from the police reform.Rex Degnegaard Page 3 of 14

Change Management in Public Reforms 2006In the job function as police officer where one’s one safety potentially is at stake to a greatextent, social capital is not only an outcome of the function but also a precondition. This isstressed by Sennett in reference to military organizations:Loyalty is a prime test of this version of social capital. Military organizations havehigh social capital, evinced when people are willing to sacrifice their lives out ofloyalty to the institution or to the network of solders within an army. (Sennett, 2005, p.64)The example of the military organization, which in many aspects is parallel to the police,gives a clear picture of why social capital is necessary in public organizations. Even whentransferred to other public organizations in which the safety aspects are not of relevance,the importance of social capital is evident. Though lacking the potentially dramaticconsequences as for military and police organizations, absence of loyalty and trust in otherpublic organizations may result in undesirable consequences resulting unpredictabledecisions by administration. Thus, these characteristics illustrate dynamics of the logicbehind public organizations which provide specific challenges to public management – andto public management reform. Essential for management in daily operations as well as inand serve as specific challenges to public management reform.In conclusion to this inquiry into challenges of public management reform, it appears thatthe primary premise for public function to be managed rests upon stability which is aprecondition for sustaining and enhancing democratic awareness and function. To ensurethis predictability, a central management challenge is to foster organizational andindividual stability for which trust and loyalty are essential.When concluding that the essential premise of management challenge to publicmanagement reforms is democratic awareness and function, it is not to neglect theimportance of efficiency and economic orientation. In the case of the Danish police reform,the organization is better off regarding economic strain than for example other Danishreforms and other police reforms such as the Norwegian reform. The differentorganizational orientations are interconnected as described by Pollitt and Bouckaert intheir views of in public management reform in their comparative studies of reforms acrosscountries throughout the world:Rex Degnegaard Page 8 of 14

Change Management in Public Reforms 2006Public management reform is usually thought of as a means to an end, not an end initself. To be more precise we should perhaps say that it is potentially a means tomultiply ends. These include making savings (economies) in public expenditure,improving the quality of public services, making the operations of government moreefficient, and increasing the chances that the policies which are chosen andimplemented will be effective. (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004, p. 6)Thus there are many demands set forward to managers in public management which isalso seen in the case of the police reform which entails all of the above. Demands whichare parallel to the demands of reorganization in private sector organization. Savings,quality, efficiency, and effectiveness are all overlapping components of rationales whichare evident in both public and private sector reorganizations. However, within the logic ofpublic organization, the primary management premise remains democratic awareness andfunction which in the quote above would mainly refer to quality and effectiveness.As shown in the inquiry into challenges of public and private sector management, themanagement challenges in times of reorganization are generally consistent. However, witha significant difference in what can be viewed as the primary premise of reorganization. Inprivate sector reorganization the primary premise rests on maximizing profits, and in publicsector reorganization the primary premise rests on democratic awareness and function.This concludes that there are elements of change management which are of particularimportance to public organization and that change management in public reforms shouldreflect the management challenges of stability which are specifically vital to publicmanagement reform.Moral order in public management reformTo reform an organization is like moving a cemetery – you get no help from below.(Police Union 2006, author’s translation)The quote above was published in the Police Union’s first reform periodical. The quote isfrom a speech for shop stewards in the police by a professor who was invited to talk ofchange management. The quote reflects the predominant perception of the roles ofmanagement and employees – and of the differences between the two. The perceptionsrest on the notion that managers are progressive and constructive and employees areresistant to change and destructive. The perception is closely linked to expectationsRex Degnegaard Page 9 of 14

Change Management in Public Reforms 2006towards what one might expect from each group in the current reorganization andtherefore mutual perceptions are essential in vast reorganizations.The metaphor presented in the above quote establishes a clear example of some of theassumptions which are central to the dominant perceptions in change management byintroducing a parallel between managing a reform and moving a cemetery. Assumptionswhich can be inappropriate and counterproductive. Vast reorganizations such as reformscan be seen as organizational crisis during which the nature of management are surfaced.The values of which support the existing management will often present itself more clearlyin times of crisis than in everyday working life. Therefore, reorganization is often a goodopportunity to inquire into management values at play in an organization since the senseof urgency is a good catalyst of management assumptions. Assumptions of which someare necessary and of which some are inappropriate. The necessity of assumptions lies inall the experience and learning which we have gathered throughout our lives asorganizational beings.The inappropriateness appears when these basic assumptions are nested in beliefs thatemployees are passive or even counterproductive. It may be true that this is the dominantbelief; but that does not make it true. On the contrary, people are generally loyal to theorganization and to the moral order which is weaved into the organization and of whichthey have become a part of. The loyalty to the moral order of the organization in times oforganizational crisis has been studied by Larry Hirschhorn (2005). He gives an alternativeexplanation to what management often determine as resistance to change when facedwith signs of inertia among employees. Hirschhorn’s explanation rests on a premise thatthe moral order of the current organization has been weaved into a myriad of mutualpromises and obligations between the employees and the organization which areconstituent of the expectations from the employee to the organization. In this explanationsigns of inertia from employees are not necessarily results of a counter-productive questled by the employees; rather, they are results of employees’ devotion to the organizationand its moral order.… people are tied to the network of promises and obligations they have worked in.They are wary of abandoning a moral order that has sustained them, so they tend towait for signs that the crisis will pass. (Hirschhorn 2000, pp. 165-166)Rex Degnegaard Page 10 of 14

Change Management in Public Reforms 2006In this view, signs of inertia may not necessarily be products of resistance but rather theproducts of loyalty to the organization. Loyalty which is essential in public managementgiven its influence on predictability which again is a precondition for the democraticfunction of public organizations. Therefore, a misinterpretation of behavior by employeesor other managers in this respect can be very unfortunate for those being misunderstoodas well as for those who misinterpreted the signals. As a result of such amisunderstanding, the misinterpretation may in the end be self fulfilling.Moral order of an organization is vulnerable during vast reorganizations such as publicmanagement reforms. As described earlier, reform is an organizational crisis which shakesthe organization and its members. In vast reorganizations, the moral order will be fragiledue to the lack of stability and certainty:A crisis renders all obligations and promises suspect, because the organization as awhole has an uncertain future. (Hirschhorn, 2000, p. 165)People in an organizational crisis are generally heavily affected by these changes in whatHirschhorn describes as obligations and promises between the organization and theindividual. However, people in the organization tend to hold on to the moral order as far asthey possibly can.People relinquish a moral order only when it has seriously lost legitimacy, when it isno longer experienced as an arrangement that secures its members’ future.(Hirschhorn, 2000, p. 164-165)This quote shows that people try to retain the moral order of the organization for as long aspossible. However, following the statement on the dynamics of moral order, we can alsoconclude that people cannot sustain a moral order when faced with insecurity and lack offuture scenarios. Therefore, when initiating vast reorganizations, the risk involved inremoving the existing moral order and removing the projected images of futureorganization from employees should be taken into consideration. Particularly in publicsector organizations for which stability is a precondition for its function – and ever moreimportant in organizations such as the police that has high social capital.Public management reform risks compromising the moral order of the organization. Peoplein the organization will try to cling to the existing moral order – whether managers orRex Degnegaard Page 11 of 14

Change Management in Public Reforms 2006LiteratureBateson, Gregory (1987). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Jason Aronson Inc.Beer, Michael & Nitin Nohria (2000). Breaking the Code of Change. Harvard BusinessSchool Press.Brunsson, Nils & Johan P. Olsen (1993). The Reforming Organization. Routledge.Chia, Robert (1999). A ‘Rhizomic’ Model of Organizational Change and Transformation:Perspective from a Metaphysics of Change. British Journal of Management, Vol. 10, 209-277.Cooper, Robert (1986). Organization/Disorganization. Social Science Information, 25, 2,1986, pp. 299-335.Du Gay, Paul (2005). The Values of Bureaucracy. Oxford university Press.Friedman, Milton (1979). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. The New York Times Company.Friedman, Milton (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.Goldschmidt, Lars & Ole Fogh Kirkeby (2006). Fusionsledelse I det offentlige. Boersen.Hirschhorn, Larry (2000). Changing Structure is Not Enough. The Moral Meaning ofOrganizational Design. In Beer & Nohria (2005) Breaking the Code of Change. HBS Press.Huy, Quy Nguyen & Henry Mintzberg (2003). The Rhythm of Change. MIT SloanManagement Review, Summer 2003, Vol. 44, no. 4.Huy, Quy Nguyen (2001). Time, Temporal Capability, and Planned Change. Academy ofManagement Review. 2001, Vol. 26, No. 4, 601-623.Louart, Durant & Besson (2006). Introduction. Special issue on paradoxes in changemanagement. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 19. No. 4. 4, 2006.Rex Degnegaard Page 13 of 14

Change Management in Public Reforms 2006Police Union (2006). Reform-avis. Danish Police Union (Politiforbundet).Pollitt, Christopher & Geert Bouckaert (2004). Public Management Reform. A ComparativeAnalysis, 2 nd edition. Oxford University Press.Prenkert, Frank (2006). A theory of organizing informed by activity theory – The locus ofparadox, sources of change, and challenge to management. Journal of OrganizationalChange Management. Vol. 19. No. 4, pp. 471-490.Scott, M.P. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). “Using a paradox to build management andorganization theories”. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 562-79.Sennett, Richard (2006). The Culture of the New Capitalism. Yale University.Thompson, Paul & Mats Alvesson (2005). Bureaucracy at work: Misunderstandings andMixed Blessings. In Du Gay (2005), The Values of Bureaucracy. Oxford University Press.Visionsudvalget (2005). “Fremtidens politi”. Danish Ministry of Justice.Prime minister’s department (2006). Press conference, November 16 2006. Debate leaflet‘on the way to a quality reform’ (author’s translation from Danish: Debatpjece "På vej moden kvalitetsreform"). www.kvalitetsreform.dk.Weick, Karl (2000). Emergent Change as a Universal in Organizations. In Beer & Nohria.Breaking the Code of Change. Harvard Business School Press.Rex Degnegaard Page 14 of 14

Filnavn:Degnegaard 2006 Change Management in Public Reformsdet_danske_ledelsesakademi (FINAL).docBibliotek: D:\Data\phd\Courses &Conferences\Det_danske_ledelsesakademiSkabelon: C:\Documents and Settings\rd.lpf\ApplicationData\Microsoft\Skabeloner\Normal.dotTitel:Change management in public reformsEmne:Forfatter: Rex DegnegaardNøgleord:Kommentarer:Oprettelsesdato: 29-11-2006 11:27:00Versionsnummer: 2Senest gemt: 29-11-2006 11:27:00Senest gemt af: Rex DegnegaardRedigeringstid: 1 minutSenest udskrevet: 29-11-2006 11:28:00Ved seneste fulde udskriftSider: 14Ord:4.460 (ca.)Tegn: 24.625 (ca.)