The practice of managing organization development in public sector organizations: Reassessments, realities, and rewards

Abstract

This article examines some of the questions that have been raised by many scholars, consultants, and managers regarding the relevance of organization development (OD) to public sector organizations: Some of the questions addressed include: To what extent is OD--as a strategy for planning and implementing change--relevant to public sector management? What are the salient differences between public and private sector organizations that can affect the practice and private sector organizations that can affect the practice and effectiveness of OD? What strategies can be used to accommodate these differences? How can the practice of OD be effectively managed in public sector organizations? What kinds of modifications in the field of OD are necessary to enhance its future relevance to public sector organizations? What are the possible impacts of the Reagan cutback management philosophy for OD in the public sector? After exhaustive analysis, it becomes clear that the public manager who develops a fair understanding of the values, assumptions, and technologies of OD, and the OD consultant who demonstrates a clear understanding of the unique nature of the public sector environment, can successfully manage OD in public organizations if they can set modest goals, accept unexpected setbacks, and be satisfied with tackling manageable issues as opposed to attempting to change the entire system at a fundamental level: A central theme of American public administration is that government can and should be run like a business enterprise: Since the earliest days of the American political system, reform efforts have been guided by an enduring belief in what has been termed the“business analogy:” That is, the nature, problems, and general functions of public and corporate management are viewed ad being essestially analogous. Therefore, the assumption is made that the relatively well developed body of ideas and practices of corporate management can and should be applied to the management of government. Public management can and should be more businesslike. While the popularity of the “business analogy” has waned at times during the course of history, belief in it has endured. Despite evidence indicating significant differences between private and public sector organizations (Bower, 1977; Rainey, Backoff 6 Levine, 1976; Drucker 1954; Whyte, 1934; Rawls, 1975; Buchanan, 19741, belief that American business is an appropriate analogy for discussing, evaluating and reforming public management remains very strong. Politicians and interest groups intent on reforming public management continue to look to private sector organizations --the world of corporate management-- for “proven” management practices and techniques. Unfortunately, the urge to reform public management to make government more businesslike, is sometimes so strong that often insufficient forethought or preparation goes into the reform effort. Public administrators rush to introduce the latest fad to emerge from the world of corporate management with little thought as to whether or not it actually fits the world of public management. The assumption'is made that if it works in business, obviously it will work in government. Unfortunately, in many instances, the application of the latest business management practices to public environments proves less than successful. As Uarvin Bernstein notes, “the history of management improvement in the federal government is too often a story of inflated rhetoric, shifting emphasis from one fashionable managerial skill to another, and relatively little in the way of management achievement.”(l) Why haven't the kinds of management practices that have worked in business been more successfully applied to public management? In his book entitled, Uanaqinq the Public's Business, Laurence Lynn suggests that failures in the public sector of “proven” management practices borrowed from the world of corporate management such as management-byobjectives (MBO) and zero-based-budgeting (ZBB), among others, stem from fallacies in the “business analogy,” and inadequate understanding of the political nature of public management. In their zeal to impose an orderly, businesslike, approaeh on federal management, reformers invariably ignore the imperatives of the political rocess and the necessity for adapting management practices to it .(The political process of government creates unique managerial problems for public managers, problems which reform advocates too frequently overlook. Lynn presents a particularly cynical view of one of the latest “proven” management approaches to emerge from the world of corporate management--organization development (OD). Despite evidence to suggest that one of the most important developments in the field of OD has been its rapid growth in the public sector (Zawacki & Warrick, 1976; Golembiewski, Proehl 6 Sink, 1981; Burke, 1978; French, Bell 6 Zawacki, 1983) Lynn contends that, although OD has been written about extensively, Its applications in the public sector are rare. He suggests that OD is little understood in the public sector, and that there are few indications that it will be embraced by senior executives seeking to enhance organizational performance. He sees failure on the part of its proponents to demonstrate a direct relationship between OD approaches and actual increased effectiveness or output as a major barrier to its acceptance. Finally, he suggests that a more fundamental objection to OD and other approaches rooted in the human relations school is their tendency to overlook the extent to which the bureaucratic form of organization serves various functional purposes. Other authors in the field of public administration and in the field of OD, although articulating a far more positive assessment of public sector OD, nonetheless voice concerns with regard to its practice in public sector organizations (Burke, 1980). Burke (1980) notes that there are enough failures on record to “at least give one pause with regard to public sector OD.”(3) On the other hand, Golembiewski (1977) contends that OD is a significant enough development to warrant it being viewed as “one of a future family of mini-paradigms in the conceptual development of the field of public administration. (4) There is clearly a rather wide range of views with regard to public sector OD. This article examines some of these views, and reviews and addresses some of the questions that have been raised by Lynn and others regarding the relevance of OD to public sector xganizations. Some of the questions addressed include: To what extent is OD--as a strategy for planning and implementing change--relevant to public-sector management? What are the salient differences between aublic and private sector organizations that can affect the practice and effectiveness of OD? What strategies can be used to accommodate these differences? How can the practice of OD be effectively managed in public sector organizations? What kinds of modifications in the Eield of 'OD are necessary to enhance its future relevance to public sector organizations? Before addressing these questions, it seems necessary to define #hat is meant by “OD,” briefly outline the values, objectives and unique charactoristics of the field that differentiate it from other strategies used to improve organizational effectiveness, and review some of the transitions that have occurred in the field since its emergence.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.