By Kilian M. Kamota
One aspect of contemporary organizations that both scholars and practitioners agree on is the presence, the need and the importance of change; by organization I am referring to a group of people with defined mission and objectives that came together for the purpose of achieving certain goals. Alvin Toffler, in the book Order Out of Chaos, argues that during the last decade several scholastic analysis have emphasized both the accelerating pace of change in the world and the increasing complexity generated by the process of change. Dwight Waldo, in the book Public Administration toward Year 2000, pointed out that the only thing that can be predicted with certainty in our social life is that complexity will increase and change will quicken. Modern organizations and institutions are said to be non linear dynamics filled with rhythms, cycles, chaos and change. In the book Managing Chaos & Complexity in Government, Douglas Kiel, argue that non linear dynamic and change is the new paradigm that public leaders and managers need if they are to build organizations with the internal capacity for transformational change. But change tends to come in many faces ranging from reform, to revolution, reorganization, restructuring, reinvention and reengineering. The challenge facing scholars and practitioners is to figure out the most effective kind of change that can produce social change that will satisfy follower’s authentic needs
The concept of reform has gained profound reputation over the last few years. Hardly a day goes by without a news story about an organization, a corporation, a government entity, or a national government undergoing reforms. In The United States, there are talks about the need to reform the Social Security sector, the Medicare System, the Welfare System, and the education system to name the few. The recent United States economic meltdown, the credit crunch, the auto industry crisis, the housing market crisis and the banking crisis are all signs of the need for reforms; to top it off, dictator’s and the few remaining authoritarian leaders across the globe are aging, starting to retire, or being thrown out of power every year, each one of those changes requiring at least some kind of reforms in the structure of government and the ways of governing. At the same time, people across the globe, as we have seen in the Middle East , wants more reforms in different aspects of organizations or institutions that touch their lives in one way or another.
This topic is important because both scholars and practitioners are troubled by the question of how to and what kind of change to employ in different situations – ranging from reform, restructuring, reinvention, reengineering, revolution and reorganization. It is also important because almost every country in the world has – at a certain point – implemented reforms in certain institutions or certain aspects of its institutions. Whenever an organization or a nation is facing a crisis or failures, the way out – most of the time – has been to reform the sector or aspect that caused or that has been mostly affected by the crisis. And most of the time, those reforms came in terms of economic, electoral, constitutional, trade, education, or healthcare, to name the few. Reforms have been the tool of choice for many governments and institutions to dig themselves out of ditches; it has been the most popular tool in change movements or rescue missions of many struggling institutions; and has been behind majority of major social and institutional success stories around the world.
To me personally, the topic is of outmost importance because I am unhappy with the way African countries are governed and have made a conscious decision that I will do something about the situation – by proposing and stimulating a rich dialogue about the need for comprehensive reforms to their government and leadership system.
Conceptualization & Distinctions:
In his Article Reinventing Government, Robert Hillman defined reform as to put or change into an improved form or conditions;
to amend or improve by change or removal of faults; to change beneficially, reverse to a pure original state, repair, restore or correct. For the most part, reform seeks to gradually improve the existing system or institution by adjusting, or at most rectify serious errors without altering the fundamentals of the system. Reform comes in many faces also. It could come as political, organizational, or institutional reform; it might come from above – leadership – or from below – followers or in a participatory form; it could be a large scale reform – example an entire government department or an entire corporation – or small scale – like policies or regulations that change how things are being done in a corporation, it could take shorter or longer periods of time to be implemented, and it can be initiated from within or from outside the organization. Reform can also aim to improve by innovating or by restoring to the original state.
to amend or improve by change or removal of faults; to change beneficially, reverse to a pure original state, repair, restore or correct. For the most part, reform seeks to gradually improve the existing system or institution by adjusting, or at most rectify serious errors without altering the fundamentals of the system. Reform comes in many faces also. It could come as political, organizational, or institutional reform; it might come from above – leadership – or from below – followers or in a participatory form; it could be a large scale reform – example an entire government department or an entire corporation – or small scale – like policies or regulations that change how things are being done in a corporation, it could take shorter or longer periods of time to be implemented, and it can be initiated from within or from outside the organization. Reform can also aim to improve by innovating or by restoring to the original state.
Perhaps the best and easiest way to understand the types of changes that are commonly referred to as reforms is to distinguish reform from other types of change. That distinction is multifold: we can distinguish it conceptually from its quasi names – mainly revolution, reengineering, reinvention, restructuring and reorganization; or distinguish it based on the characteristics of change which includes the scope of change (scale and speed), the timing of change (when), the content (what and where), the reasons for change (why), the participants (who & for whom) as well as the outcomes. For the sake of this paper we will distinguish it conceptually.
Beginning with conceptual distinction, let us first, distinguish reform from revolution: while reform has been defined as a gradual change, amendment, or improvement of an existing system or establishment, revolution, on the other hand, is famously defined as a complete overhaul or overthrow of an existing system or establishment (Gladstone
A second distinguish character of reform and revolution can be found in the book, Leadership by James Macgregor Burns. In his book, Burns (1978) argues that while the reformer operates in parts, the revolutionist operates on whole. A third distinction lies in the core of the two concepts. According to Jack Repcheck, in his book Copernicus' Secret: How the Scientific Revolution Began, at the center of reform is a crisis, failure or dissatisfaction; while at the center of revolution is conflict or oppression. It is normal for individuals to launch reform at times of peace just for the sake of improving or making things better. But revolution stems from deep frustration by oppression or inequality, wide popular discontent and sometimes failures of reformism (Repcheck, 2007).
Now let’s consider the concept of reengineering. Reengineering is another term that is sometimes used interchangeably with reform; however the two concepts have clear distinctions. Like revolution, reengineering is a complete transformation of an existing system. Kiel
Reinvention is a change movement based on innovation and creativity. It is sometimes used interchangeably with reengineering due to overlaps and similarities between the two. In essence, reinvention refers to attempts to introduce successful private sector’s techniques into the public sector for the purpose of managing and improving performance. Osborne and Gaebler, in their book Reinventing Government, say that the real aim of government reinvention is to renew and reform public institutions from timid bureaucratic into innovative, flexible, and responsive organizations. It aims at transforming bureaucratic governments into entrepreneurial governments.
Reorganization and restructuring are synonyms of reform; however, technically speaking these three terms do have several distinctions. Reorganization means reassignment of parts in a whole sum. It is somehow, a reshuffling of departments inside an organization, or reshuffling of agencies inside a department.
Restructuring is a cooperate management term for the act of reorganizing the legal, ownership, operational, or other structures of an organization for a purpose of making it more profitable, or better organized for its present needs (Norley, Swanson & Marshall, 2008). This could be a change of leadership structure or reporting authority; it could be a restructuring of a corporate financing system or debt structure; or a demerger when multiple companies in a conglomerate part ways. It mostly deals with reorganization of non physical aspects of corporations like leadership, financing, debt, ownership, operations and the like.
In summarizing the conceptual distinction, I would like to say that when there is a need for gradual change, adjustments, adaptation, improvement, corrections or restoration in certain aspects of organizations or society – like policies, rules, regulation, norms, culture, etc – reform is needed. What about revolution? The age of political and government revolution is over; the age of buyouts and hostile takeovers has long passed; the only type of revolution that is useful in modern organization is the revolution in management and leadership thinking. When you want to change employee’s behavior or decision making, it is best to change the structure of the organization through reorganization. That is because structure, according to Kiel
What if the intention is to change organization culture? Culture includes assumptions, long held beliefs, behaviors, perceptions, values and conventional ways of doing things. You can change organization culture by either changing the structure through reorganization, since structure affect behaviors, or by changing the way work gets done through reengineering. When the goal is to change an organization from a timid bureaucratic to entrepreneurial one, reinvention is the best choice. If the goal is to improve performance and service delivery by transforming work processes or the way work gets done, reengineering is the best prescription.
Implications on Leadership:
It was Burns who posed the question on whether the quality of leadership makes much difference in reform movements. Other questions which are equally important and have direct implication on leadership include questions on reform strategies. Some of those questions which were also posed by Burns include: how should reformers mobilize persons of reform instinct but of diverse and volatile predispositions behind a considered reform effort; how should they connect one reform cause with related but seemingly separates ones; how above all to deal as reformers with politicians and parties and governments that reflect more mixed and general needs and attitudes. There is a large and growing literature that addresses those questions.
These questions are cardinal when planning and implementing reforms as failure to consider them may negatively impact the outcomes. The questions are also important in explaining why other managers/leaders succeed to implement reform while others – sometimes brilliant – fail. The questions will be addresses briefly by exploring the literature on factors affecting the effectiveness of reforms – leadership, steadiness and definition of purpose, timing, plan and implementation.
(1) The quality of leadership – when it comes to reforms – is as important as the knowledge of the nature of change and reform. That is because a good leader, equipped with in-depth knowledge about reforms will have a major positive impact on the outcomes by showing major reform stakeholders how to use old and new instruments to reach their reform goals more effectively (Eggertsson, 1998). The world is not the way it used to be; it is a turbulent world which calls for new approaches to leadership. All those changes inside & outside organizations call for new approaches to leadership, new ways of doing work, new work processes, as well as reforming organization structure, culture and systems. And the heavy burden in fulfilling those goals lays in the quality of leadership to initiate, plan, steer and implement effective reforms.
(2) The scope of reform, that is, size and jurisdiction, tends to also affect its outcomes also; the larger the reform jurisdiction, the larger the scope and complexity of implementation (Fesler, 1987). Large scale reforms are normally nationwide reforms that constitute major shifts in government policies (Eggertsson, 1998). Large scale reforms that affects many different classes of people in large areas tends to face difficulty in rallying the support of everyone involved especially people with different party ideology and affiliation. Good examples are the cycles of privatization and nationalization in developing nations and the current Health Care Reform in the U.S.
(3) Steadiness and definition of purpose, goals and objectives of reforms tend to also affect the outcomes of reforms. Reforms will arouse opposition if they are viewed as applying the wrong solution or if they are viewed as being primarily redistributive. Positive perception and clarity of goals and objectives build followers faith in the desirability and efficacy of the reform (Burns, 1978).
(4) The structure of reform – whether vertical or horizontal – is another factor that has a profound impact on the outcomes. Reform can be initiated from above (top-down) or as a participatory reform; it could also be a reform from within or from outside the center of the institution. These differences tend to produce different outcomes. A perfect situation for success in reform is a participatory reform where both leaders and followers work together to initiate, set the agenda, plan and implement reforms. A reform initiated by top leaders may lack support from followers and vice versa leading to weakness or failure (Pereira, Maravall, and Przewoski, 1993).
(5) The reasons for the initiation and implementation of reforms tend to affect outcomes as well. Reforms that are implemented after a major crisis tends to produce clear and mostly successful reform considering anything better than crisis is good.
(6) Plan and implementation are also key ingredients in the reform success rate. A well crafted and structure reform coupled with strong leadership will have a clear shot at success. In order to produce needed outcomes a reform must be well crafted and designed from agenda setting, to planning and implementation.
Organizational changes are very complex phenomenon, which we only partly understand (Eggertsson, 1998). However, they have profound effects in explaining and producing needed social outcomes and are very important phenomenon’s that warrants a deeper understanding. A leader that will fail to embrace reforms in organizations is orchestrating his own and his organization demise. It is important for leaders to embrace reforms and view contemporary organizations as nonlinear dynamics. By using nonlinear dynamics as a new perspective on leadership, leaders will realize that changes and reform that come with leadership and organizational evolutions are not problems or threats, but actually represent opportunities (Kiel
This Paper is Part of a Literature Review that was written by Mr. Kilian M. Kamota. Please click here to see the entire paper. http://kiliankamota.blogspot.com/2013/03/library-1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment