This article was downloaded by: [University of Sheffield] On: 16 June 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919726257] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Change Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713703618 Strategic management and organization development: Planned change in a public sector organization Harry Sminiaa; Antonie Van Nistelrooijb a The Management School, University of Sheffield, UK b Department of Administrative and Organization Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam To cite this Article Sminia, Harry and Van Nistelrooij, Antonie(2006) 'Strategic management and organization development: Planned change in a public sector organization', Journal of Change Management, 6: 1, 99 — 113 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14697010500523392 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010500523392 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. JournalofChangeManagement Vol.6, No. 1, 99–113, March2006 Strategic Management and Organization Development: Planned Change in a Public Sector Organization HARRY SMINIA(cid:2) & ANTONIE VAN NISTELROOIJ(cid:2)(cid:2) 0 1 0 2 e (cid:2)TheManagementSchool,UniversityofSheffield,UK,(cid:2)(cid:2)DepartmentofAdministrativeandOrganization n Ju Science,FacultyofSocialSciences,VrijeUniversiteit,Amsterdam 6 1 9 2 : 7 0 ABSTRACT This paper reports on a case study on the introduction of organization development : t (OD) techniques in a traditionally top-down lead public sector organization in the Netherlands. A ] ThefindingssuggestthatanOD-inspiredbottom-upchangeapproachcanhaveaplacenexttoa d el top-down strategic management change approach. However, to reap the benefits of OD, the top i ff management role appeared to be pivotal, especially with regard to creating the circumstances e h underwhichsufficientparticipationcantakeplace. S f o y sit KEY WORDS: Organization development, strategic management, management of change, public er sector,processresearch v i n U [ : y B Introduction d e d a o Organizationdevelopment(OD)isusedincreasinglyinstrategicchangeinitiatives l n ow in public sector organizations (Ferlie et al., 1996; Robertson and Seneviratne, D 1995; Patchett, 2005; Teo and Crawford, 2005). The reasons for strategic change in the public sector are mostly found in abrupt and predominantly exo- genous jolts such as changing policies or legislation, technological change, top management replacements or reorganizations such as the joining together or the breaking up of public agencies. These kinds of development require decisive and large scale strategic change to regain congruence between the organization’s goals, the environment and the organization. In these instances, public sector organizationshaveatendencytoadoptastrategic-management-inspiredapproach ofgeneratingchangeinatop-downfashion(Ferlieetal.,1996).Suchanapproach Correspondence Address: Harry Sminia, The Management School, UniversityofSheffield, 9 MappinStreet, Sheffield,S14DT,UK.Email:[email protected] 1469-7017Print=1479-1811Online=06=010099–15#2006Taylor&Francis DOI:10.1080=14697010500523392 100 H.Sminia&A. van Nistelrooij seems particularly appropriate because the top management team is in the best position to initiate and implement quick and purposeful organizational change, andtheyhavethemeansandthepositiontoworkfromasystem-wideperspective that does not reflect functional or departmental biases (Conger, 2000; Jensen, 2000). From an OD point of view, however, a bottom-up approach with the full participationandactiveinvolvementofallemployeesisseenasessentialforgen- erating commitment and ensuring the strategic reorientation actually is realized (Beer, 2000; Bennis, 2000; Dunphy, 2000; French et al., 2000; Cummings and Worley, 2005). The combination of both approaches is not an easy matter as a number of case studies have shown (Bate et al., 2000; Beer, 2001; O’Brien, 2002; Balogun and Hailey, 2004; Burnes, 2004). There are a number of profound differences between public sector organiz- ations and private sector organizations when it comes to organizational change 0 (Robertson and Seneviratne, 1995; Ferlie et al., 1996; Coram and Burnes, 2001; 1 20 O’Brien, 2002; Ha¨renstam et al., 2004). In many cases not only are the reasons e n different for initiating change but also change concepts and approaches that are u J 6 transferred from the private sector to the public sector can lead to contradictory 1 9 results. In comparison to private organizations, public organizations are more 2 : 7 characterized by a multitude of decision-makers, by a larger diversity of stake- 0 t: holders, by more intensive organizational dynamics and by a more bureaucratic A ] organizational design. Or as Patchett (2005: 598–9) puts it: ‘The political d l e nature of the legislative and representation process and the functional expert i f ef andefficiencyorientationoftheadministrativeprocessproduceimportanttensions h S in a public-sector organization.’ The particular context of a public organization f o puts specific demands on the management of change, for instance, with regard y t si to working with different authorities and handling the influence of legislation r ve and the political field of force effectively. i n U Thispaperreportsonacasestudyofstrategicchangeatapublicorganizationin [ y: the Netherlands. The focus is on the question of whether bottom-upOD methods B d can be adopted alongside the strategic-management-inspired approach of top- e d a down lead change. As with so many public organizations, a tradition existed in o l wn this organization to initiate and manage change from the top. By incorporating o D ODmethodsintheprojectdesign,anattemptwasmadetoavoidsomeofthedis- advantages of the strategic management approach and to benefit from the strong points of the OD approach. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First the management of change in the public sector in general will be further explored. Second the particularities of the case will be described as well as the methods that were employed in this case study. The case will be analysed next, and the paper ends with discussion and conclusions. Management of Change in the PublicSector Ferlieetal.(1996:86)describedthemanagementofchangeinthepublicsectoras ‘top-downradicalshockstrategiesandtheexerciseofpoliticalclout’.Thisclearly fitsthestrategicmanagementapproachwherestrategicchangeisachievedbyway of a pre-designed top-down implementation process after the content of the new strategy has been formulated (Dunphy, 2000; Balogun and Hailey, 2004; Planned Changeina Public Sector Organization 101 Burnes, 2004). However, comparisons between decision-making in public and in private organizations have revealed that successful implementation in the public sectoralso requiresabottom-upapproachwith somedegree ofemployeepartici- pation (Rodrigues and Hickson, 1995; Hickson et al., 2003). This explains the growing interest in OD concepts and methods in the public sector (Robertson and Seneviratne, 1995; Ferlie et al., 1996; Patchett, 2005; Teo and Crawford, 2005).Nevertheless,theintroductionofODinorganizationsthatareaccustomed tocentralizedcontrolandbureaucraticandpoliticalworkingconditionsmayclash withtheprevailingorganizationcultureorcanevenbeperceivedasundermining the public administration work ethos (Barnhart, 1997; O’Brien, 2002). Both the OD approach as well as the strategic management approach are archetypes, based on plausible and legitimate premises (Beer and Nohria, 2000a). Because of their complementarities (Hickson et al., 2003; Cummings 0 and Worley, 2005) they are considered to be insufficient for the successful 1 20 implementation of strategic change when applied separately (Beer, 2001; e n Hicksonetal.,2003).‘Apurelytop-downeffort,inwhichthereislittleornopar- u J 6 ticipation within the organization, is just as likely to end in failure as a purely 1 9 bottom-up approach’ (Conger, 2000: 101). Coram and Burnes (2001) and 2 : 7 O’Brien (2002) have drawn similar conclusions based on their case studies. 0 t: These observations imply that a combination of both approaches seems to be A ] the most fruitful option. d l e There are several ways of dealing with different approaches to organizational i f ef change in one project. One way is to adopt a contingency perspective where the h S circumstances are outlined under which a particular approach is considered to f o be more appropriate to be able to time and sequence the approach to the course y t si andtherequirementsofthechangeprocess(Huy,2001;Boonstra,2004;Walder- r ve see and Griffiths, 2004). Beer and Nohria (2000b) and Beer (2001) warn against i n U such a solution of alternating different approaches through time. They argue [ y: thisleadstoconfusionanddelayandtheprocesswillsuffermorefromthedisad- B d vantagesofbothapproachesthanthatitwillbenefitfromtheadvantages.Theydo e d a see a possibility of starting with the top-down strategic management approach to o l wn achieveaquickanddefinitiveturnaround,followedthroughbyanODbottom-up o D changeprogrammetoanchoranewwayofdoingthingsintheorganization.This doesrequire avery carefully lead changeprogrammeby which confidence,com- mitment and trust destroyed during the first phase needs to be carefully rebuilt during the second phase. Nevertheless, they consider this to be the exception to the rule. The other way around, they argue, spells disaster. Anything that has been built up during an initial OD initiative will be destroyed if it is followed up by a top-down strategic management style turnaround – leaving the organiz- ation behind with a high level of distrust and no commitment, confidence or shared purpose. Beer and Nohria (2000b) and Beer (2000) emphasize the complementary character of strategic management and OD instead to propose a simultaneous approach where both approaches are integrated into one. They admit applying their simultaneous approach in practice is difficult to do, but they provide a number of pointers by which they say the contradiction can be managed. Reading through their material, the following guidelines can be extracted: 102 H.Sminia&A. van Nistelrooij 1. The tension between top-down and bottom-up goals needs to be confronted explicitly; 2. Direction needs to be set from the top and people need to be engaged from below; 3. Managementneedstoembodytheassumptionsandstylesofbothapproaches; 4. The focus needs to be on both organization design and organization culture; 5. Thechangeprocessneedstobepartlyplannedinadvancebutalsotoallowfor emergent experimentation and problem solving. These pointers are illustrated with examples from a change process that occurred at the British grocery chain of Asda. These recommendations, however, are perhaps more an elaboration of the contradiction that is inherent in combining the top-down strategic management approach with the bottom- 0 up OD approach to change than actually providing workable solutions to 1 20 manage the tensions. e n Thereforethereremainsthequestionhowsuchasimultaneousapproachworks u J 6 outinpractice.Thisisanespeciallycompellingquestionforpublicsectororgan- 1 9 izations because of their interest in introducing bottom-up change programmes 2 : 7 and their history of top-down change efforts. What effects exactly are to be 0 t: expected when OD is introduced alongside strategic management in the public A ] sector?AnumberofcautionsneedtobeobservedwhenODisintroducedinapre- d l e dominantlystrategic-management-likecontext.Firstly,theissuesthataregoingto i f ef besubjecttoODneedtobeselectedcarefullyandhavetohaverealsignificance. h S OrasKanter(1983:254)pointedout:‘Peopleareskepticalaboutparticipationjust f o for show, without any impact on substance.’ Secondly, top management has to y t si create the possibility for people to participate and contribute to the development r ve and implementation of the strategic change. The expectation is that if these two i n U recommendations are not observed, the OD part of a process of strategic change [ y: will not have the effects it was intended to have. B d e d a o l n w o The ViZieRproject at UWV D The UWV organization in the Netherlands provided a research opportunity to studyaprocessofplannedchangeinthepublicsector.UWVistheadministrative organization for the Dutch collective employee benefit regulations. This organiz- ation came into existence on 1 January 2002 by merging the previously existing seven separate administrative organizations into one. As a consequence of the merger, the VizIeR project was started in March 2002 (VizIeR stands for Voorzieningen Inkoop Re¨ıntegratie, or provisions purchasing reintegration). Thisprojectconcernedtheworkareaofdisablementandmorespecificallythepur- chaseofservicesfromexternalsuppliersthataimtohelplong-termilland(partly) disabled workers to reintegrate into a work situation, and the provision of these services to workers, employers and others that need them. The aim of the VizIeR project was to have a new organizational unit within UWV up and running by September 2003, capable of handling 90 per cent of the applications within six weeks according to a generic and transparent newly designed work Planned Changeina Public Sector Organization 103 process, accompanied by a new administrative system. This project potentially affected about 550 people within UWV. TheUWVorganizationandtheearliersevenadministrativeorganizationshave upheld a tradition of pre-designed top-down-led change programmes. This time UWVmanagementwaswillingtointroduceODpracticestofosteremployeepar- ticipation because it realized the ViZieR project not only involved changes with regardtothestrategyandstructurebutalsothedevelopmentofnewworkingprac- tices andpatternsof cooperationbetweenpeoplefromtheformerseven adminis- trativeorganizationsandbetweentwoUWVdepartments.Eachoneoftheoriginal sevenadministrativeorganizationshadworkedaccordingtotheirownprocedures, often with outdated administrative systems. What needed to be done was a com- plete redesign of the work processes and administrative system of the UWV department IR. The IR department had been newly created for this part of the 0 collective employee benefit regulations – IR stands for Inkoop (purchasing) and 1 20 Re¨ıntegratie (reintegration). They also had to develop a working relationship e n with the AG department, which assessed the (dis)ability levels of the people u J 6 who were on benefit: AG stands for Arbeidsgeschiktheid (work ability). 1 9 TheUWVmanagement’swillingnesstoworkwithODmethodsledtoasimul- 2 : 7 taneous change approach for this project that distinguished between a ‘change 0 t: strand’anda‘projectstrand’.The‘projectstrand’hadtoworkontheorganization A ] design,theprocedures,theworkstandardsandthesupportingICTsystem.Itwas d l e structuredasanengineeringprojectwithsetdeadlinesandspecificdesigntargets i f ef while people worked in a strict hierarchy. The ‘change strand’ was supposed to h S f o y t i s r e v i n U [ : y B d e d a o l n w o D Figure1.Projectdesign 104 H.Sminia&A. van Nistelrooij feedthe‘projectstrand’withtheinformationneededtodevelopthenewworkpro- cesses and administrative system. It also had to help to lay the foundation for a new frame of reference for the newly created UWV organization as a whole, to ease implementation and to improve cooperation between departments. The ‘change strand’ featured a programme of OD-type interventions, based on large scale intervention (LSI) techniques (Van Nistelrooij et al., 2004). This strand had to start off with starting conferences and mini-conferences that had to develop the first design parameters and to decide on the staffing of a variety of sub-projects. This was to be followed up by workshops, informative meetings and evaluative meetings to support the pilot and implementation of the new design. These two strands would be on separate but simultaneous tracks initially, but were supposed to merge during the course of the change project. 0 1 0 2 e Method n u J 6 The methods that have been used to investigate this case were aimed at tracking 1 9 andanalysingthecourseoftheViZieRprojectthroughtime.Aprocessapproach 2 : 7 hasbeenadoptedtobeabletodescribeandexplainthecourseandtheoutcomeby 0 t: way of the events that make up the process (Mohr, 1982; Langley, 1999; Poole A ] et al., 2000). Consequently, process is defined as a sequence of events (Miles d l e and Huberman, 1994; Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Poole et al., 2000) which i f ef makes the event the basic process parts (Abott, 1990; Peterson, 1998). This h S means, firstly, that for the purpose of this research, the events making up the f o ViZieR project need to be gathered longitudinally. Secondly, by coding these y t si events in a theoretical meaningful way, a historical baseline can be composed r ve by listing these events in the chronological order in which they occurred. In this i n U manner the course of the change project can be assessed and analysed and the [ y: outcome explained. B d The ViZieR project introduced new OD change methods into the UWV organ- e d a ization alongside existing strategic-management-like practices. It was assumed o l wn that if these new methods were to be adopted successfully, they had to become o D institutionalizedintheirownrightascommonpracticesamongtheexistingorgan- izational routines. Looking at it this way, the VizieR project not only aimed to reorganize a part of the UWV organization, it also had to alter the manner in which change was routinely introduced and effected. Barley and Tolbert (1989) propose to study institutional change by charting flows of actions to see if and how what they call ‘scripts’ have become subject to change over time. They define scripts as ‘observable, recurrent activities and patterns of interaction characteristicsofaparticularsetting’(BarleyandTolbert,1989:98).Furthermore, to them scripts are taken to stand for particular institutionalized interaction patterns which in turn are subject to a process of structuration (Giddens, 1976). Structuration theory sees human action as shaping and as being shaped by these scripts. On the one hand, these scripts prescribe what the appropriate action is in a particular situation. On the other hand, human action gives rise to the emer- gence and the preservation of scripts when these actions change or conform to certain regularities. Planned Changeina Public Sector Organization 105 Wedecidedtosingle outthreespecificscripts wherethetensionsbetween top- downandbottom-upchangewouldbeveryprominent.Theseare:(1)thepowerof decision script; (2) the project focus script; and (3) the participants’ role script. According to the strategic management logic, the power of decision lies with the top management team. However, in line with the OD logic, the participants are supposed to be empowered to make their own decisions. With regard to the project focus script, the question is whether the focus of the project activities is onhierarchyandonsatisfyingtheneedsof (top)management(strategic manage- mentlogic),orwhetherthefocusisontheparticipantsandmakingsurethatevery- bodyparticipates(ODlogic).Theparticipants’rolescriptinstrategicmanagement mode expects participantsto be more passive with regard to their involvement in the project, while the OD logic requires a more active stance from every partici- pant. This means that the event data that are going to be analysed have to reveal 0 how these three scripts are going to develop over time. In other words, is there 1 20 going to be room for the OD logic next to the strategic management or SM e n logic with regard to these change scripts over the course of the ViZieR project? u J 6 We have collected the raw data by recording events over the duration of the 1 9 VizIeR project. These events were either gathered by direct observation during 2 : 7 various meetings and gatherings or were derived from documents that were pro- 0 t: duced as a consequence of the change project. Observation took place on 49 A ] occasions, while 41 documents were used as a data source. The time period d l e over which events were recorded lasted from 1 January 2002 until 17 December i f ef 2003. This resulted in a database filled with a total of 640 recorded events. h S Each event record contained information about the date when it occurred, the f o actor and the act that made it up, and the source. The events were subsequently y t si coded in terms of the three scripts as well as the change logic that was reflected r ve in each event. i n U In accordance with the recommendation of Barley and Tolbert (1997) to vali- [ y: date the observations and conclusions with additional data, a questionnaire was B d distributed among a sample of 152 participants in the ViZieR project in June e d a 2003. The questionnaire was aimed specifically at measuring the perceptions o l wn and experiences of the people who participated in the project. Questions o D were asked about the modes of communication, the degree to which communi- cated information had been received and understood and to what the degree the participants thought the goals of the project had been achieved. Analysisof the ViZieRproject In keeping with the project design, the diagnostic phase started with three large- scale conferences. These were identical conferences conducted within a short spaceoftimebutspreadoutoverthecountrytogiveeveryparticipanttheoppor- tunitytoattend.ThesefirstmeetingsexplainedandlegitimizedtheODpartofthe changeprocessandweremostlyconcernedwiththeprojectfocusscript.Onmany occasions the message to the participants was that their efforts and input were going to be considered as essential for the success of the project and that they had to take advantage of the situation by being able to make their mark on the UWV organization. For instance, the project manager during his presentations 106 H.Sminia&A. van Nistelrooij Table1.Changelogicandscriptcodingscheme SMlogic ODlogic Powerofdecisionscript Managementteam(MT)emphasiswhen: Participants(P)emphasiswhen: † MTsetsframework † Pdecideoncontentandprocessissues † MTsetsrolesandpositions † Psetroles † MTdecidesonwhatisessential † Psetpurposeandresults † MTdeterminesmodeof † Panswerquestionsoncontentand communication processissues † MTsetspurpose † emphasisisoninvolvementworkers † MTdeterminescourseofevents † emphasisisondiscussionanddecision byworkers † MTmanagesthroughresults † ‘change-strand’isencouraged † MTassessesproducts 0 01 † MTignores‘change-strand’ 2 Projectfocusscript e n u J ProjectisfocusedonMTwhen: Projectisfocusedonparticipantswhen: 6 1 † thereisanticipationonexpectations † thereisaneedtocommunicatewith 9 2 ofMT wholeorganization : 07 † thereisaneedofconvincingMT † thereisaneedforfullparticipation t: † thereisawishforclarityfromMT † thereisaneedtopreserve‘process- A ] strand’consultants d l † thereisdoubtaboutMTsupport † thereisaneedtoinvolvewhole e i f organization f he † thereisfearthatframeworkalready † thereiscreationoffullownershipof S f hasbeendecidedupon neworganizationdesign o y † thereissignificanceattachedtoMT † neworganizationdesignistested t i statements amongworkers s er Participants’rolescript v ni Passiveroleofparticipantswhen: Activeroleofparticipantswhen: U [ † PawaitMTdecisions † Pmakesuggestionsforprojectprocess : y andcontent B d † Pawaitchange † Pmakesuggestionsfornew e ad organizationdesign o nl † Pawaitcommunications † Pmakejudgement w o † Prefrainfromjudgement † Pshowinitiative D † documentsarenotdistributedon † Pmakeprojectlarger time † workprocesshasbeenset † Pshowcommitment beforehand inthestart-upconferencesemphasizedthesignificanceofthisnewwayofachiev- ing change by stating: ‘Let’s seize the opportunity...because we have been granted the space to create a good working process. If you can blow a hole; please do, and make the work process better.’ He added that ‘management has decided willingly in favour of a bottom-up approach; everyone can take part, everyonecanhaveinfluenceandeveryvoiceisimportant’(translatedfromDutch). With regard to the power of decision script, however, the message was more mixed. On the one hand, UWV management indicated they were anxious to reap the benefits from the bottom-up approach that was designed into the Planned Changeina Public Sector Organization 107 project. They also insisted a number of restrictions had to be taken into account and certain requirements that management had decided upon needed to be met. The representative of UWV management in the start-up conferences told the participants that ‘actually everything is under discussion’ and that ‘there are few restrictions’, but also that ‘I want to instate regional managers’ and ‘I want you to meet a number of conditions’ already shaping the design and setting the boundaries before the design process actually had started. Inthecourseofthediagnosticphase,ariftbetweentheIRandAGdepartments within UWV developed concerning the specific content and demarcation of thefuture tasksof the IRdepartment.Employeesworkingin the AGdepartment, who would have to cooperate closely with the IR department for which new work processes were being designed, feared that too much of their work would be transferred to the IR department. A casual remark of the acting project 0 manager about the possibility that 90 per cent of the workload was going to 1 20 be allocated to the IR department had distressed the AG employees. The project e n manager had only made this remark to provide an example, with the intention u J 6 simply of challenging the participants to think the unthinkable. Some time 1 9 later, the 90 per cent/10 per cent division of tasks was believed to have the 2 : 7 status of a management decision, which it had not, but the AG people were 0 t: up in arms because they feared for their position within UWV. This rift stalled A ] the progress of the project as a whole and top management decided to intervene. d l e Furthermore, just before the top management intervention took place, the i f ef members of the project team learned to their amazement that the project h S managerwasignorantofthemeaningofLSI,thathehadnoideawhatitentailed f o nor that the ‘change strand’ of the ViZieR project had been designed according y t si to LSI principles. r ve BecauseUWVtopmanagementthoughttheprojectwasloosingmomentumasa i n U consequence of the rift between the IR and AG departments, they appointed a [ y: special consultant to the ViZieR project. He convened a ‘kick-off meeting’ on B d 13January2003toputtheprojectbackontrackandintroducedaprojectmethod- e d a ologythatwasaimedatachievingsubstantialresults.Thismeetingalsowastaken o l wn tomarkthetransitionfromthediagnosticphasetothedesignphaseoftheproject. o D As a consequence the emphasis was put on the ‘project strand’ and the design of thenew workprocesses.Thesub-projectswere staffedand wenttoworkontheir specific tasks. The first results were presented to the larger project community during a number of mini-conferences that originally had been scheduled as part of the ‘change strand’. The character of these mini-conferences, however, had changed considerably when compared to the original plan. The emphasis was on substance and not on process and dialogue. The participants were just asked to comment on the designs that had been drafted in the sub-projects. On a number of occasions, the discussions referred to the rift between the IR and AG departments, but an attempt to actually deal with this problem was not really made. The overall conclusion after the last mini-conference had been held was that these first designs were incomplete and progress had been disappointing. By then it was the end of February 2003. Duringthispartofthedesignphase,eventssignalledallkindofmessagescon- cerning each of the three scripts. With regard to the power of decision script,