How OCM Helps the Public Sector Overcome Resistance and Create Meaningful Change

Change is hard Everybody wants progress. Nobody wants change.

Over the course of my consulting career, I have spent probably 40% of my time working with the public sector though local, state, and federal government engagements, most of that in defense. I even have first-hand experience working in the International Trade Administration of the US Department of Commerce before I got into technology. The most common cause for failure is the People portion of the People, Process, and Technology triangle. The technology and the solutions are just fine; we simply forget to bring the people along for the journey. This is almost a universal truth regardless of whether you are a public or a private sector organization. So, I can say from first-hand experience that organizational change management (OCM) in the public sector is especially difficult for its own variety of reasons.

OCM Challenges in the Public Sector

One of the challenges faced by public sector organizations is that they often have a more hierarchical structure than private sector organizations. This can make it difficult to implement change from the top down, as there may be multiple layers of bureaucracy that need to be navigated. In addition, public sector employees may be more resistant to change due to their job security and the fact that they are not motivated by profit in the same way as private sector employees.

Another challenge faced by public sector organizations is limited funding and resources. Unlike private sector organizations, which can raise capital through investors or loans, government agencies are often dependent on taxpayer funding. This can make it difficult to invest in new technology or training programs that are necessary for implementing change.

Inconsistent processes and poor communication can also hinder change efforts in the public sector. Government agencies often have complex rules and regulations that need to be followed, which can make it difficult to implement new processes or procedures. In addition, there may be a lack of communication between different departments or levels of government, which can lead to confusion and resistance to change.

The heart of this article is the discussion around Resistance to Change (R2C) with workers and some ideas on how to address this within the public sector. Some of the common challenges faced by government agencies when implementing change include competing priorities, employee resistance, limited funding and resources, inconsistent processes, and poor communication. In addition, the public sector often has a more complex organizational structure and culture than the private sector, which can make it more resistant to change.

According to research by McKinsey, the failure rate for transformation efforts in the public sector is 80%, compared to 74% in the private sector. In both sectors, it is essential to engage employees and bring them on board with the change effort. However, this can be particularly challenging in the public sector due to its unique organizational structure and culture.

In this article, I am going to discuss several factors that stand out as public-sector challenges and then I will go on to talk about some possible solutions. Of course, I am looking at this thought the perspective of Organizational Change Management, OCM, and how we can use this practice to help public sector take a better approach to the inevitability of change in the organization.

Further OCM Challenges in the Public Sector

In this section, we will talk about some of the aspects of public-sector organizations that make them unique. This is not to say that none of these features pertain to private sector as well, but rather, these are very indicative of the public sector. Also, these observations tend to blend together to form the larger environment in which public-sector workers and leadership exist. While each entity is different, every public-sector leader should recognize these observations as a collection and how they interconnect to form the particular headaches around change that leaders must manage.

• Government is by Nature Risk Averse
• Limited Resources
• Hierarchies can Slow Progress
• Focus Is Inhibited by many Priorities
• Too Few Carrots, Not Enough Sticks
• Politics Can Derail Change
• Citizens Can Impede Progress

Remember that resistance to change is natural, and not all resistance can be completely eliminated. The goal is to manage and minimize resistance while maximizing engagement and positive outcomes. We must tailor the approach to the specific context of your organization, its culture, and the nature of the change to be implemented. The observations that follow are key points in the argument for the value of OCM in the public-sector space. Without competent OCM included in solutions, government leaders can only deal with these issues imperfectly, if at all.

I have long been a proponent of Prosci’s ADKAR methodology. But please note that the OCM space is rich with concepts and methodologies from which we can take a smorgasbord approach. As part of this article, I am also dipping into the concepts put forth in the Balanced Diversity portfolio approach to OCM. (If either of these are new concepts for you, please follow the links to read up on the topic as I will be referring to them throughout this essay.)

Government is by nature risk averse:

While the nature of government service is… service, this gives public-sector organizations an advantage over most private-sector groups in terms of mobilizing staff to live their values and achieve the outcomes of their mission. With that said, the culture of government service can actually be quite resistant to change. Since the public sector, for the most part, lacks the profit motive, it relies on the culture of service to the constituents to power the motivation. Not only do public-sector staff face the same hard questions about change from the personal point of view (How will this effect my job? Will this make my job harder? Will it make me redundant? What’s in it for me?) but also will this change impede my ability to serve my constituents?

If you have ever worked in government, you know that the last place you ever want to be is in the newspapers. A sudden failure to deliver services to your constituents is a great way to find yourself on page 1, above the fold. While positive successes may get extremely limited awareness, such negative attention can cause a very public cascade of inquiries as to what happened and why. In keeping with the old maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” aversion to risk is a very understandable mindset in the public sector.

Hierarchies can slow progress:

Commonly, governments are large entities with very complicated structures, systems and hierarchies. Add to this reporting, legal and regulatory requirements and you have a remarkably difficult organization to navigate from end to end. From the OCM perspective finding not just the people managers but the decision-making leadership and sponsors can be a difficult task indeed.  And please do not forget the inherently risk-averse nature  of public-sector entities and discussed in the previous section. Add to this the possibility of conflicting interests between and among various hierarchies and we can find an extremely challenging approval process for even minor projects and implementations.

ITIL defines governance as the means by which an organization is directed and controlled. Since Beyond20 is an enterprise service management shop, as with most others with technical backgrounds, we tend to think in terms of IT governance, but this definition works well in the macro-organizational view as well. Because the nature of hierarchies in the public sector can be all-to-often confusing, conflicting, and very complicated, it can be said that government often has a governance challenge.

Putting together the budget for a large entity is extremely difficult. It is trying to hit a moving target shooting from a moving platform.  A colleague shared with me one such example: one of the inherent problems a senior government budget office imparted was that Congress needs to approve the budget and that can take a very long time. After approval, it takes still more time for funds to be allocated and consumed.  However, the president and administration highly influence every step of this process should they choose to.  So, when executive or legislative leadership decides it is time to make a point, the priorities can shift quickly even though the budget does not move an inch.  He said, “I can build a budget for a lean set of swift moving vessels or a more traditional navy full of aircraft carriers and battleships . . . but not both and not both at the same time.” This is the kind of mind reading the public-sector planner and reader must be able to pull off to be successful.

Limited resources:

While the private sector is no stranger to this limitation, budgetary constraints loom large over all government organizations. This is especially true when trying to assemble OCM groups or teams. All too frequently, this critical element is seen as an extravagance that the organization simply cannot afford. As a result, these responsibilities get devolved to the team level where busy team members “moonlight” in OCM while still trying to perform their day jobs.

In some cases, agencies are specially resourced to stand up to unusual events. I have seen government staffers work into the wee hours and over the weekends. Under conditions that have most private-sector groups going into continuity mode, clamming up so their resources do not bleed out, these select agencies go into overdrive to provide special services. As an example, I have worked with the Office of Emergency Services for one of the western states. When crises come about and the staff get activated, many team members can find themselves working extremely long and intense hours until the residents are finally safe from the floods, wildfires, earthquakes, or other disasters afflicting the area.

This means ignoring their day jobs until the crisis passes. In these unique situations, the resources really are present, it is the proper allocation of resources that is so challenging.

Focus is inhibited by many priorities:

We have all heard that too much change too fast across too broad a spectrum can kill organizations, and no, public-sector organizations possess no special immunity here. This is another example of depending on leadership to take a reasoned and sanguine approach to change: how much can we tolerate and where will it happen?

But this is condition all-too-often overlaps with the previous observation, hierarchies can slow your progress. When leadership across the hierarchies is not aligned and collaborating, too many initiatives, often conflicting, can launch. This causes management and staff to focus on too many priorities, thus losing their focus on what should be the most critical, all while still committed to the daily delivery of their existing services and functions. ITIL 4’s Guiding Principles offers some insight here, especially the principle of collaborate and promote visibility. Since government organizations usually provide a wide array of services to constituents, it is critical for senior leadership to prioritize these functions so as not to overwhelm the providers with both improvement activities and their regular delivery and support efforts.

Too few carrots, not enough sticks:

One of the major benefits of government service is the overall stability of employment. But this benefit does come with some downsides: private-sector leaders have a limited arsenal to choose from to incentivize staff. Since financial spiffs such as bonuses can be quite limited, recognition is one of the key elements for management to work with. Publicly celebrating success and achievement remains a powerful tool and OCM can be an excellent engine for spreading the word. Likewise, most public-sector managers will acknowledge that their options for penalizing lack of compliance and resistance is fairly limited as well. Positive recognition will be one of the most potent arrows in your OCM quiver.

Politics can derail change:

Just as sudden market changes can have jarring effect in the private sector, politics can have equally seismic impacts on government. These influences can come from election results, political parties, interest groups and the like. Such pressure can be impossible to resist and can create very complex conditions where change initiatives may be seen as divisive or even politically motivated. With little or no control over these outside influences, OCM as a practice can be quite limited. Still, it can help us to address resistance to change through effective and efficient communications and perhaps even with enhanced training and preparation programs.

Citizens, not just staff, can impede progress:

Much like organized politics can and will impact changes in public-sector organizations, the citizens and constituencies can have just as much impact if they perceive changes as threats to the services they receive and depend upon. A stroll through my neighborhood is a very well-manicured gallery of yard signs either applauding city government actions and protections or demands to recall city council members based on what they have or have not done. The same internal OCM campaigns may be able to help your government-services users and customers to understand why the changes are important and how the changes can positively impact them. Without robust external communications, citizens can certainly force change initiatives to grind to halt. It is critical to appeal to their interests.

Managing Resistance to Change in the Public Sector

To reiterate what I discussed earlier in this article, change is an inevitable aspect of any public-sector organization’s growth and adaptation to today’s dynamic environment. However, initiating and implementing change, particularly in the government sector, is often met with resistance due to the various factors we discussed above including bureaucratic structures, established norms, and fear of the unknown. To successfully navigate and overcome this resistance, public-sector leaders must employ a comprehensive approach that takes into consideration the unique challenges and characteristics of the government sector. Let’s talk about a comprehensive strategy to address and overcome resistance to change in government sector organizational change initiatives.

Guiding Principles of OCM in the Public Sector

Resistance to change is a natural human response rooted in psychological, sociological, and organizational factors. In the context of government organizations, this resistance is often intensified due to factors such as rigid hierarchical structures, risk-averse cultures, and historical inertia. It is crucial to recognize that resistance is not inherently negative; it can be an indicator of stakeholders’ investment in the current state and their concerns about potential disruptions. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of the sources and types of resistance is essential for devising effective strategies.

Communicate Effectively and Transparently:

Clear and transparent communication serves as the cornerstone of any successful change initiative. In government sectors, where information flow can be constrained, leaders and sponsors must prioritize open dialogue. ADKAR’s guidance here would emphasize the importance of Awareness, Desire and even Knowledge and Ability to achieve these ends. The communication strategy should include:

• Rationale and Vision: Articulate the reasons for change and the envisioned future state. Emphasize the positive outcomes for both the organization and its stakeholders.
• Engagement: Involve employees, citizens, and other stakeholders early in the change process. Their input can lead to better solutions and foster a sense of ownership.
• Continuous Updates: Regularly share progress, challenges, and adjustments. This dispels rumors, reduces uncertainty, and maintains transparency.

Involve and Empower Stakeholders:

Government organizations often have a hierarchical structure that can hinder participation from lower-level employees. By involving employees at all levels in the change process, leaders can tap into their expertise and alleviate resistance. This involvement can take various forms:

• Cross-Functional Teams: Form interdisciplinary teams to brainstorm solutions, identify potential roadblocks, and implement change collaboratively.
• Training and Skill Development: Equip employees with the necessary skills to adapt to the new system. This empowers them and reduces the fear of incompetence.
• Ownership and Autonomy: Delegate decision-making authority to teams or individuals directly affected by the change. This gives them a sense of control and responsibility.

Leadership and Role Modeling:

Leaders play a pivotal role in shaping organizational culture and influencing attitudes towards change. Prosci ADKAR emphasizes the centrality of leadership and especially of good sponsors. Having leadership consciously, publicly, and demonstrably advocate for the New Normal status of the coming change does quite a bit to show that this is on the way. Leadership visibly leading the change helps to manage substantial amounts of resistance. Government sector leaders should:

• Demonstrate Commitment: Show unwavering commitment to the change initiative. When leaders are visibly invested, employees are more likely to buy into the change.
• Visible Support: Address concerns, answer questions, and actively participate in change-related activities. This demonstrates that leadership is not detached from the challenges faced by employees.
• Lead by Example: Embrace the change personally and share their own stories of adaptation. This humanizes the change process and makes it relatable.

Address Concerns and Fears:

Resistance often stems from fears related to RIFs (reduction in force), reorganizations, job security, loss of control, and disruption of routines. Government employees might be particularly worried about changes affecting public services. Leaders must address these concerns:

• Job Security: Provide reassurance about job continuity and explore options for retraining or reassignment. Communicate how the change aligns with long-term organizational stability. This might include addressing career paths and opportunities for advancement.
• Loss of Control: Highlight areas where employees can still exercise control and influence. Emphasize how the change is an opportunity for growth and development.
• Service Continuity: Illustrate how the change will ultimately improve public services and contribute to the organization’s mission.
• Feedback Loops: Create feedback loops so that employees all along a service can see (in real time if possible) what their efforts are generating in terms of end results.

Adopt Gradual and Incremental Implementation:

Big-bang approaches can trigger overwhelming resistance, especially in risk-averse government sectors. Gradual implementation allows for testing, learning, and adjustments:

• Pilot Programs: Test the change in a smaller, controlled environment before full-scale implementation. This helps identify issues and refine the approach.
• Phased Rollout: Implement the change in stages, with each stage building on the lessons learned from the previous one. This minimizes disruption and enhances adaptability.

Inspire using Recognition and Rewards:

Acknowledge and reward employees for their efforts in embracing the change:

• Incentives: Offer incentives such as recognition, promotions, and, where possible, bonuses to those who actively engage in the change process and contribute to its success.
• Celebrate Milestones: Recognize and celebrate achievements along the way. This reinforces the positive aspects of change and maintains motivation.

Support Data-Driven Decision Making:

In government sectors, decisions are often influenced by data and evidence. Utilize data to support the need for change:

• Quantitative Data: Provide data that showcases the inefficiencies or shortcomings of the current system. Highlight how the proposed change addresses these issues.
• Qualitative Feedback: Gather feedback from employees, citizens, and stakeholders about their experiences with the current system. Use this to build a case for change. I have seen public-sector leadership use anonymous surveys to gather internal sentiment and then use this to make adjustments in services and policies.

Identify Change Agents and Champions:

Identify and nurture change champions within the organization:

• Change Agents: Appoint individuals who are enthusiastic about the change and can influence their peers. These agents can facilitate communication and provide guidance.
• Champion Network: Create a network of advocates across different levels and departments. Their enthusiasm can ripple through the organization and inspire others.

Provide Training and Support:

Invest in comprehensive training to equip employees with the skills and knowledge required to navigate the change:

• Technical Training: Ensure that employees are proficient in using new technologies or systems. This reduces anxiety related to technological changes.
• Change Management Training: Educate employees about the psychology of change, addressing resistance, and the benefits of adaptability. Leverage lessons learned from Prosci ADKAR and Balanced Diversity for example.

Encourage Feedback and Adaptation:

A change initiative should be viewed as an iterative process. Encourage ongoing feedback and make necessary adjustments:

• Listening Channels: Establish mechanisms for employees and stakeholders to provide feedback. Act on their suggestions and demonstrate a willingness to adapt. And if you do not act on them or do not want to act on them at least acknowledge the feedback in a meaningful way. Remember, what ever you say, or do not, is its own form of communication.
• Flexibility: If certain aspects of the change are not yielding desired outcomes, be open to revisiting those elements and making changes accordingly.

Conclusion

Overcoming resistance to change in a government sector organizational change initiative can be a challenging task. OCM in government is particularly challenging as there are numerous partners, policies, and cross-departmental or agency priorities. The unique challenges posed by bureaucratic structures, risk-averse cultures, and historical inertia necessitate a tailored approach. By fostering a culture of transparency, involving stakeholders, providing support, and addressing concerns, leaders can pave the way for successful change implementation. This intricate web of interests can make it tough to execute change efficiently. However, there are several approaches that can be employed to help overcome resistance and ensure a successful change initiative.

• One of the first steps in overcoming resistance to change is to understand the reasons behind the resistance. By understanding the reasons behind the resistance, leaders can develop strategies to address these concerns and help employees feel more comfortable with the change.
• Communication is key to overcoming resistance to change. This can help employees understand the need for the change and feel more invested in its success.
• Involving employees in the change process can also help overcome resistance. This can also help leaders identify potential roadblocks and develop strategies to address them.
• Providing training and support for employees can also help overcome resistance to change. By providing training and support, leaders can help employees feel more confident in their ability to adapt to the change.
• It is important for leaders to lead by example. Leaders should model the behaviors and attitudes they want to see in their employees. By demonstrating a positive attitude towards the change and a willingness to adapt, leaders can help employees feel more comfortable with the change.

Embracing change not only drives organizational growth but also fosters a more agile and responsive government sector that can better serve its citizens and adapt to a rapidly evolving world.