Week 8 – Signature Assignment: Evaluate Organization X to Recommend Items for Change

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017709826

Public Personnel Management 2017, Vol. 46(2) 188 –207

© The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0091026017709826

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Paradoxical Processes Impeding Public Management Reform Implementation: Perspectives of Management Consultants

Shani Kuna1

Abstract While the literature highlights the complexity of new public management (NPM) reform implementation, relatively little is known about these processes from the perspective of management consultants. Based on two complementary approaches, change management theory and paradox theory, this exploratory study seeks to understand the role of management consultants in identifying impediments to reform implementation and their potential contribution to addressing implementation challenges. In-depth interviews were conducted with external management consultants specializing in public management reform implementation in Israel. The findings expose the paradoxical nature of the cycles which emerge, as new practices of efficiency implemented under NPM generate counter-practices of deficiency. Management consultants assist public managers in acquiring leadership skills for managing paradoxes. The study may contribute to our understanding of why reforms often fail and how public managers can confront such challenges. Theoretical insights and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords public management reforms, implementation processes, management consultants, paradox, efficiency, deficiency

Introduction

In time most management practices create their own nemesis.

—Clegg, da Cuhna, and e Cuhna (2002, p. 491)

1Sapir Academic College, Hof Ashkelon, Israel

Corresponding Author: Shani Kuna, Sapir Academic College, Hof Ashkelon 7915600, Israel. Email: [email protected]

709826PPMXXX10.1177/0091026017709826Public Personnel ManagementKuna research-article2017

Kuna 189

New public management (NPM) reform aims at promoting the efficiency and effec- tiveness of public-sector organizations (Aucoin, 1990; Hood, 1991). Numerous pub- lic-sector organizations worldwide have adopted the concept and have implemented various organizational practices associated with this reform. Ample research has been generated, offering theoretical insights and indicating practical challenges for NPM (Hall & Holt, 2008; Joyce, 2000; Pollitt, 2000, 2013; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). In spite of the support for NPM (Kelman, 2005), it has also drawn much criticism (Diefenbach, 2009), because the improvements expected from implementing reform have been accompanied at times by unforeseen negative organizational consequences (Adcroft & Willis, 2005; Bevan & Hood, 2006; Chandler, Barry, & Clark, 2002; Noblet, Rodwell, & McWilliams, 2006; Weibel, Rost, & Osterloh, 2010).

In the debate regarding the success of NPM, one conclusion clearly emerges: NPM processes are intricate, long, and costly. While highlighting the complexity of reform implementation in the public sector (Azzone & Palermo, 2011; Battaglio & Condrey, 2009; Campbell, 2015; Giauque, 2015), the public management literature neglects a vital viewpoint: relatively little is known about these longitudinal processes from the perspective of a set of key organizational actors—management consultants, who are often involved in reform implementation. This exploratory study seeks to understand the role of management consultants in identifying impediments to public management reform implementation and their potential contribution to addressing implementation challenges confronted by public managers.

This article is organized as follows. “Reform Implementation Processes” section presents the problem of study, the research questions, and the research context. “Theoretical Framework” section outlines a theoretical framework for deciphering the organizational phenomena described by the study participants, and “Method” section outlines our methodology. In the next section, we present our findings—a description of four organizational levels of paradoxical cycles, which impede public management reform implementation—followed by a section which presents an account of manage- ment consultants’ aid to public managers confronting paradox. The article concludes with a discussion offering theoretical considerations and practical implications.

Reform Implementation Processes

As more and more studies stress the importance of recognizing barriers to successful organizational change in the public sector (McNulty & Ferlie, 2004), the time may have come to shift the focus to the process of implementation. Implementing public manage- ment reform is undoubtedly challenging when one considers the typical forces affecting change described in Pollitt and Bouckaert’s (2011) model of public management reform: socioeconomic forces, political system characteristics, elite decision-making tendencies, chance events, and administrative system characteristics. Given these forces, it is unsur- prising that public managers encounter notable difficulties in change processes, includ- ing issues of trust (Boateng & Cox, 2016) and motivation (Bright, 2013), sensitive group dynamics (Hossan, Dixon, & Brown, 2013), resistance to change (Vann, 2004), and structural factors (van der Voet, 2014; Wright & Pandey, 2010), to name but a few.

190 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Despite awareness of the high failure rate of transformation efforts (Kotter, 1995) and of the significant intricacy of reform implementation processes (Lindquist, 2006), the literature on longitudinal change management in the public sector has been rela- tively sparse (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Kuipers et al., 2014). The extensive review of Kuipers and his colleagues (2014) finds that what is needed in particular are in- depth empirical studies which “provide details of change interventions and the roles and behaviors of those involved in change processes” (p. 16). Specifically, these authors encourage studies that include a practitioner perspective. Experienced man- agement consultants who specialize in assisting change processes in public-sector ini- tiatives may be an important source of such detailed knowledge (Laurence, 2008).

Management consulting is a widespread global practice (Sturdy, Handley, Clark, & Fincham, 2009). The bulk of the management consulting literature, however, has tended to concentrate on the private sector (Coram & Burnes, 2001), despite the con- siderable difference between change processes in the two sectors (Boss, Dunford, Boss, & McConkie, 2010; Boyne, 2002; Carter, 2008; Scala, Stadlober, & Fiby, 2011). Apparently, there is a pressing need for distinct evidence-based consulting knowledge about public management reform implementation processes.

This exploratory study seeks to address this knowledge gap by understanding the role of external management consultants in identifying impediments to reform imple- mentation and their potential contribution to addressing implementation challenges confronted by their clients, public managers. The main research questions of this study are as follows:

Research Question 1: Which organizational phenomena do management consul- tants in the public sector identify as impeding public management reform imple- mentation processes? Research Question 2: Consequently, how do management consultants assist pub- lic managers in addressing these implementation challenges?

The Research Context: The Israeli Public Sector

The study is based on interviews with external management consultants regarding their involvement in public management reform implementation processes in Israel. Various reforms have been implemented in the State of Israel since the mid-1990s in a unique social, ideological, and economic context. As implementing NPM practices at the micro-organizational level in the Israeli public sector has proved to be challenging, this context is highly suitable for learning about organizational impediments emerging in these processes.

Since its creation, the Israeli bureaucracy has been characterized by centralized organization (Maor, 2002). Revolts against the bureaucracy in the late 1980s were fol- lowed by various changes during the mid-1990s, including privatization, contracting out, and deregulation. Various factors have been associated with the slow and unsys- tematic pace of reform implementation in Israel, including weak political support, weak public encouragement, and active resistance from labor unions (Galnoor, 2010).

Kuna 191

Several analyses describe the complexity of implementing NPM in Israel, as well as the discrepancies between the anticipated and actual results of reforms in local govern- ment, the education system (Berkovitz, 2011), and health care (Chinitz, Meislin, & Alster-Grau, 2009; Gross, 2003; Horev & Babad, 2005). In addition, the Israeli admin- istrative culture is characterized by a relatively high level of politicization (Maor, 2002), and in Israeli political culture, coping is more important than problem solving (Sharkansky, 2002).

Consequently, NPM in Israel has progressed sporadically, following an incremental and discontinuous pattern rather than a planned and systematic one. Maor’s (2002) expectation has proved to be correct: Different parts of the Israeli administrative system have moved and are still moving in different directions. While some public-sector orga- nizations aspire to follow the NPM model, others remain exemplars of the classic Weberian model. Between these poles are numerous “hybrid” public-sector organiza- tions in which specific NPM practices have been implemented only to a certain degree (i.e., several units) and are still subject to ongoing organizational adaptation processes. In sum, this evidence underlines the importance of identifying organizational impedi- ments which ought to be recognized and managed during reform implementation efforts.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is based on two complementary approaches which jointly create a unique lens—change management theory and the paradox literature. Change management theories are utilized by management consultants, who are considered agents of knowledge in that domain (Sturdy et al., 2009). Paradox theory was chosen in light of its relevance for deciphering the organizational phenomena described by the participants in this study. Both theories share an underlying assumption that organiza- tional change initiatives challenge the fragile status quo, thus triggering unease and conflict. Understanding the impact of tensions between contradictory organizational elements is vital for the proper implementation of change.

Change management theory focuses on processes of renewing the capabilities, direc- tion, and structure of an organization to better serve the changing needs of its internal and external stakeholders (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Change management theory adopts a rational-adaptive perspective. It assumes that change processes can be ratio- nally directed and managed utilizing knowledge about different dimensions of change, such as its occurrence and scale, organizational capacity for change, and more (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) identify four research themes in the organizational change literature: (a) content issues, which address the substance of orga- nizational changes; (b) contextual issues, which concentrate on forces in the organiza- tion’s environments; (c) process issues, which focus on actions undertaken during change implementation, and (d) criterion issues, which center on outcomes. The partici- pants in this study focus on process issues by identifying organizational phenomena which impede reform processes. Moreover, the participants report how they affect these processes by renewing their clients’ capabilities to cope with change, in accordance with change management principles (Cummings & Worley, 2014).

192 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

As opposed to models of change management theory, the paradox literature favors a more emergent approach toward change (Clegg et al., 2002; Lewis, 2000). Paradox is defined as “the simultaneous presence of contradictory, even mutually exclusive elements” (Cameron & Quinn, 1988, p. 2). Smith and Lewis (2011) demonstrate the value of a paradox perspective as a framework for approaching organizational ten- sions. They catalog four categories of paradox representing core elements of organiza- tions: learning, belonging, organizing, and performing. Tensions exist within as well as between these four categories, and the same tensions can surface across multiple organizational levels (Smith & Lewis, 2011). The rising popularity of the paradox approach in organizational theory (Lewis & Smith, 2014) reflects a growing interest in complexity, ambiguity, and ambivalence as inherent phenomena in organizations, accentuated by the dynamism typical of our era (Handy, 1994; Poole & van de Ven, 1989; Stacey, 2010).

The theoretical framework of paradox is suitable for investigating public administration, given the latter’s deeply rooted dilemmas, limits, contradictions, and paradoxes (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). The public-sector management reform literature acknowledges unanticipated nonlinear developments, unexpected sur- prises, and reverse effects (Adcroft & Willis, 2005; Chandler et al., 2002; Noblet et al., 2006; Weibel et al., 2010), which are at times conceptualized as paradoxes (Hood & Peters, 2004). Paradoxical phenomena in reform implementation may stem from the juxtaposition of disparate desired goals, which become contradic- tory when linked together. For example, awarding priority to budgetary savings, an important goal of effectiveness-driven NPM, contradicts the demand of reform to improve public service quality (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). Given that some degree of paradox is an unavoidable “side-effect” of NPM (Hood & Peters, 2004), the literature has yet to provide a substantive account of the very emergence of paradox at the micro level of everyday practices of key actors in public-sector reform processes. As such illustrations are relatively rare (Kuipers et al., 2014), the literature has yet to suggest beneficial ways for public managers to contend with paradox, for the sake of enhanced organizational productivity, benefit, and effectiveness in the public sector.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted individually with each of the 20 participants (10 women, 10 men), external management consultants who specialize in NPM implementation in Israel. The participants’ average age is 52, and their average experience in their occupation is 14 years. Half of them have a bachelor’s degree in related disciplines (business administration, organization development, public admin- istration, or a combination of these), whereas the other half holds a master’s degree in these disciplines. Two participants work for consulting firms, whereas the rest are independent consultants. The participants have been commissioned by senior decision

Kuna 193

makers in the public sector (e.g., government human resource professionals, top offi- cials) to assist the implementation processes of public management reform after these processes had stumbled into various complications.

The sample of participants was a convenience sample assembled using the snow- ball method (Silverman, 2013), in which each interviewee is asked to suggest other relevant colleagues, management consultants in the public sector, who agree to partici- pate in the study. Following extensive efforts, we managed to obtain 20 interviewees who had received public managers’ permission to participate in this study. There are quite a few qualitative analytical techniques, yet given the reluctance of some public officials to allow their management consultants to participate in studies regarding sen- sitive organizational changes, one-time interviews with each participant were chosen as the research tool.

The participants’ client organizations in which the reform processes took place included six government offices, four service-providing government agencies, five local councils, and five public hospitals. The participants reported several types of efficiency instruments implemented in these organizations under NPM: adoption of work regulations and procedures, job redesign, unit reorganization, and restructuring of unit performance measures.

Key predetermined questions were presented to each interviewee (see the appendix). In essence, management consultants were asked to describe a signifi- cant longitudinal process of public management reform implementation in which they were involved as external change agents. Additional appropriate topics raised by the participants prompted further inquiry. All participants were assured confi- dentiality and gave their informed consent to taking part in the study. The names used in the findings section to cite interviewees are all pseudonyms. The inter- views, which lasted about 90 min on average, were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Utilizing a grounded-theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1999), all the inter- views were seen as narratives from the field and interpreted and categorized quali- tatively. Text analysis was guided by Silverman (2013). Each interview was coded separately, and codes were assigned to significant units of text. Each interview yielded coded categories and illustrative quotations. The accumulated data were then analyzed further to elicit systematic content themes. The process was repeated several times in a circular manner, with the aim of narrowing down the categories into major significant themes. The analysis continued until data saturation was reached.

Findings

The (D)Efficiency Paradox

The insights of management consultants are presented in this section. The cycle impeding public management reform implementation is conceptualized as a (d) efficiency paradox: the simultaneous presence of opposing practices of efficiency

194 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

and deficiency. The (d)efficiency paradox emerges when organizational instru- ments and practices aimed at greater efficiency yield deficiency instead. The (d) efficiency paradox is evident across the following four organizational levels: the individual level of public managers, the intra-group level within a unit or a depart- ment, the inter-group level in between units of a public-sector organization, and the inter-organizational level between public-sector organizations. A selection of quotations from interviewees, referred to by pseudonyms, is used to illustrate these findings. Table 1 briefly summarizes the four levels of the (d)efficiency paradox.

The (d)efficiency paradox at the individual level. The first level of the (d)efficiency paradox is at the individual level of public managers. In this study, this group con- sisted of career bureaucrats, who were experienced public servants at various levels of the organizational hierarchy and in a position of responsibility for NPM imple- mentation in their unit. During reform implementation processes, public managers are confronted with contradictory organizational demands. On one hand, they need

Table 1. Four Organizational Levels of the (D)Efficiency Paradox.

Organizational level The cycle of the (d)efficiency paradox

Individual level—public managers Reform implementation processes confront public managers with contradictory demands which create tension. Managers display ambivalence toward reform and seek to resolve tension by allocating additional resources to improve implementation. Overall efficiency decreases, thereby exacerbating the need for efficiency-driven reform.

Intra-group level—unit of a public- sector organization

Implementation of efficiency instruments accentuates employees’ awareness of perceived differences in their individual investments in the collective effort. Conflicts result in a reduction in employees’ own efforts and eventually add up to collective deficiency rather than efficiency.

Inter-group level—public-sector organization

Implementation of efficiency instruments accentuates differences between units. Tensions arising from coordination efforts weaken employees’ investments in reform implementation. Overall organizational efficiency decreases.

Between public-sector organizations

Cross-organizational initiatives demand large-scale coordination between public-sector organizations. Implementing public management reform on just one side of the equation triggers overall imbalance. Tension reduction weakens commitment to reform implementation. Domains of deficiency surface across organizations.

Kuna 195

to learn new administrative skills and construct new methods associated with effi- ciency tools of reform. On the other hand, they are expected to adhere to routine processes maintaining discipline and order. This demand for organizing is deemed important given that implementation processes are long, so public managers are encouraged to guard the overall balance in the system undergoing significant change. Rebecca, a management consultant intervening in reform implementation in a local council, illustrates this tension:

My client, a public manager, felt torn between opposing forces. Top decision makers were crazed with reform implementation, but during those long months of change, he still needed to make sure that his department’s routine tasks were carried out well.

Management consultants in this study claim that public managers commonly respond to the tensions created by opposed demands by displaying ambivalence— contradictory attitudes and behaviors toward reform implementation. For example, public managers may postpone solving problems associated with reform implementa- tion, while praising the reform’s potential and encouraging their staff to embrace it. Nathan, an experienced management consultant in the public sector, explains this managerial ambivalence:

Public managers’ ambivalence during reform implementation processes might stem from their fear of losing control, administrative work overload and lack of personnel to sustain the change process. Public managers’ restrained and tentative stance allows them to deny problems caused by reform implementation, but it is costly because it also initiates a vicious cycle. No wonder they were in need of external consulting.

As complications arising from managerial ambivalence accumulate, it becomes increasingly challenging to advance public management reform implementation. The growing difficulty further aggravates public managers’ ambivalence toward reform implementation, and they experience high levels of tension. At a critical point, many public managers seek to resolve the tension by allocating additional resources, such as time and manpower, to improve reform implementation. Yet, given public managers’ considerable ambivalence toward NPM, they typically find it hard to monitor the change process properly, and those resources are typically not well utilized. This decreases the overall efficiency of the implementation process, which might slow down or even fail, thereby amplifying the need for efficiency-driven reform even more. Overall, the (d)efficiency paradox, which occurs as a managerial defensive response to the challenges of reform implementation, aggravates underlying tensions generated by contradictory organizational demands. Tension, however, is dealt with in a way that reduces anxiety at first, yet eventually intensifies it, by gradually turning the change process into a Sisyphean task. The first level of the (d)efficiency paradox is depicted in Figure 1.

196 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

The (d)efficiency paradox at the intra-group level. The next level of the (d)efficiency paradox occurs at the department or unit level of a public-sector organization and involves reforms designed to be implemented at the unit level before the individual level, such as certain performance measures. The assumption of decision makers is that the reform is to be introduced to the unit as a collective; following a period of adjustment to the efficiency tool, it is then implemented at the individual level in that unit. The participants in this study claim that this implementation sequence typically leads to group dynamics in which individuals take advantage of a collective effort to which they did not contribute (or contributed less than others). This phenomenon is well known in the economic and social psychology literature (e.g., free riding, see Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985), which management consultants are typically familiar with. This is illustrated by the following example of applying unit performance mea- sures in a public hospital, as described by David, a management consultant experi- enced with the Israeli public health system:

This implementation process is typically gradual, so necessary complementary efficiency tools, such as individual performance measures, have usually not yet been implemented. This means that public servants as a group work under new collective performance measures, while personally each of them can still work as they have for years, that is, with vague, outdated or even no personal performance measures. It follows that individual investment in the new task is not recognized or compensated, as it cannot yet be measured.

Management consultants expect this group dynamic, given that variation in indi- vidual effort is characteristic of work groups. Yet the formal implementation of NPM efficiency instruments accentuates employees’ awareness of perceived differences in their individual investments in the collective effort aimed at unit performance

Figure 1. The cycle of the (d)efficiency paradox at the individual level of public managers.

Kuna 197

measures. This awareness results, more often than not, in feelings of frustration and anger toward colleagues who do not share the burden of public management reform and a reduction in employees’ own efforts. This eventually yields collective defi- ciency—rather than efficiency—regarding the unit’s performance measures. This paradoxical process was also evident, according to the interviewees in this study, in the adoption of other NPM instruments, given that all of the latter require cooperation and coordination among public employees within public-sector units undergoing change.

Overall, the (d)efficiency paradox at the intra-group level occurs as the tension aroused within a unit in a public-sector organization reduces employees’ commitment to public management reform implementation. This response, which reduces group anxiety at first, eventually intensifies the paradox, as reform still needs to be imple- mented. Given the collective display of deficiency, the need for efficiency-driven reform becomes even more acute. This sets the stage for the perpetuation of a vicious cycle in which public managers invest additional efforts in implementing reform, but without apprehending the tensions underlying the change process within the unit.

The (d)efficiency paradox at the inter-group level. The next level of the (d)efficiency paradox emerges when NPM efficiency instruments are adopted in one of several units or departments in a large public organization such as a government ministry or a pub- lic hospital. In Israel, public management reform implementation processes commonly begin as experimental pilot initiatives, with the intent of further implementation upon the pilot’s success. Employees in the experimental unit, the first to implement an effi- ciency instrument, work under new standards and procedures, while their colleagues in other departments in that organization do not. This causes confusion, disagreements, and conflicts between departments, and dramatically reduces overall organizational efficiency, at least in the short run. The following remarks by Sarah, a senior manage- ment consultant, are illustrative:

Public employees in a government office I was called to have been working much harder since job descriptions and department performance measures were implemented first in their department. They are frustrated because employees in other departments in that government office, on whom they depend for their outputs, have not yet changed their old ways, so much of the burden falls on the shoulders of employees in the pilot department. The staff agrees with the need for reform but don’t want to be the first “fools” who have to pay the price of change, which is frustrating work interfaces and yielding problematic outputs.

Conflicts between departments over operations and work interfaces are common in this situation. Employees in the pilot department might slow down the rate of applying NPM practices, which despite their positive potential are perceived as too demanding on the organizational level. Overall, the (d)efficiency paradox at the inter-group level occurs as tension aroused by conflicts between departments over reform implementa- tion lessens employees’ investment in it, so overall efficiency decreases. As conflicts over reform implementation quickly become well known in the organization, the drive

198 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

for efficiency is even more firmly dictated top-down by senior decision makers. One participant in this study put it as follows: “As the flag of NPM is raised once again in their department, public managers feel they are back at square one.”

The (d)efficiency paradox at the inter-organizational level. The final level of the (d)effi- ciency paradox is evident in situations demanding cooperation between public-sector organizations, when only one of them has undergone NPM implementation. A com- mon example described by management consultants in this respect was projects that demand cooperation between a ministry which has implemented various NPM prac- tices and local government. The ministry has declared its commitment to certain effi- ciency measures, while the local municipality fails to operate under parallel guidelines and goals. Ruth, a management consultant, gave an anecdotal example of this tension, which is hardly characterized by the effectiveness-driven spirit of NPM:

A citizen downloaded an official request form from the ministry’s website, only to discover, after filling it out and attaching the necessary certificates, that public servants in his local council do not use this form. They use only their own old forms, and the citizen needed to fill these out from the start. The citizen’s complaint to the ministry would eventually be taken care of; however, this makes ministry employees go mad. Their public reputation is at stake, not to mention that they work harder to make up for the faulty work of public-sector organizations “still stuck in the dinosaur age,” as they call them. One ministry official said to me: “NPM implementation at the state level is like constantly dancing two steps forward and one step back.”

Public-sector organizations are highly interdependent. Therefore, management consultants in this study claim that implementing public management reform on just one side of the equation might trigger an overall imbalance: Work interfaces between public organizations are not coordinated, joint budgets are not well allocated, and system rivalry is on the rise. As a means of tension reduction, public managers—and consequently, public employees—might invest less in reform implementation. In criti- cal situations, overall deficiency might surface across public-sector domains that have not undergone the degree of change anticipated by NPM. This results in a pressing need for efficiency, which is directed once again at reform implementation.

In sum, the (d)efficiency paradox at the intra-group and inter-group organizational levels delays labor and reduces outputs, which in turn puts stress on public managers striving to align with NPM efficiency instruments they are responsible for. This stress does not advance the proper implementation of public management reform, nor does it resolve the tensions between the practices of efficiency and emergent counter-practices of deficiency. The cycle of the (d)efficiency paradox at the intra-group and inter-group levels is captured in Figure 2.

Management Consultants’ Contribution to Their Clients’ Paradox Management Capabilities

How do management consultants assist their clients, public managers, in grappling with the paradoxical processes which emerge during implementation of NPM?

Kuna 199

Management consultants in this study utilize insights from two complementary approaches—change management theory and the paradox perspective. On one hand, management consultants exploit the logical and linear view of change management theories to monitor planned stages of change processes and guide their clients through the necessary actions in each stage. The participants in this study report that this approach provides public managers a valuable experience of stability and order, espe- cially upon reaching planned milestones in a challenging longitudinal change process. On the other hand, the paradox approach is utilized by management consultants to identify and decipher the emergence of the (d)efficiency paradox. They assist their clients in acknowledging the individual and collective responses which trigger vicious cycles impairing implementation. Sarah, a management consultant, illustrates this facilitative stance:

I say to my client: “You succeed in persuading your staff to utilize new NPM procedures! I’d walk you through the next step in the change process. Despite our neat plan, however, things might proceed less smoothly given the system is so tenuous. This elicits paradoxical things.” Then I give my client examples of paradoxical processes that she encountered herself in that organization yet hadn’t conceived of as such.

A consistent study finding is that public managers are typically not familiar with their consultants’ conceptualization of paradox, yet they respond to it enthusiastically as it successfully clarifies the tensions they have experienced. The management con- sultants in this study, who have specialized in the public sector for years, claim that understanding paradox is essential for the success of public management reform implementation.

Figure 2. The cycle of the (d)efficiency paradox at the intra-group and inter-group levels.

200 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Management consultants report the stages in the process of their facilitating public managers’ contention with paradox. First, they encourage their clients to identify and acknowledge the existence and consequences of paradox in reform change processes. Following this learning stage, management consultants play a role in assisting their clients develop the leadership skills necessary for contending with paradox. In par- ticular, participants in this study encourage their clients’ development of conflict management capabilities and communication skills. Conflict management capabili- ties enable public managers to address the tensions underlying change processes as well as their negative consequences, including organizational disputes and rivalry among employees and between units. At the same time, public managers utilize their newly acquired communication skills to engage their staff more positively in the demanding process of implementing reform. Thus, both sets of skills may enlarge the capacity of public managers to handle paradox effectively instead of regressing to an ambivalent stance toward it. The following remarks by Ron, a management consul- tant, illustrate such a case:

It was very rewarding to see how Samuel, a public manager who really avoided NPM when I entered his department in a ministry, started to take responsibility for it. Before, he basically “abandoned” his department during reform adoption, which he assumed would “implement itself” somehow given its presumed appealing rationale. During our discussions regarding paradoxical phenomena, he realized that his department’s response and actions unknowingly fueled the opposite outcome than intended. Slowly but surely things gained momentum as he communicated with his staff regarding their difficulties with reform implementation.

Discussion

The findings expose the paradoxical nature of cycles that emerge during public man- agement reform implementation—organizational processes which seem to conform to Newton’s third law of physics: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reac- tion. As the reform processes push in one direction, they simultaneously precipitate movement in the opposite direction. Unless paradoxes of (d)efficiency are recognized and handled properly by public managers, they create vicious cycles which hinder or even cause the failure of NPM implementation.

Ample literature suggests that public-sector reforms might elicit dysfunctional and unintended responses (Chandler et al., 2002; Weibel et al., 2010). The (d)efficiency paradox proposed here—while it resonates with this evidence (Kuipers et al., 2014)— offers distinct contributions to the public change management literature. These are discussed herewith.

First, diverging from studies which analyze how reform implementation is affected by external factors such as market constraints (Johansen & Zhu, 2014), environmental influences (Moynihan & Pandey, 2005), or organization size (Talbot & Johnson, 2007), the (d)efficiency paradox evolves as new practices of efficiency implemented under NPM themselves generate and circularly sustain counter-practices of deficiency. Such paradoxical cycles of impediments, which seem counterintuitive given the

Kuna 201

rational and positive aims of NPM, may not only explain the mixed results of NPM (Adcroft & Willis, 2005; Bevan & Hood, 2006) but also be related to the tendency of reforms to move in cyclical patterns (Talbot & Johnson, 2007).

Second, the findings illustrate how the (d)efficiency paradox might occur simulta- neously on four parallel organizational levels. This finding is relatively innovative in public change management studies, which typically focus on factors affecting specific organizational levels (e.g., ministerial departments, see Kickert, 2014). Although pro- cesses of (d)efficiency at each of the four organizational levels may evolve indepen- dently, they are conceived of as mutually reinforcing, which might exacerbate their negative impact on implementation. Deciphering this cyclical interdependence of paradoxical phenomena is aided by Smith and Lewis’s (2011) four categories of para- dox, which represent core elements of organizations: learning, belonging, organizing, and performing. Learning (knowledge acquisition) tensions emerge at all four levels of the (d)efficiency paradox, as public servants are torn between the comfort of the old and the uncertainty of the new. Performance (goal achievement) tensions evolve as public managers find themselves torn between competing strategies and goals. Belonging (identity issues) and organizing (process issues) tensions also characterize the (d)efficiency paradox, as public servants’ loyalty to their department might be associated with conflicts over opposed sets of work procedures and processes. Tensions in these four categories run across organizational levels, thus reinforcing the (d)effi- ciency paradox.

Third, the study’s findings regarding ambivalence may broaden our conceptualiza- tion of public servants’ stance regarding NPM beyond the common concept of resis- tance to change (Coch & French, 1948; Kotter, 1996). This concept has been widely used to explain many troublesome or failed public-sector change efforts (Kuipers et al., 2014; McNulty & Ferlie, 2004; Vann, 2004), even though “there does not appear to be a consensus on what causes resistance and how it can be overcome” (Kuipers et al., 2014, p. 10). This exploratory study provides a tentative answer to the important question of how managerial ambivalence toward NPM evolves and affects reform implementation. On one hand, NPM entails positive and promising opportuni- ties for public managers, such as professionalization in public administration, organi- zational promotion, and improved public services. These benefits may be appealing to public servants who take pride in their work, so they declare their sincere willing- ness to adopt NPM. On the other hand, after many years in the same government agency, some Israeli public servants lack diverse managerial experience and the skills to utilize effectiveness tools, which are often associated with the business sector. If implementing reform were experienced positively by public managers, they would have embraced NPM. However, the difficulty of implementing it exacerbates ten- sions among public managers. Ambivalence, which distances actors from tensions underlying paradox, is one of the main defenses utilized for the reduction of tension caused by organizational contradictions (Lewis, 2000). Thus, the study’s findings indicate that ambivalence is not to be confused with resistance to change. Rather, it is an important—though temporary and costly—means of coping with paradoxical ten- sions arising in organizations.

202 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Fourth, the study’s findings contribute to our understanding of how public manag- ers’ ambivalence toward NPM negatively affects their administrative leadership behavior (Trottier, Van Wart, & Wang, 2008). One of the assumptions of NPM is that public management is vital to the planning and implementation of improvement endeavors (Battaglio & French, 2016; E. Cameron & Green, 2009; Moynihan & Pandey, 2005). The present findings indicate that ambivalence might reduce public managers’ willingness to confront the (d)efficiency paradox at parallel organizational levels, as expected of their role as responsible for NPM implementation in their unit. By refraining from taking action, or by taking unaccommodating steps such as spend- ing additional resources in vain, public managers unwittingly cause the paradoxical cycle of (d)efficiency to loom larger. Managerial ambivalence toward NPM might also exacerbate ambivalence among their subordinates and colleagues (i.e., managers in other departments who have not yet been instructed to implement NPM), which then triggers the (d)efficiency paradox at the intra-group and inter-group levels, and vice versa. In this respect, the present study adds the paradox perspective to accumulating evidence regarding the relationship between administrative leadership behavior and change implementation in the public sector (Coram & Burnes, 2001; Fernandez & Pitts, 2007; Trottier et al., 2008; van der Voet, 2014; van der Voet, Kuipers, & Groeneveld, 2016).

Fifth, this study offers an innovative perspective in the public-sector change man- agement literature—that of change practitioners who intervene in public reform imple- mentation processes. Given that managerial ambivalence negatively affects NPM implementation, a significant finding is management consultants’ assistive role toward public managers confronting impediments during change processes. As leadership is a key factor in organizational change processes (Cummings & Worley, 2014), rather than allow public managers to cling to the defensive mechanisms of ambivalence, management consultants assist their clients in deciphering tensions which surface at various organizational levels during reform implementation processes. Subsequently, management consultants help their clients, who were ill-equipped for contending with paradox, acquire the leadership skills necessary for handling it. While the usefulness of such skills has been established mainly in the business sector (Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh, & MacLean, 2004; Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Lewis, 2012), this study indicates that paradox management skills may be an essential phro- nesis in public administration too. This finding adds to our knowledge of practical ways to train public managers to become competent leaders of transformation (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006).

A note of caution is due regarding the accounts of management consultants. The viewpoint of these actors is naturally influenced by their assumptions regarding the benefits of their occupation to clients. Notwithstanding, the experienced external man- agement consultants in this study were all invited by decision makers to assist reform implementation processes because the latter had stumbled into difficulty. Thus, the insights of management consultants, despite their potential occupational bias, may contribute to our understanding of impediments emerging in intricate processes of reform implementation. Furthermore, renewal of public managers’ capabilities may be

Kuna 203

initiated independently by public servants without the intervention of external change practitioners.

Conclusion

This exploratory study has broadened our comprehension of impediments in public management reform implementation processes. The emergent (d)efficiency paradox inherently manifests contradictory forces regarding NPM. These yield and strengthen one another, thus creating puzzling vicious cycles which simultaneously advance and obstruct NPM implementation. Consequently, this study may contribute to our under- standing of why reforms often fail.

Based on a theoretical framework combining change management theory and the paradox approach, this study offers the insights of management consultants, whose perspective is relatively rarely regarded in the public management change literature. As the findings are based on a practitioner perspective, they can serve as a preliminary foundation for evidence-based guidelines and practices for improving NPM imple- mentation. In sum, it is advised that public managers learn to recognize and under- stand tensions associated with public management reform implementation, as well as the paradoxical cycles which typically evolve in these complex change processes. Moreover, the acquisition of paradox management skills may be of value to public managers who function as administrative leaders.

The findings’ applicability is limited. First, they are based on data gathered in Israel, where NPM adoption follows distinct patterns. Given the dominance of the U.S./Anglo-centric perspective of the public change management literature (Kuipers et al., 2014), this study may encourage further research of public management reform implementation in varied societies and contexts. Second, the data are based on a rela- tively small sample of external management consultants, who report a specific view- point. Prospective research may overcome potential bias by expanding the lens to include the narratives of other significant actors, such as internal change agents (i.e., government human resource professionals) and client-managers at various organiza- tional levels. Third, the data are based exclusively on interviews. Future studies may utilize data from additional methodologies. Despite these limitations, the findings prompt intriguing topics and encourage further contributions to the scholarly literature as well as to more beneficial public-sector change processes.

Appendix

Key Predetermined Questions Used in Semistructured Interviews With Participants

1. Please describe a longitudinal process of implementing public management reform in which you intervened as an external management consultant.

2. Please describe your position in this process, your domains of expertise and main tasks, your main clients, and so on.

3. What are the main characteristics of this public management reform process?

204 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

4. Which factors affected the satisfactory implementation of public management reforms? Please describe in detail relevant situations.

5. Please describe in detail situations in which your clients confronted difficulties in implementing public management reform.

6. How did you respond to and handle the impediments that your clients encoun- tered during processes of implementing public management reform?

7. What are the benefits and costs of interventions of external management con- sultants during processes of implementing public management reform?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adcroft, A., & Willis, R. (2005). The (un)intended outcome of public sector performance mea- surement. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18, 386-400.

Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10, 244-255.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315.

Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, para- doxes and pendulums. Governance, 3, 115-137.

Azzone, G., & Palermo, T. (2011). Adopting performance appraisal and reward systems: A qualitative analysis of public sector organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, 90-111.

Battaglio, R. P., Jr., & Condrey, S. E. (2009). Reforming public management: Analyzing the impact of public service reform on organizational and managerial trust. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 689-707.

Battaglio, R. P., Jr., & French, P. E. (2016). Public service motivation, public management reform, and organizational socialization: Testing the effects of employment at-will and agency on PSM among municipal employees. Public Personnel Management, 45, 123-147.

Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57, 1313-1332.

Berkovitz, I. (2011). No we won’t! Teachers’ resistance to educational reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 563-578.

Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 83, 517-538.

Boateng, J., & Cox, R. W. (2016). Exploring the trust question in the midst of public manage- ment reforms. Public Personnel Management, 45, 239-263.

Boss, R. W., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., & McConkie, M. L. (2010). Sustainable change in the public sector: The longitudinal benefits of organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46, 436-472.

Kuna 205

Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39, 97-122.

Bright, L. (2013). Where does public service motivation count the most in government work environments? A preliminary empirical investigation and hypotheses. Public Personnel Management, 42, 5-26.

Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2009). Contextual leadership and change in the public sector. In R. Todnem & C. Macleod (Eds.), Managing organizational change in public services: International issues, challenges and cases (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organiza- tion and management (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Campbell, J. W. (2015). Identification and performance management: An assessment of change- oriented behavior in public organizations. Public Personnel Management, 44, 46-69.

Carter, G. W. (2008). Public- and private-sector consulting. In J. W. Hedge & W. C. Borman (Eds.), The I/O consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 53-63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chandler, J., Barry, J., & Clark, H. (2002). Stressing academe: The wear and tear of the new public management. Human Relations, 55, 1051-1069.

Chinitz, D., Meislin, R., & Alster-Grau, I. (2009). Values, institutions and shifting policy para- digm: Expansion of the Israeli national health insurance basket of services. Health Policy, 90, 37-44.

Clegg, S. R., da Cuhna, J. V., & e Cuhna, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55, 483-503.

Coch, I., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532.

Coram, R., & Burnes, B. (2001). Managing organizational change in the public sector. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14, 94-110.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. (2014). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic “enlightenment.” Public Administration, 87, 892-909.

Fernandez, S., & Pitts, D. W. (2007). Under what conditions do public managers favor and pur- sue organizational change? The American Review of Public Administration, 37, 324-341.

Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the pub- lic sector. Public Administration Review, 66, 168-176.

Galnoor, I. (2010). Public Administration in Israel: Development, structure, functions and reforms. London, England: Routledge.

Giauque, D. (2015). Attitudes toward organizational change among public middle managers. Public Personnel Management, 44, 70-98.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Gross, R. (2003). Implementing health care reform in Israel: Organizational response to per- ceived incentives. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 28, 659-692.

Hall, M., & Holt, R. (2008). New public management and cultural change: The case of UK pub- lic sector project sponsors as leaders. In P. Windrum & P. Koch (Eds.), Innovation in public sector services: Entrepreneurship, creativity and management (pp. 21-40). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3-19.

206 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 267-282.

Horev, T., & Babad, Y. M. (2005). Healthcare reform implementation: Stakeholders and their roles—the Israeli experience. Health Policy, 71, 1-21.

Hossan, C., Dixon, C., & Brown, D. (2013). Impact of group dynamics on eservice implementa- tion: A qualitative analysis of Australian public sector organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 853-873.

Johansen, M., & Zhu, L. (2014). Market competition, political constraint, and managerial prac- tice in public, nonprofit, and private American hospitals. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 159-184. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut029

Joyce, P. (2000). Strategy in the public sector: A guide to effective change management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Kavanagh, M. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and change man- agement strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. British Journal of Management, 17(S1), S81-S103.

Kelman, S. (2005). Unleashing change: A study of organizational renewal in government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kickert, W. J. M. (2014). The specificity of change management in public organizations: Conditions for successful organizational change in Dutch ministerial departments. The American Review of Administrative Sciences, 44, 693-717.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M. J., Kickert, W. J. M., Tummers, L. G., Grandia, J., & van der Voet,

J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92, 1-20.

Laurence, J. H. (2008). I/O consulting in the department of defense. In J. W. Hedge & W. C. Borman (Eds.), The I/O consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 53-63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760-776.

Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 127-149.

Lindquist, E. (2006). Organizing for policy implementation: The emergence and role of imple- mentation units in policy design and oversight. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 8, 311-324.

Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221-240.

Maor, M. (2002). Introduction. In M. Maor (Ed.), Developments in Israeli public administration (pp. 1-8). London, England: Routledge.

McNulty, T., & Ferlie, E. (2004). Process transformation: Limitations to radical organizational change within public service organizations. Organization Studies, 25, 1389-1412.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of govern- ment by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 421-439.

Noblet, A., Rodwell, J., & McWilliams, J. (2006). Organizational change in the public sector: Augmenting the demand control model to predict employee outcomes. Work & Stress, 20, 335-352.

Kuna 207

Pollitt, C. (2000). Is the emperor in his underwear? An analysis of the impacts of public manage- ment reform. Public Management, 2, 181-199.

Pollitt, C. (2013). Back in the OECD . . . an oblique comment on the World Bank’s better results from public sector institutions. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79, 406-412.

Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562-578.

Scala, K., Stadlober, M., & Fiby, H. (2011). Consulting by expertise in organization science: A special use of OD know-how for transorganizational collaboration systems in public services. In A. F. Buono, R. Grossmann, H. Lobnig, & K. Mayer (Eds.), The changing paradigm of consulting: Adjusting to the fast-paced world (Research in Management Consulting; pp. 399-415). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Sharkansky, I. (2002). The functioning of whatever is the Israeli state. In M. Maor (Ed.), Developments in Israeli public administration (pp. 45-64). London, England: Routledge.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London, England: SAGE.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Towards a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381-403.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2012). Leadership skills for managing paradoxes. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 227-231.

Stacey, R. D. (2010). Complexity and organizational reality: uncertainty and the need to rethink management after the collapse of investment capitalism. London, England: Routledge.

Sturdy, A., Handley, K., Clark, T., & Fincham, R. (2009). Management consulting: Boundaries and knowledge in action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Talbot, C., & Johnson, C. (2007). Seasonal cycles in public management: Disaggregation and re-aggregation. Public Money & Management, 27, 35-60.

Trottier, T., Van Wart, M., & Wang, X. (2008). Examining the nature and significance of lead- ership in government organizations. Public Administration Review, 68, 319-333.

van der Voet, J. (2014). The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a pub- lic organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure. European Management Journal, 32, 373-382.

van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B. S., & Groeneveld, S. (2016). Implementing change in public orga- nizations: The relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 18, 842-865.

Vann, J. L. (2004). Resistance to change and the language of public organizations: A look at “clashing grammars” in large-scale information technology projects. Public Organization Review, 4, 47-73.

Weibel, K., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector—Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 387-412.

Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Does structure matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 75-89.

Author Biography

Shani Kuna is an assistant professor at the Department of Human Resource Management Studies at Sapir Academic College, Israel. Her research focuses on management consulting and organizational development.