Forces of Change Guide

Managing Successful Organizational

Change in the Public Sector

C an governmental organizations change?

Reform initiatives have swept through

governments in the United States and overseas,

again and again bringing news about eff orts to reinvent,

transform, or reform government agencies ( Barzelay

2001; Kettl 2000; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000; Stillman

1999 ). Curiously, however, this recurrent theme of

change in government agencies has not induced a high

volume of articles that explicitly address the topic in

public administration journals. Th ere are prominent

exceptions to this observation (e.g., Bryson and

Anderson 2000; Chackerian and Mavima 2000; Mani

1995; Wise 2002 ) and journal articles about topics

related to organizational change (e.g., Berman and

Wang 2000; Brudney and Wright 2002; Hood and

Peters 2004 ). Articles reporting research and theory with

titles containing “ organizational change ” and with that

theme as a focal topic, however, appear with much less

regularity in public administration journals than in

research journals focusing on general management and

organization theory.

In that literature on organization theory, Van de Ven

and Poole (1995) report a count of one million articles

relating to organizational change. Th is vast body of

work abounds with complexities, including multiple

and confl icting theories and research fi ndings and a

good bit of inconclusiveness. Th is complexity presents

a challenge to public administrators and public admin-

istration researchers alike. To respond to that chal-

lenge, the full version of this article, which is available

on PAR ’ s Web site ( www.aspanet.org ), provides an

overview of the vast literature on organizational

change — a review demonstrating its complexity but

also bringing some needed order to the literature.

Here, the analysis identifi es points of consensus among

researchers on what are commonly called organiza-

tional transformations : initiatives involving large-scale,

planned, strategic, and administrative change

(Abramson and Lawrence 2001; Kotter 1995 ). Th ese

points serve as testable propositions for researchers to

examine in future research and as major considerations

for leaders of change initiatives in public organizations.

Theories of Organizational Change in Public Organizations Th e variety of theoretical perspectives summarized in

the online version of this article presents a rather con-

fusing picture, but it provides insights into the nature

of organizational change, and in particular, the causes

of change and the role of managers in the change pro-

cess. Some of the theories downplay the signifi cance

of human agency as a source of change (e.g.,

DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Hannan and Freeman

1984 ; Scott 2003). Conversely, other theories view

managers ’ purposeful action as driving change (e.g.,

Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Pfeff er and Salancik

1978 ), although environmental, cognitive, and

resource constraints place limits on such action

(Van de Ven and Poole 1995).

Th ese major theoretical perspectives illustrate

researchers ’ confl icting views about the causes of

change in organizations, especially the capacity of

managers to bring about change. Despite the confl icts

among theorists, however, a signifi cant body of

research indicates that managers frequently do make

change happen in their organizations (Armenakis,

Harris, and Feild 1999; Burke 2002; Judson 1991;

Kotter 1995 , 1996; Yukl 2002 ). Public sector studies

also off er evidence of the critical role that public

managers play in bringing about organizational

change (e.g., Abramson and Lawrence 2001;

Bingham and Wise 1996; Borins 2000; Doig and

Hargrove 1990 ; Hennessey 1998; Kemp, Funk,

and Eadie 1993).

Noting that managers can eff ect change tells us little,

however, about whether an intended change actually

occurs and about the best strategies for eff ecting

change. Fortunately, a stream of research exists that

contains various models and frameworks, many of

them loosely based on Lewin ’ s (1947) steps or phases

of change. Th ese studies describe the process of imple-

menting change within organizations and point to

factors contributing to success (e.g., Armenakis,

Harris, and Feild 1999; Bingham and Wise 1996 ;

Sergio Fernandez is an assistant profes-

sor in the School of Public and

Environmental Affairs at Indiana University.

His research focuses on public manage-

ment, with an emphasis on privatization

and contracting for services, public sector

leadership, and organizational change. His

research has appeared in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , Public Performance and Management Review , Review of Public Personnel Administration , and Public Administration Review . E-mail: [email protected] .

Hal G. Rainey is the Alumni Foundation

Distinguished Professor in the School of

Public and International Affairs at the

University of Georgia. His research concen-

trates on organizations and management in

government, with an emphasis on perfor-

mance, change, leadership, incentives,

privatization, and comparisons of govern-

mental management to management in the

business and nonprofi t sectors. The third

edition of his book Understanding and Managing Public Organizations was published in 2003. He was recently elected

a fellow of the National Academy of Public

Administration.

E-mail: [email protected] .

Theory to Practice

168 Public Adminisration Review • March | April 2006

Sergio Fernandez Indiana University

Hal G . Rainey University of Georgia

Burke 2002; Greiner 1967; Kotter 1995 , 1996;

Rainey and Rainey 1986; Th ompson and Fulla 2001 ).

Despite some diff erences in these models and frame-

works, one fi nds remarkable similarities among

them, as well as empirical studies supporting them

( Armenakis and Bedeian 1999 ). One can discern from

this body of research a consensus that change leaders

and change participants should pay special attention

to eight factors, each off ering propositions suitable

for further testing and refi nement in future research.

Th e full online version of this article presents a more

elaborate and detailed propositional inventory; this

shorter version emphasizes the most general proposi-

tions identifi ed.

Because it draws on points of consensus among re-

searchers and experienced observers, the set of factors

discussed here resembles, but diff ers in signifi cant

ways from, some other frameworks (e.g., Kotter

1996). Some experts portray the change process as a

linear progression through successive stages repre-

sented by the factors discussed here (e.g., Armenakis,

Harris, and Feild 1999; Greiner 1967; Kotter 1995 ).

Th e process, however, rarely unfolds in such a simple

linear fashion ( Amis, Slack, and Hinings 2004 ; Van de

Ven 1993). Th e eight factors and propositions that are

discussed in the following sections can infl uence the

outcome of change initiatives at diff erent points of the

process. Moreover, researchers have generally treated

these determinants of eff ective implementation of or-

ganizational change as having additive eff ects. Th e

present analysis, in contrast, treats each determinant

as potentially contributing to the successful imple-

mentation of change — or making implementation

smoother — by adding to the eff ects of the other fac-

tors. Finally, despite what some practitioners might

see as the commonsense nature of these factors and

propositions, examples cited below — as well as many

other studies and examples — indicate that change

leaders very often ignore, overlook, or underestimate

them ( Kotter 1995, 1996 ).

Factor 1: Ensure the Need Managerial leaders must verify and persuasively com-

municate the need for change. Research indicates that

the implementation of planned change generally

requires that leaders verify the need for change and

persuade other members of the organization and

important external stakeholders that it is necessary

(Armenakis, Harris, and Feild 1999; Burke 2002;

Judson 1991; Kotter 1995; Laurent 2003; Nadler and

Nadler 1998 ). Th e process of convincing individuals

of the need for change often begins with crafting a

compelling vision for it. A vision presents a picture or

image of the future that is easy to communicate and

that organizational members fi nd appealing ( Kotter

1995 ); it provides overall direction for the change

process and serves as the foundation from which to

develop specifi c strategies for arriving at a future

end state.

Some research on private organizations indicates that

it is easier to convince individuals of the need for

change when leaders craft a vision that off ers the hope

of relief from stress or discomfort (Kets de Vries and

Balazs 1999). Nadler and Nadler (1998) even suggest

implanting dissatisfaction with the current state of

aff airs in order to get members of the organization to

embrace change. To convince individuals of the need

for and desirability of change and to begin the process

of “ unfreezing ” the organization, Armenakis, Harris,

and Feild (1999) suggest employing eff ective written

and oral communication and forms of active partici-

pation among employees.

Th e 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 (Abramson and

Lawrence 2001; Rossotti 2005; Young 2001 ). For

instance, Kemp, Funk, and Eadie (1993) and

Bingham and Wise (1996) conclude that successful

implementation of new programs depends on top

management ’ s ability to disseminate information

about the change and convince employees of the

urgency of change. Denhardt and Denhardt (1999)

describe how eff ective local government managers

verify the need for change through “ listening and

learning ” and then communicate those needs in

ways that build support for change. Researchers have

also noted public sector leaders ’ eff orts to take

advantage of mandates, political windows of oppor-

tunity, and external infl uences to verify and

communicate the need for change (Abramson and

Lawrence 2001; Harokopus 2001; Lambright 2001;

Rossotti 2005 ).

Factor 2: Provide a Plan Managerial leaders must develop a course of action or

strategy for implementing change. Convincing the

members of an organization of the need for change is

obviously not enough to bring about actual change.

Th e new idea or vision must be transformed into a

course of action or strategy with goals and a plan for

achieving it (Abramson and Lawrence 2001; Carnall

1995; Judson 1991; Kotter 1995; Lambright 2001;

Nadler and Nadler 1998; Young 2001 ). Th is strategy

serves as a road map for the organization, off ering

direction on how to arrive at the preferred end state,

identifying obstacles, and proposing measures for

overcoming those obstacles. As Kotter (1995)

explains, the basic elements of the vision should be

organized into a strategy for achieving that vision so

that the transformation does not disintegrate into a

set of unrelated and confusing directives and

activities.

Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector 169

Two aspects of a course of action that appear crucial

for organizational change in the public sector include

the clarity or degree of specifi city of the strategy and

the extent to which the strategy rests on sound causal

theory. Policy implementation analysts have long

noted the importance of clear, specifi c policy goals

and coherent causal thinking about the linkage be-

tween the initiative to be implemented and the de-

sired outcomes (Bishop and Jones 1993; Grizzle and

Pettijohn 2002; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989; Meier

and McFarlane 1995 ). Specifi c goals help ensure that

the measures implemented in the fi eld correspond

with the formal policy by limiting the ability of imple-

menting offi cials to change the policy objectives and

providing a standard of accountability. As Bingham

and Wise (1996) and Meyers and Dillon (1999) dis-

covered, policy ambiguity can sow confusion, allowing

public managers to reinterpret the policy and imple-

ment it in a fashion that brings about few of the

changes that policy makers intended (see also

Montjoy and O ’ Toole 1979). Finally, a mandate for

change based on sound causal theory helps eliminate

inconsistent or confl icting directives that can under-

mine eff orts to implement change. Rossotti (2005)

shows how he and others leading major organizational

changes at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) set

forth a clear, well-conceived, well-organized plan for

the change process.

Factor 3: Build Internal Support for Change and Overcome Resistance Managerial leaders must build internal support for

change and reduce resistance to it through widespread

participation in the change process and other means.

Students of major organizational changes typically

report that successful leaders understand that change

involves a political process of developing and nurtur-

ing support from major stakeholders and organiza-

tional members. Individuals in organizations resist

change for a variety of reasons (Kets de Vries and

Balazs 1999) — for example, some ideas for change

are simply ill conceived, unjustifi ed, or pose harmful

consequences for members of the organization. Even

assuming a well-justifi ed and well-planned change

initiative, however, leaders must build internal

support and overcome resistance.

How can they do so? Several researchers have observed

that a crisis, shock, or strong external challenge to the

organization can help reduce resistance to change. Van de

Ven (1993) explains that because individuals are highly

adaptable to gradually emerging conditions, a shock or

stimulus of signifi cant magnitude is typically required for

them to accept change as inevitable. In a similar vein,

Kotter warns managers against the risk of “ playing it too

safe ” and noted that “ when the urgency rate is not

pumped up enough, the transformation process cannot

succeed ” (1995, 60). He even observed that in a few of

the most successful cases of organizational change, the

leadership manufactured crises (see also Laurent 2003;

Th ompson and Fulla 2001 ).

For many decades, social scientists have emphasized the

value of eff ective and ethical participation, as well as

other means, in supporting group and organizational

change and in lowering resistance to it (Coch and French

1948; Lewin 1947 ). More recently, experts have further

explored ways of reducing resistance to change. Judson

(1991) identifi es a variety of tactics that managers can

employ to minimize resistance to change, including

threats and compulsion, criticism, persuasion, induce-

ments and rewards, compromises and bargaining, guar-

antees against personal loss (e.g., off ering job security or

retraining to employees), psychological support, em-

ployee participation, ceremonies and other eff orts to

build loyalty, recognition of the appropriateness and le-

gitimacy of past practices, and gradual and fl exible im-

plementation of change. With the exception of threats,

compulsion, and criticism, which can have counterpro-

ductive eff ects and further increase resistance, he argues

that these approaches can be eff ective at reducing resis-

tance to change (see also Kets de Vries and Balazs 1999).

A “ dual approach ” that creates pride in the organization ’ s

history and past success while arguing for a new way

of doing things seems also to be eff ective at reducing

resistance to change.

Th e scope of participation is also important. Wide-

spread participation in the change process is perhaps

the most frequently cited approach to overcoming

resistance to change (e.g., Abramson and Lawrence

2001; Young 2001 ). Many scholars who focus on pri-

vate organizations have asserted that planned change

requires extensive participation by members at mul-

tiple levels of the organization during all stages of im-

plementation ( Bunker and Alban 1997; Greiner 1967;

Johnson and Leavitt 2001; Nadler and Nadler 1998;

Pasmore 1994 ). Th e literature indicates that involving

organizational members helps reduce barriers to

change by creating psychological ownership, promot-

ing the dissemination of critical information, and en-

couraging employee feedback for fi ne-tuning the

change during implementation.

Participation presents a particularly important contin-

gency in the public sector. As Warwick (1975) asserts,

career civil servants, who are allegedly motivated by

caution and security, can use the frequent turnover

among top political appointees to their advantage by

simply resisting new initiatives until a new adminis-

tration comes into power. However, their participa-

tion in the stages of change can help reduce this kind

of resistance. Rossotti (2005) , for instance, recounts a

continuous process of meetings with all types of stake-

holders — frontline employees, union leaders, taxpay-

ers and taxpayer groups, managers, Treasury

Department executives, members of Congress, and

others (see also Denhardt and Denhardt 1999; Poister

170 Public Administration Review • March | April 2006

and Streib 1999 ). Goldsmith (1999 , 68ff ), too, de-

scribes how employee “ empowerment ” played a key

role in his change eff orts as mayor of Indianapolis.

Interestingly, Kelman ’ s (2005) analysis of the federal pro-

curement reform process suggests that one should avoid

overestimating change resistance. A signifi cant number of

employees welcomed reforms, and their support needed

only to be “ unleashed. ” Buttressing Kelman ’ s point,

Th ompson and Sanders ’ s (1997) analysis of change

within the Veterans Benefi ts Administration suggests that

success may require bottom-up participatory elements,

such as delegating decision making to middle manage-

ment and granting frontline workers greater discretion

to implement changes. Th ey note, however, that top

management still must play a critical role by encouraging

and rewarding innovation and expressing support for the

change. Successful implementation of organizational

change, therefore, often resembles a hybrid combining

elements of lower-level participation and direction from

top management.

Even widespread participation, however, does not off er

a magic bullet for overcoming resistance to change

( Shareef 1994 ). Bruhn, Zajac, and Al-Kazemi (2001)

advise that participation should be widespread and span

all phases of the change process, but they stress that

leaders must take participation seriously, commit time

and eff ort to it, and manage it properly. Th e failure to

do so can be counterproductive, leading to wasted time,

morale, and resources (see also Quinn 2000). Bryson

and Anderson (2000) make a similar observation in

their analysis of large-group methods used to diagnose

problems and implement changes in organizations.

Factor 4: Ensure Top-Management Support and Commitment An individual or group within the organization

should champion the cause for change. Top-

management support and commitment to change play

an especially crucial role in success (Burke 2002;

Carnall 1995; Greiner 1967; Johnson and Leavitt

2001; Kotter 1995; Nadler and Nadler 1998; Yukl

2002 ). Some studies of organizational change stress

the importance of having a single change agent or

“ idea champion ” lead the transformation. An idea

champion is a highly respected individual who main-

tains momentum and commitment to change, often

taking personal risks in the process (Kanter 1983).

Policy-implementation scholars have off ered evidence

of how a skillful and strategically placed leader or

“ fi xer ” can successfully coordinate the behavior of

disparate actors and overcome obstacles by leveraging

close personal ties and pursuing informal avenues of

infl uence ( Bardach 1977; O ’ Toole 1989 ).

Other authors have stressed the need to have a guid-

ing coalition to support the change. A guiding coali-

tion is a group of individuals who lend legitimacy to

the eff ort and marshal the resources and emotional

support required to induce organizational members to

change ( Carnall 1995 ; Kets de Vries and Balazs 1999;

Kotter 1995; Yukl 2002 ). Kotter asserts that one or

two managers often launch organizational renewal

eff orts, but “ whenever some minimum mass is not

achieved early in the eff ort, nothing much worthwhile

happens ” (1995, 62).

Whether it occurs in the form of a single change agent

or a guiding coalition, considerable evidence indicates

that top-management support and commitment play

an essential role in successful change in the public sec-

tor (Abramson and Lawrence 2001; Berman and

Wang 2000; Bingham and Wise 1996; Denhardt and

Denhardt 1999; Harokopus 2001 ; Hennessey 1998;

Kemp, Funk, and Eadie 1993; Lambright 2001;

Laurent 2003; Rainey and Rainey 1986; Th ompson

and Fulla 2001; Young 2001 ). Barzelay ’ s (2001) analy-

sis of New Public Management reforms in various

nations, for instance, reports that Aucoin (1990) at-

tributes the failure of these reforms in Canada to a

lack of support from cabinet ministers, who simply

did not care much about the reforms.

Finally, in the public sector, top-management support

for change often requires the cooperation of top-level

career civil servants in addition to politically ap-

pointed executives. Moreover, the need for leadership

continuity and stability raises particular challenges in

the public sector because of the frequent and rapid

turnover of many executives in government agencies

compared to business executives. Th is may explain

why, contrary to stereotype, many signifi cant changes

in government need to be — and have been — led

by career civil servants ( Holzer and Callahan

1998 ).

Factor 5: Build External Support Managerial leaders must develop support from political

overseers and key external stakeholders. Organizational

change in the public sector also depends on the degree

of support from political overseers and other key exter-

nal stakeholders. Th e impact of these actors on the out-

come of change eff orts stems in part from their ability

to impose statutory changes and control the fl ow of

vital resources to public organizations. Political over-

seers can infl uence the outcome of planned change by

creating and conveying a vision that explains the need

for change, as well as by selecting political appointees

who are sympathetic to the change and have the knowl-

edge and skills required for managing the transforma-

tion. As Golembiewski (1985) suggests, attaining

support from governmental authorities and political

actors involves serious challenges, given the constraints

imposed by the political context in which public orga-

nizations operate. Public agencies often have multiple

political masters pursuing diff erent objectives, and

politically appointed executives often have very weak

Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector 171

relationships with career civil servants. Despite these

challenges, public managers implementing change in

their organizations must display skill in obtaining

support from powerful external actors.

Public policy scholars have observed the impact of sup-

port from political overseers or sovereigns on the out-

come of policy implementation ( Goggin et al. 1990;

Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989 ). Th ey are now joined

by more recent studies of public sector reform that have

begun to stress the importance of external political sup-

port ( Berman and Wang 2000 ; de Lancer Julnes and

Holzer 2001; Wallin 1997 ). Berry, Chackerian, and

Wechsler (1999) note that the governor ’ s high level of

commitment and support for particular reforms in

Florida had a substantial infl uence on the degree of im-

plementation (see also Chackerian and Mavima 2000 ).

Changes that could have been implemented quickly

and cost-eff ectively seemed to generate more support

from elected offi cials than those with higher implemen-

tation costs and those requiring much more eff ort and

time to implement.

Support from other key external stakeholders fi gures

prominently in successful change eff orts (Abramson and

Lawrence 2001; Denhardt and Denhardt 1999;

Harokopus 2001; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989;

Rossotti 2005; Wallin 1997 ). Th ompson and Fulla

(2001) conclude that the interest group environment

acted as an important determinant of agency adoption of

National Performance Review (NPR) reforms, with

strong interest group opposition to an agency ’ s NPR

reforms constraining change. Conversely, Weissert and

Goggin (2002) found that proceeding to implementa-

tion without garnering the support of interest groups can

speed up the implementation process, albeit at the cost

of dissatisfaction and criticism.

Factor 6: Provide Resources Successful change usually requires suffi cient resources

to support the process. A fairly consistent fi nding in

the literature is that change is not cheap or without

trade-off s. Planned organizational change involves a

redeployment or redirection of scarce organizational

resources toward a host of new activities, including

developing a plan or strategy for implementing the

change, communicating the need for change, training

employees, developing new processes and practices,

restructuring and reorganizing the organization, and

testing and experimenting with innovations (see

Burke 2002; Mink et al. 1993; Nadler and Nadler

1998 ). Failure to provide adequate resources in sup-

port of a planned change leads to feeble implementa-

tion eff orts, higher levels of interpersonal stress, and

even neglect of core organizational activities and func-

tions. Boyne ’ s (2003) review of research, for example,

found that “ resources ” is one of the important factors

for improving public services (and hence, bringing

about change). Rossotti (2005) heavily invested

resources in major changes at the IRS and expressed

regret that he had not sought at the outset stronger

assurances of budgetary support for the reforms from

Treasury Department offi cials.

Policy implementation scholars have long recognized

this need for adequate resources to implement policy

changes ( Goggin et al. 1990; Matland 1995;

Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989 ; Montjoy and O ’ Toole

1979). Ample funding is necessary to staff implement-

ing agencies and to provide them with the administra-

tive and technical capacity to ensure that they achieve

statutory objectives. Similarly, students of recent ad-

ministrative reforms have observed that resource scar-

city can hinder organizational changes (Berry,

Chackerian, and Wechsler 1999; Bingham and Wise

1996; Chackerian and Mavima 2000 ; Kemp, Funk,

and Eadie 1993).

As Chackerian and Mavima (2000) discovered in their

analysis of government reform in Florida, resource

munifi cence becomes even more complex when mul-

tiple organizational changes are implemented as part

of a comprehensive reform agenda. Th e authors found

that multiple organizational changes interact with one

another, causing synergies and trade-off s. For example,

the pursuit of multiple changes that demand modest

amounts of similar resources can lead to synergies,

increasing the likelihood that all changes will be im-

plemented successfully. Th e pursuit of multiple

changes that require large amounts of similar re-

sources, on the other hand, tends to result in trade-

off s. Trade-off s, in turn, result in winners and losers,

with low-cost changes taking precedence over or even

displacing more costly ones.

Factor 7: Institutionalize Change Managers and employees must eff ectively institution-

alize and embed changes. To make change enduring,

members of the organization must incorporate the

new policies or innovations into their daily routines.

Virtually all organizational changes involve changes in

the behavior of organizational members. Employees

must learn and routinize these behaviors in the short

term, and leaders must institutionalize them over the

long haul so that new patterns of behavior displace

old ones (Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano 2001;

Greiner 1967; Kotter 1995; Lewin 1947 ).

Doing so, however, is not easy. Armenakis, Harris, and

Feild (1999) have developed a model for reinforcing

and institutionalizing change. According to the

model, leaders can modify formal structures, proce-

dures, and human resource management practices;

employ rites and ceremonies; diff use the innovation

through trial runs and pilot projects; collect data to

track the progress of and commitment to change; and

engage employees in active participation tactics that

foster “ learning by doing. ” Judson (1991) , too,

172 Public Administration Review • March | April 2006

strongly emphasizes the need to collect data and mon-

itor the implementation process to keep managers

aware of the extent to which organizational members

have adopted the change. Evaluation and monitoring

eff orts should continue even after the change is fully

adopted to ensure that organizational members do not

lapse into old patterns of behavior.

Th e evidence, however, is mixed regarding the optimal

pace for institutionalizing change. Some experts un-

derscore the need to adopt change gradually or incre-

mentally on a small scale in order to build momentum

and to demonstrate the benefi ts of change

(Armenakis, Harris, and Feild 1999; Cohen and

Eimicke 1994; Greiner 1967; Kotter 1995; Rainey

and Rainey 1986 ). Others have argued that a rapid

pace of change can overcome inertia and resistance

( Tushman and Romanelli 1985 ). Small-scale or grad-

ual implementation, however, may pose more of a

challenge in the public sector than in business because

frequent shifts in political leadership and short tenures

for political appointees can cause commitment for

change to wane.

Factor 8: Pursue Comprehensive Change Managerial leaders must develop an integrative, com-

prehensive approach to change that achieves subsys-

tem congruence. Many researchers stress that in order

for fundamental change in behavior to occur, leaders

must make systemic changes to the subsystems of

their organization. Th ese must be aligned with the

desired end state. Changing only one or two subsys-

tems will not generate suffi cient force to bring about

organizational transformation ( Meyers and Dillon

1999; Mohrman and Lawler 1983; Nadler and

Nadler 1998; Tichy 1983 ). Still others have warned,

however, that implementing multiple changes with-

out understanding the structure and nature of the

interconnections among subsystems can result in ad-

ditional costs and a longer implementation period

than anticipated (Hannan, Polos, and Carroll 2003).

Amis, Slack, and Hinings (2004) go even further, ar-

guing that the actual sequence of change matters; they

found that beginning the transformation process by

changing “ high-impact ” decision-making elements of

the organization fi rst helps to build momentum for

the broader array of changes that follow. Likewise,

Robertson, Roberts, and Porras conclude from their

study of business fi rms that practitioners should begin

any change eff ort with systematic changes in the work

setting and “ insure that the various work setting

changes are congruent with each other, sending con-

sistent signals to organization members about the new

behaviors desired ” (1993, 629).

Support for these arguments is also present in public

sector research. Shareef (1994) , for example, found

that an eff ort to implement a participative culture in

the U.S. Postal Service fell short because of manage-

ment ’ s failure to modify organizational subsystems for

the desired cultural change. Golembiewski (1985)

emphasizes the fruitlessness of attempting to change

attitudes and behaviors toward more teamwork and

participation if the organizational structure remains

strictly hierarchical and fails to support a team orien-

tation (see also Meyers and Dillon 1999 ). Th e wisdom

of this strategy notwithstanding, Robertson and

Seneviratne ’ s (1995) study suggests that subsystem

congruence may be more diffi cult to achieve in the

public than in the private sector because change

agents in the public sector exercise less discretion

than their private sector counterparts.

Conclusion Th e factors and propositions off ered in this article

should serve not as a road map but as a compass for

practitioners seeking to fi nd their way amid the sus-

tained, persistent, and challenging pressures for

change they confront daily. Th ey, in turn, suggest a

robust, varied, and quite challenging agenda for fu-

ture research, an agenda that is discussed at length in

the extended version of this article on the PAR Web

site. It suffi ces to note that work by Nutt (1983,

1986) and others accurately suggests the need to move

beyond the literature ’ s additive assumptions in re-

searching these propositions. Researchers should ana-

lyze the interactive eff ects of such factors using

research designs and methods that treat the possibility

of a contingency approach to implementing organiza-

tional change seriously. Especially useful would be the

employment of multivariate statistical techniques and

large-sample data sets of organizations at diff erent

levels of government and in diff erent public manage-

ment settings. Another immediate research need in-

volves refi ning the general propositions off ered here,

synthesizing the various theories underlying them,

and testing rival propositions. In the process, research-

ers must confront the challenge of analyzing the rela-

tionship between the content and process of change

and such organizational outcomes as performance.

Some designs will be very challenging and expensive,

but researchers should seek ways to conceive and ex-

ecute them, possibly through consortia of researchers

(e.g., Huber and Glick 1993 ) and proposals for large

research grants. Such an eff ort would be timely, im-

portant for both practice and theory building, and

long overdue.

Want to explore this topic in more depth? Want to see

how others have reacted to this article? Want to join the

exchange? Go to the ASPA Web site ( www.aspanet.org )

and click on the Th eory to Practice icon.

Th eory to Practice has an independent editorial and

blind peer review process; proposals from authors for

future articles may be submitted directly to the editor

at [email protected] .

Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector 173

References Abramson , Mark A . , and Paul R . Lawrence . 2001 .

Th e Challenge of Transforming Organizations:

Lessons Learned about Revitalizing Organizations .

In Transforming Organizations , edited by Mark. A .

Abramson and Paul R . Lawrence , 1 – 10 . Lanham,

MD : Rowman & Littlefi eld .

Amis , John , Trevor Slack , and C . R . Hinings . 2004 .

Th e Pace, Sequence, and Linearity of Radical

Change . Academy of Management Journal 47 ( 1 ):

15 – 39 .

Armenakis , Achilles A . , and Arthur G . Bedeian . 1999 .

Organizational Change: A Review of Th eory and

Research in the 1990s . Journal of Management

25 ( 3 ): 293 – 315 .

Armenakis , Achilles A . , Stanley G . Harris , and Hubert

S . Feild . 1999 . Paradigms in Organizational

Change: Change Agent and Change Target Per-

spectives . In Handbook of Organizational Behavior ,

edited by Robert T . Golembiewski , 631 – 58 . New

York : Marcel Dekker .

Aucoin , Peter . 1990 . Th e New Public Management:

Canada in Comparative Perspective . Montreal,

Canada: Institute for Research on Public Policy .

Bardach , Eugene . 1977 . Th e Implementation Game .

Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .

Barzelay , Michael . 2001 . Th e New Public Management:

Improving Research and Policy Dialogue . Berkeley :

University of California Press .

Berman , Evan , and XiaoHu Wang . 2000 . Perfor-

mance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity

for Reform . Public Administration Review 60 ( 5 ):

409 – 20 .

Berry , Frances S . , Richard Chackerian, and Barton

Wechsler . 1999 . Reinventing Government: Lessons

from a State Capital. In Public Management Reform

and Innovation: Research, Th eory, and Application ,

edited by H . George Frederickson and Jocelyn M .

Johnston , 329 – 55 . Tuscaloosa : University of Ala-

bama Press .

Bingham , Lisa B . , and Charles R . Wise . 1996 .

Th e Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of

1990: How Do We Evaluate Its Success? Journal of

Public Administration Research and Th eory 6 ( 3 ):

383 – 411 .

Bishop , Peter C . , and Augustus J . Jones , Jr . 1993 .

Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act

of 1990: Assessing the Variables of Success . Public

Administration Review 53 ( 2 ): 121 – 28 .

Borins , Sandford . 2000 . Loose Cannons and Rule

Breakers, or Enterprising Leaders? Some Evidence

about Innovative Public Managers . Public Adminis-

tration Review 60 ( 6 ): 498 – 507 .

Boyne , George A . 2003 . Sources of Public Service

Improvement: A Critical Review and Research

Agenda . Journal of Public Administration Research

and Th eory 13 ( 3 ): 367 – 94 .

Brudney , Jeff rey L . , and Deil S . Wright . 2002 . Revisit-

ing Administrative Reform in the American States:

Th e Status of Reinventing Government during the

1990s (A Diff erence of Opinion) . Public Adminis-

tration Review 62 ( 3 ): 353 – 61 .

Bruhn , John G ., Gary Zajac , and Ali A . Al-Kazemi .

2001 . Ethical Perspectives on Employee Participa-

tion in Planned Organizational Change: A Survey

of Two State Public Welfare Agencies . Public Per-

formance and Management Review 25 ( 2 ): 208 – 28 .

Bryson , John M . , and Sharon R . Anderson . 2000 .

Applying Large-Group Interaction Methods in the

Planning and Implementation of Major Change

Eff orts . Public Administration Review 60 ( 2 ):

143 – 62 .

Bunker , Barbara B . , and Billie T . Alban . 1997 . Large

Group Interventions: Engaging the Whole System for

Rapid Change . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Burke , W . Warner . 2002 . Organization Change: Th eory

and Practice . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage

Publications .

Carnall , Colin . 1995 . Managing Change in Organiza-

tions . New York : Prentice Hall .

Chackerian , Richard , and Paul Mavima . 2000 . Com-

prehensive Administrative Reform Implementa-

tion: Moving Beyond Single Issue Implementation

Research . Journal of Public Administration Research

and Th eory 11 ( 3 ): 353 – 77 .

Coch , Lester , and John R.P . French , Jr . 1948 . Over-

coming Resistance to Change . Human Relations

1 ( 4 ): 512 – 32 .

Cohen , Steven , and William Eimicke . 1994 . Project-

Focused Total Quality Management in the New

York City Department of Parks and Recreation .

Public Administration Review 54 ( 5 ): 450 – 56 .

de Lancer Julnes , Patria, and Marc Holzer . 2001 .

Promoting the Utilization of Performance Mea-

sures in Public organizations: An Empirical Study

of Factors Aff ecting Adoption and Implementa-

tion . Public Administration Review 61 ( 6 ): 693 – 708 .

Denhardt , Robert B . , and Janet V . Denhardt . 1999 .

Leadership for Change: Case Studies in American

Local Government . Washington, DC : IBM Center

for the Business of Government .

DiMaggio , Paul J . , and Walter W . Powell . 1983 . Th e

Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism

and Collective Rationality in Organizational

Fields . American Sociological Review 48 ( 2 ): 147 – 60 .

Doig , Jameson W . , and Erwin C . Hargrove , eds .

1990 . Leadership and Innovation: Entrepreneurs in

Government . Abridged ed. Baltimore : Johns

Hopkins University Press .

Edmondson , Amy C . , Richard M . J . Bohmer , and

Gary P . Pisano . 2001 . Disrupted Routines: Team

Learning and New Technology Implementation in

Hospitals . Administrative Science Quarterly 46 ( 4 ):

685 – 716 .

Goggin , Malcolm L , Ann O ’ M . Bowman , James P .

Lester , and Laurence J . O ’ Toole , Jr . 1990 . Imple-

mentation Th eory and Practice: Toward a Th ird Gen-

eration . Glenview, IL : Scott Foresman/Little, Brown .

174 Public Administration Review • March | April 2006

Goldsmith , Stephen . 1999 . Th e Twenty-First Century

City: Resurrecting Urban America . Lanham, MD :

Rowman & Littlefi eld .

Golembiewski , Robert T . 1985 . Humanizing Public

Organizations . New York : Lomond .

Greiner , Larry E . 1967 . Patterns of Organizational

Change . Harvard Business Review 45 ( 3 ): 119 – 28 .

Grizzle , Gloria A . , and Carol D . Pettijohn . 2002 .

Implementing Performance-Based Program Bud-

geting: A System-Dynamics Perspective . Public

Administration Review 62 ( 1 ): 51 – 62 .

Hannan , Michael T . , and John Freeman . 1984 . Struc-

tural Inertia and Organizational Change . American

Sociological Review 49 ( 2 ): 149 – 64 .

Hannan , Michael T ., Laszlo Polos , and Glenn R . Car-

roll . 2003 . Th e Fog of Change: Opacity and Asper-

ity in Organizations . Administrative Science

Quarterly 48 ( 3 ): 399 – 432 .

Harokopus , Kimberly A . 2001 . Transforming the

Department of Defense: Creating the New De-

fense Procurement System . In Transforming Orga-

nizations , edited by Mark A . Abramson and Paul

R . Lawrence , 11 – 55 . Lanham, MD : Rowman &

Littlefi eld .

Hennessey , J . Th omas . 1998 . “ Reinventing ” Govern-

ment: Does Leadership Make a Diff erence? Public

Administration Review 58 ( 6 ): 322 – 32 .

Holzer , Marc , and Kathleen Callahan . 1998 . Govern-

ment at Work: Best Practices and Model Programs .

Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications .

Hood , Christopher , and Guy Peters . 2004 . Th e Mid-

dle Aging of New Public Management: Into the

Age of Paradox? Journal of Public Administration

Research and Th eory 14 ( 3 ): 267 – 82 .

Huber , George P . , and William H . Glick , eds . 1993 .

Organizational Change and Redesign . New York :

Oxford University Press .

Johnson , Gail , and William Leavitt . 2001 . Building

on Success: Transforming Organizations through

an Appreciative Inquiry . Public Personnel Manage-

ment 30 ( 1 ): 129 – 36 .

Judson , Arnold S . 1991 . Changing Behavior in Orga-

nizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change . Cam-

bridge, MA : Blackwell .

Kanter , Rosabeth Moss . 1983 . Th e Change Masters .

New York : Simon & Schuster .

Kelman , Steven . 2005 . Unleashing Change: A Study of

Organizational Renewal in Government . Washing-

ton, DC : Brookings Institution Press .

Kemp , Evan J ., Jr. , Robert J . . Funk , and Douglas C .

Eadie . 1993 . Change in Chewable Bites: Applying

Strategic Management at EEOC . Public Adminis-

tration Review 53 ( 2 ): 129 – 34 .

Kets de Vries , Manfred F . R . , and Katharina Balazs .

1999 . Transforming the Mind-Set of the Organiza-

tion . Administration & Society 30 ( 6 ): 640 – 75 .

Kettl , Donald F . 2000 . Th e Global Public Management

Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of Gover-

nance . Washington, DC : Brookings Institution Press .

Kotter , John P . 1995 . Leading Change: Why Transfor-

mation Eff orts Fail . Harvard Business Review 73 ( 2 ):

59 – 67 .

— — — . 1996 . Leading Change . Watertown, MA :

Harvard Business School Press .

Lambright , W. H . 2001 . Transforming the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration: Dan

Goldin and the Remaking of NASA . In Transform-

ing Organizations , edited by Mark A . Abramson

and Paul R . Lawrence , 91 – 137 . Lanham, MD :

Rowman & Littlefi eld .

Laurent , Anne . 2003 . Entrepreneurial Government:

Bureaucrats as Business People . In New Ways of

Doing Business , edited by Mark A . Abramson and

Ann M . Kieff aber , 13 – 47 . Lanham, MD : Rowman

& Littlefi eld .

Lawrence , Paul R . , and Jay W . Lorsch . 1967 . Organi-

zation and Environment: Managing Diff erentiation

and Integration . Cambridge, MA : Harvard Univer-

sity , Graduate School of Business Administration .

Lewin , Kurt . 1947 . Group Decision and Social

Change . In Readings in Social Psychology , edited by

Th eodore M . Newcomb and Eugene L . Hartley ,

340 – 44 . New York : H. Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston .

Mani , Bonnie G . 1995 . Old Wine in New Bottles Tastes

Better: A Case of TQM Implementation in the IRS .

Public Administration Review 55 ( 2 ): 147 – 58 .

Matland , Richard E . 1995 . Synthesizing the Imple-

mentation Literature: Th e Ambiguity-Confl ict

Model of Policy Implementation . Journal of Public

Administration Research and Th eory 5 ( 2 ): 145 – 74 .

Mazmanian , Daniel A . , and Paul A . Sabatier . 1989 .

Implementation and Public Policy: With a New Post-

script . Lanham, MD : University Press of America .

Meier , Kenneth J . , and Deborah R . McFarlane . 1995 .

Statutory Coherence Policy Implementation: Th e

Case of Family Planning . Journal of Public Policy

15 ( 3 ): 281 – 98 .

Meyers , Marcia K . , and Nara Dillon . 1999 . Institu-

tional Paradoxes: Why Welfare Workers Cannot

Reform Welfare . In Public Management Reform and

Innovation: Research, Th eory, and Application , ed-

ited by H . George Frederickson and Jocelyn M .

Johnston . Tuscaloosa : University of Alabama Press .

Mink , Oscar G . , Pieter W . Esterhuysen , Barbara P .

Mink , and Keith Q . Owen . 1993 . Change at Work:

A Comprehensive Management Process for Transform-

ing Organizations . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Mohrman , Susan , and Edward Lawler . 1983 . Quality

of Work Life . Los Angeles : University of Southern

California Graduate School of Business , Center for

Eff ective Organizations .

Montjoy , Robert S . , and Laurence J . O ’ Toole , Jr .

1979 . Toward a Th eory of Policy Implementation:

An Organizational Perspective . Public Administra-

tion Review 39 ( 5 ): 456 – 75 .

Nadler , David A . , and Mark B . Nadler . 1998 . Cham-

pions of Change: How CEOs and Th eir Companies

Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector 175

Are Mastering the Skills of Radical Change . San

Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Nutt , Paul C . 1983 . Implementation Approaches for

Planning . Academy of Management Review 8 ( 4 ):

600 – 11 .

— — — . 1986 . Tactics of Implementation . Academy of

Management Journal 29 ( 2 ): 230 – 61 .

O ’ Toole , Laurence J ., Jr . 1989 . Alternative Mecha-

nisms for Multiorganizational Implementation:

Th e Case of Wastewater Management . Administra-

tion & Society 21 ( 3 ): 313 – 39 .

Pasmore , William A . 1994 . Creating Strategic Change:

Designing the Flexible, High-Performing Organiza-

tion . New York : Wiley .

Pfeff er , Jeff rey , and Gerald R . Salancik . 1978 . Th e

External Control of Organizations . New York :

HarperCollins .

Poister , Th eodore H . , and Gregory Streib . 1999 . Per-

formance Measurement in Municipal Government:

Assessing the State of the Practice . Public Adminis-

tration Review 59 ( 4 ): 325 – 35 .

Pollitt , Christopher , and Geert Bouckaert . 2000 .

Public Management Reform . Oxford : Oxford Uni-

versity Press .

Quinn , Robert E . 2000 . Change the World: How Ordi-

nary People Can Achieve Extraordinary Results . San

Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Rainey , Glenn W . , and Hal G . Rainey . 1986 . Breach-

ing the Hierarchical Imperative: Th e Modulariza-

tion of the Social Security Claims Process . In

Bureaucratic and Governmental Reform , edited by

Donald J . Calista , 171 – 96 . Greenwich, CT : JAI

Press .

Robertson , Peter J . , and Sonal J . Seneviratne . 1995 .

Outcomes of Planned Organizational Change in

the Public Sector: A Meta-Analytic Comparison to

the Private Sector . Public Administration Review

55 ( 6 ): 547 – 58 .

Robertson , Peter J . , Darryl R . Roberts , and Jerry I .

Porras . 1993 . Dynamics of Planned Organizational

Change: Assessing Empirical Support for a Th eo-

retical Model . Academy of Management Journal

36 ( 3 ): 619 – 34 .

Rossotti , Charles O . 2005 . Many Unhappy Returns .

Boston : Harvard Business School Press .

Scott , W . Richard . 2003 . Organizations: Rational,

Natural, and Open Systems . 5th ed . Upper Saddle

River, NJ : Prentice Hall .

Shareef , Reginald . 1994 . Subsystem Congruence: A

Strategic Change Model for Public Organizations .

Administration & Society 25 ( 4 ): 489 – 517 .

Stillman , Richard J . 1999 . Preface to Public Adminis-

tration: A Search for Th emes and Direction . 2nd ed .

Burke, VA : Chatelaine Press .

Th ompson , James R . , and Shelley L . Fulla . 2001 . Ef-

fecting Change in a Reform Context: Th e National

Performance Review and the Contingencies of

“ Microlevel ” Reform Implementation . Public Per-

formance and Management Review 25 ( 2 ): 155 – 75 .

Th ompson , James R . , and Ronald P . Sanders . 1997 .

Strategies for Reinventing Federal Agencies:

Gardening vs . Engineering. Public Productivity

and Management Review 21 ( 2 ): 137 – 55 .

Tichy , Noel M . 1983 . Managing Strategic Change:

Technical, Political and Cultural Dynamics . New

York : Wiley .

Tushman , Michael L . , and Elaine Romanelli . 1985 .

Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis

Model of Convergence and Reorientation. In

Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by

Larry L . Cummings and Barry M. Staw , vol. 7 .

Greenwich, CT : JAI Press .

Van de Ven , Andrew H . 1993 . Managing the Process

of Organizational Innovation . In Organizational

Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improv-

ing Performance , edited by George P . Huber and

William H . Glick . New York : Oxford University

Press .

Van de Ven , Andrew H . , and M . Scott Poole . 1995 .

Explaining Development and Change in Organiza-

tions . Academy of Management Review 20 ( 3 ):

510 – 40 .

Wallin , Bruce A . 1997 . Th e Need for a Privatization

Process: Lessons from Development and Imple-

mentation . Public Administration Review 57 ( 1 ):

11 – 20 .

Warwick , Donald P . 1975 . A Th eory of Public Bureau-

cracy . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

Weissert , Carol S . , and Malcolm L . Goggin . 2002 .

Nonincremental Policy Change: Lessons from

Michigan ’ s Medicaid Managed Care Initiative .

Public Administration Review 62 ( 5 ): 206 – 16 .

Wise , Lois R . 2002 . Public Management Reform:

Competing Drivers of Change . Public Administra-

tion Review 62 ( 5 ): 555 – 67 .

Young , Gary J . 2001 . Transforming the Veterans

Health Administration: Th e Revitalization of

VHA . In Transforming Organizations , edited by

Mark . A . Abramson and Paul R . Lawrence , 139 –

72 . Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefi eld .

Yukl , Gary A . 2002 . Leadership in Organizations . 5th

ed . Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall .

176 Public Administration Review • March | April 2006