Introduction
There has been a broad range of discussion on organizational change in public sectors. The public sectors in United Kingdom and Australia have implemented change in order to deliver a better service to stakeholders (Trueman, 2004, Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2003, Brunneto, 2001). The calling for public service organizational change has been a prerequisite for Indonesia since the enactment of Law no. 22 / 1999 in 2001 regarding regional autonomy. This regulation together with Law no. 25/ 1999 regarding fiscal decentralization, have passed a greater responsibility on to local governments to manage services at a local level. However, poor human resources quality is the main hindrance that manifests in the failure to perform optimal service to stakeholders, lack of transparency and accountability (Adriani, 2003).
XDepartment of B District, East Nusa Tenggara has also experienced the failure. The cause of this failure can be identified as being the result of problems with organizational culture and human resources quality, especially morality. Accordingly, this paper will analyze current organizational culture and practices to identify the problems, proposing organizational change, and discussing resistance to change at both individual and organizational levels.
Organizational Culture and Practice
The following story illustrates situation of the XDepartment of B District.
“I have been serving this district for almost thirty years. And you should be patient until your turn comes. Of course, there are still a lot of vacant structural positions, but considering the issue of restructuring, you'll struggle hard to gain them in the future.” said the department head to two new employees. “I am eligible to 'eat the money' more than you guys, as now is my chance. Unfortunately, you were born after me!” he said on another day during a briefing reacting his subordinates’ grievance.
Meanwhile we often hear staff grumbling among themselves: “I don't want to do the job that doesn't make money for me”. “Yeah, a good boss should be able to share the money fairly among the employees.” “Of course there are only two kinds of budget you cannot eat, telephone and electricity bills, as they involve receipts,” said a department’s treasurer. An engineering graduate employee added: “Actually the X department can make a lot of money. Unfortunately, our department head isn't smart enough as he is appointed based on his loyalty and long time employment.” “Forget it, buddy! You are not the only one who manages this country. Let's go home, I have some business with a friend!” said another employee. “Wait until someone comes to help you!” they said to a client who had been there while they were talking, as they left the office at ten o'clock (adapted from author's personal record, 2001).
The main organizational problem is a lack of customer orientation culture. This kind of organizational culture is manifested in deviant behaviors like corruption and absenteeism. There is also discouragement of excellent performance like innovation and creativity. Promotion is based on seniority and loyalty to the elected regent or other political reasons. Another fact is strong paternalistic bureaucracy, with high dependency on rules and procedures.
Referring to Kreitner and Kinicki (2004), these symptoms indicate a passive/ defensive culture. Discouragement of innovation and creativity are the driving forces of this culture (Human Synergistics International, 1998). Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2003) argue that flexibility and innovation may be counterproductive for public sector organizations as they continuously focus on non-profit service and accountability. However, this argument is debatable in this case as the organization is lacking accountability and commitment to the customers. Accordingly, a lack of innovation and flexibility derived from over-secured workplace (Alas & Vadi, 2004) and monopoly of the service (Trueman, 2004), appear to be a better explanation. Therefore, the first underlying issue is a lack of competition in providing service, which downgrades the importance of innovation and excellent performance.
The second issue is poor leadership capability to organize the employees to perform an optimal service. To many scholars, leadership is believed to be a crucial aspect in shaping a strong organizational culture (Robbins, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2004, Safty, 2003, and Martin, no date). Martin (no date) asserts that individuals who work together, share creativity and enthusiasm will bring about an innovative organization. Moreover, Safty defines leadership as:
‘the ability to achieve results, not popularity; the ability to think proactively in order to understand first and be understood; the ability to see the periphery, appreciate unconventional ideas, and transform the fear of change into positive turbulence.' (Safty, 2003, p.84).
These abilities, despite unethical and deviant behaviors, are not performed by the leader, and may even discourage any enthusiasm towards change. In fact, it has been widely accepted that most organizations have successfully embraced a strong costumer-responsive culture thanks to their leaders (Robbins, Millett, & Waters-Marsh, 2004).
Those issues need to be addressed through a process of organizational change. Overcoming underlying issues is increasingly important as the previous culture and leaderships have contributed to economic stagnation and relentlessly undermined the citizens’ rights, which may lead to anarchism. Additionally, this movement may shrink the negative image of civil servants in Indonesia.
Proposal for Organizational Change
The main goal of this organizational change is to revamp the organizational culture of the X Department of B District, which has shifted away from its role of providing service to stakeholders. In other words, the organizational change is to develop an effective organization (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004). The department's stakeholders or customers include its citizens, business sectors, related departments and higher structural institutions such as regent, regional government, and central government, and other users of services. Given this wide range of customers, Trueman (2004) suggests that implementation of market segregation and special treatment for each costumer is required in order to deliver an effective service.
It is clear to some extent that the department needs to establish a market-orientation culture (Trueman, 2004) and an effective management under transformational leadership (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2003). In order to achieve that, two strategies of organizational change will be discussed. They are the employment a professional leader and the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT).
Employing Professional Leader
Discussions on the subject of leadership reveal a general conclusion that leadership is a key figure for organizational success including organizational change (Brunnetto, 2001, Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2003, Robbins, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2004). With regard to the subject of analyses, the existing leaders within the organization have been corrupted by the system. Accordingly, they will not perform effectively in pioneering the organizational change. Therefore, employing an X related professional to manage and lead the process of change is an outstripping alternative.
To some extent, this strategy is a modified approach of hiring outside consultants as proposed by Robbins, Millett & Waters-Marsh (2004). Despite the disadvantages of external change agents, employing a professional to manage the public sector's organization is a fruitful technique. The reasons behind it are he/ she is detached from the current system, skillful, having professional culture, and committed to professional authority rather than to hierarchical authority (Brunnetto, 2001). In terms of the department's case, this approach is more workable if the professional is hired by the regent, who holds the public and legal legitimacy and as the ultimate authority within the district.
Introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT)
Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) strategy has been implemented in United Kingdom since at least twenty years ago, which has challenged local governments to perform effectively by involving them in free competition with private sectors (Trueman, 2004). A similar concept has also been applied in Australia under National Competition Policy (NCP) since 1995 (Martin, no date). Trueman further explains that:
'......CCT required local authority to compete with external public, private and voluntary organizations for provision of some of their services. This was a radically new concept as local authorities were not use to having to “share” the provision of services.' (Trueman, 2004; p4).
Applying this strategy will withdraw the employees and organization from over-secured positions and monopoly to a competitive market that may trigger entrepreneurial behavior, including innovation and creativity. The weakness of this strategy is requirement for change in regulations and formal standard operating procedures. However, the Indonesian Law No 22/ 1999 has provides a legal authority to district authorities to implement specific regulations suiting the local characteristic as long as not contradict to superior regulations.
The X Department may learn from the success of local governments that have been involved in a competitive market among private sectors. Martin (no date) provides examples of local governments that successfully implement innovative approaches, namely Wollongong City Council (NSW), City of Whittlesea (Victoria) and Ipswich City Council (Qld). These local governments have even provided services to other institutions (Martin, no date).
Resistance to Change
It has been widely accepted that a change within an organization will inherently encounter resistance from the individuals within the organization and the organization itself (de Jagger, 2004, Robbins, Millett and Waters-Marsh, 2004). The main individual resistance mostly related to the fear of losing current satisfaction and how to survive within a new organizational culture. Another resistance within public sector organizations is due to external factors such as the establishment of legal basis and related infrastructures, which requires standardization (Brunnetto, 2001). Meanwhile, at an organizational level the resistance resulted from collective fear regarding instability, losing power and resources, and partial implementation of change (Robbins, Millett, & Waters-Marsh, 2004).
In the case of the X Department, resistance to employing a professional manager may be triggered by, firstly, the current department head who will miss the position, or potential candidates, who may experience diminishing of structural promotion. Secondly, senior employees may be reluctant to be managed by a junior and outsider. Thirdly, uncertainty regarding new managerial consequences, such as change in embedded habit, may form another resistance. Fear of losing position, financial resources, or other personal or group interests is another hindrance.
When it comes to the introduction of the Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) resistance may appear regarding inferiority feeling of the organization to compete with private sectors. A further resistance will be structural resistance regarding the problem of adjusting bureaucratic values and practices such as formalization, hierarchical control into market orientation culture (Rashid, Sambavisan & Johari, 2003). A third resistance is the call for the introduction of a special legal base before launching the program.
Deliberating Barriers to Change
The barriers to change are mostly due to comfortableness of current situation and being unconvinced regarding the new situation. Given this argument, de Jagger (2004) asserts that people will voluntarily commit to organizational change if they believe the benefits of change outweigh the current advantages. Research reveals that a significant number of the failures of change resulted from lack of information regarding necessity and benefits of change (Brunnetto, 2001).
Therefore, Lewin's Three-Step Model (unfreezing, movement, and refreezing step) as cited in Robbins, Millett, and Waters-Marsh (2004) will be employed in managing the change process. During the unfreezing step, a socialization process will be conducted prior to the implementation of organizational change. The socialization aims to promote the advantages of organizational change and explain the weaknesses of current organization status. For that reason, the employees will value driving forces above restraining forces.
The new manager, during the change stage, starts to introduce new values of costumer-focused culture. The employees will experience and become accustomed to the new culture through role models, training and so forth. As a learning process, it will involve a 'long journey' employing trial and error nurtured by the manager. The process will be followed by unfreezing step to stabilize the change.
The next alternative is negotiation to compensate the senior employees, who may lose their position and be reluctant to be led by a junior. One scenario regarding this is to pull them out of the organization and employ them as advisors who provide assessment and advice to the manager. Given this approach, the senior employees feel empowered but isolated from the organization’s daily operation.
The last tactic is coercion, which may be applied to those who disagree with the change. This tactic is the most effective approach, since the regent holds the highest power in the district. Coercion tactic may be exhibited in new regulation that forces subordinates to commit the change or offering voluntary redundancy. This scenario may cleanse the organization from potential deviant behavior.
Conclusion
1. The main organizational culture problem in X Department of B District is lack of customer orientation due to an over-secured workplace and monopoly of service.
2. Organizational change aims to reposition the department's focus on service to its stakeholders.
3. Strategies for the change include employing a professional manager and implementing the Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) to expose the organization towards a competitive environment that may trigger innovation and market-orientation culture.
4. Lewin's three-step model, Negotiation and Coercion may be implemented simultaneously to overcome the resistance to change.
References
Adriani, M, Alatas, V, Arulpragasam, J & Hadad, M 2003, CGI Brief: Beyond Macroeconomic Stability, Consultative Group of Indonesia, 27374 - IND.
Alas, R & Vadi, M 2004, 'The Impact of Organizational Culture on Attitudes Concerning Change in Post-Soviet Organizations', Journal for East European Management Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 20.
Brunetto, Y 2001, 'Mediating Change for Public-Sector Professionals', The International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 14, no. 6/7, p. 465.
de Jager, P 2004, 'Who Me, Change?' Debt3, vol. Nov/Dec 2004, no. 1, p. 16.
Human Synergistics International 1998, IDEA Project Workshop: Leadership and Organizational Culture Survey, Human Synergistics International. Retrieved: March 21, 2005.
Kreitner, R & Kinicki, A 2004, Organizational Behavior, 6th edn, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Sydney.
Martin, DJ, FIMM no date, Innovation Strategies in Australian Local Government, Research, Queensland University of Technology.
Martins, EC & Terblanche, F 2003, 'Building Organisational Culture that Stimulate Creativity and Innovation', European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 64.
Parry, KW & Proctor-Thomson, SB 2003, 'Leadership, Culture and Performance: The Case of New Zealand Public Sector', Journal of Change Management, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 376. Retrieved: May 2003.
Rashid, MZA, Sambasivan, M & Juliana, J 2003, 'The Influence of Corporate Culture and Organisational Commitment on Performance', The Journal of Management Development, vol. 22, no. 7/8, p. 708.
Robbins, SP, Millett, B & Waters-Marsh, T 2004, Organisational Behavior, 4th edn, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forrest NSW.
Safty, A 2003, 'Moral Leadership: Beyond Management and Governance', in Harvard International Review, vol. Fall 2003, pp. 84 – 89.
Saltmarshe, D, Ireland, M & McGregor, AJ 2003, 'The Performance Framework: A Systems Approach to Understanding Performance Management', Public Administration & Development, vol. 23, no. 5, p. 445. Retrieved: December 2003.
Trueman, K 2004, Market - Orientation and Local Government: Barriers and Constraints, Political Studies Association, Keele - UK. Retrieved: April 15, 2005, from http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/mn/cpm.
No comments:
Post a Comment