SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

MMBA 532 Business Research Project

Business Research Report

New Zealand public service leaders and

David Boone
Student ID: 300333372
Executive Summary

Organisational change in the public sector is important to keep pace with the external

environment and increasing customer expectations in order to maintain and improve the

effectiveness of public service.

This study analysed the change management experiences of eight public service leaders in

New Zealand. Through conversations understanding was gained around the early stages of

change management, in particular, how decisions are made about what to change.

Analysis of relevant literature identified a gap relating to how change needs are diagnosed

and how change management vision is established. Existing change management guidance is

largely focused on management practice once the secondary state of an organisation, the state

after change, has already been envisaged. The idealism “deliver change” is a common

suggestion in change management literature, however the interpretation and guidance around

delivering change is just that – change delivery, not change inception. To undertake an

examination of how public service leaders go about diagnosing change needs, referred to in

this report as change inception, the following research question provided focus for this study:

How do public service leaders describe their experiences of change inception, and what
can be learned from these experiences?

A synthesis of the literature review findings and the data collected from interviewing public

service leaders led to the development of a framework for change inception thinking. This

framework is intended to be applied and adapted by future public service leaders in

diagnosing the change needs of public service organisations.

Boone 2
Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 2
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Problem Description ........................................................................................................................... 5
Literature Review .................................................................................................................................... 7
The elusiveness of understanding organisational change needs ....................................................... 8
Variable perceptions of change need ............................................................................................... 11
Influencing factors on the change inception process ....................................................................... 15
Research Design .................................................................................................................................... 17
Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 17
Method ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Technique.......................................................................................................................................... 18
Results ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Study results - the elusiveness of understanding organisational change needs ................ 20
Study results - variable perceptions of change needs ............................................................. 23
Study results - influencing factors on the change inception process ................................... 26
Key Findings and discussion .................................................................................................................. 28
A multi-focus framework for change inception thinking .................................................................. 28
Limitations and credibility................................................................................................................. 37
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 38
References ............................................................................................................................................ 39

Boone 3
Introduction

This study has explored experiences of New Zealand public service organisation leaders and

the primary stage of change management, referred to as change inception. Change inception

refers to a change phase before change implementation, at the beginnings of strategic

planning or before emergent changes become tangible, when perceptions are formed and

decisions are made about what needs to change.

Through engaging conversation with eight public service leaders and analysing their accounts

of change management experiences this study sought understanding of change inception. In

deciding what needs to change how do leaders identify organisational strengths to grow and

weaknesses to mitigate in order to improve the effectiveness of public service? Specifically,

how do they decide what needs to change, do they decide or do they follow, and what

influence do they hold or have placed upon them?

The following focus research question provided focus for this study:

How do public service leaders describe their experiences of change inception, and what
can be learned from these experiences?

This fundamental question was aimed at generating a framework for change inception

thinking. Change perceptions are driven by experiences and circumstances which are always

unique. However there was an assumption with this research that there is enough consistency

with the challenges faced when deciding the change needs of an organisation that a

framework can be applied. This study has produced some insight based on unique

experiences and a framework has been derived which may be valuable for application or

adaptation by other leaders.

In the following section I describe problems faced by typical public service organisations to

establish the need to analyse the experiences of individuals and their methods deployed to

address these problems.

Boone 4
Problem Description

Change management in public service organisations is about increasing value for society.

The tightening of government revenues and increasing pressure on governments to “do more

with less” are leading to increased demands on the public sector to deliver change (Grant

Thornton, 2014). Pressures on budgets and rising citizen expectations for better performance

in economic, social and environmental challenges that are prevailing are calling for

innovation of service delivery in the public sector (Alves, 2013).

Envisaging an organisational change is based on a leader’s individual experiences that drive

their methods of understanding. Once the idea has been envisaged, delivering successful

change is difficult to say the least. It is widely accepted that change is likely to fail with

failure rates in the order of 70 percent (Davis et al, 2012). Staff motivation or resistance,

incomplete understanding of parts of the organisation that require change, or an inability to

understand important external drivers, among other organisational behaviour phenomena, can

all contribute to the demise of change initiatives. Envisaging the right changes for an

organisation certainly does not circumvent all change delivery challenges but it must at least

add to the likelihood of success.

Change inception methods used by individuals may be unique but public service

organisations all have certain things in common, for example public funding, bureaucratic

structure and process, or political influence. During the inception of change there may be

competing interests that influence change objectives such as the perceived needs of powerful

staff or political pressures that have already formed a path for change inception. Public

service organisations often possess complex situational factors, such as a diverse range of

service functions or political pressure which complicate the understanding or identification of

change needs.

Boone 5
There are differences between management objectives in the private vs. the public sector

which lead to different clarity in identifying change needs. These differences can be

described simply with the value chain concept. In the private sector the game is to increase

shareholder wealth by increasing margins. This can be expressed with the formula:

(Cost + Margin) = Sale Price

Sale price is clear and easy to measure. Market disruption (Christiansen, 1997) to anything

related to the sale price is relatively easy to monitor. If organisational culture is suffering and

declining sale price is a symptom, again this is easily noticed. Therefore the need for change

is tangible. Change in the private sector will ultimately be aimed at increasing margins.

Change failure provides advantage to competition so the stakes are always high.

In the public sector there are no goods for sale, however the value chain concept is still

appropriately used. Margin in this context is the added societal benefit created by converting

taxpayer funds into public services:

(Cost + Margin) = Value

The meaning of value is complex. Value is in the eye of the beholder, everyone in a

democracy has a say, publically perceived values can shift, and elected leadership can

periodically be replaced. Change in the public sector is aimed at increasing society benefit.

Change failure can result in reduced efficiency and effectiveness which is detrimental to

society’s benefits received by the services provided but the taxpayer may never know the

extent to change success or failure – revenue in the form of taxes has no competition, only

competing budgets to deliver various services.

With the interpretation of “value” being dependent on perceptions and subjectivity, many

things can lead to a value shift. For example, a political power shift, a new CEO and the

perspective they bring, a call for change from dissatisfied taxpayers, or financial constraints

arising from public demands for more services from limited budgets. Leaders may need to

Boone 6
identify change needs and become a transformation agent (Barth-Farkas and Vera, 2014) of

their organisation, or they may need to defend unwarranted perceptions that change is needed

and promote stability (Abrahamson, 2004) in certain areas of the organisation. How do

public service leaders in particular decide what, if any, changes are needed?

Before engaging the leaders of eight New Zealand public service organisations in a

conversation about their change inception experience a review of relevant literature was

undertaken.

Literature Review

Analysis of relevant literature identified a gap relating to how change management vision is

established. The idealism “deliver change” is a common suggestion in change management

literature, however the interpretation and guidance around delivering change is just that –

change delivery, not change inception. Change management guidance is largely focused on

management practice once the secondary state of an organisation, the state after change, has

already been envisaged.

Early during the critical review of relevant literature I noticed trends in my thinking. These

trends developed into three categorised research themes. The following literature review

summary is structured under these themes:

 The elusiveness of understanding organisational change needs

 Variable perceptions of change needs

 Influencing factors on the change inception process

Relating to each research theme a series of questions arose. These research questions

stemmed from good practice identified in literature, or in some cases from critical analysis of

literature. Questions were intended to stimulate discussion on a comprehensive coverage of

Boone 7
change inception practices for which the research subjects participating in this study would

be able to share their experiences with formulating change vision.

The elusiveness of understanding organisational change needs

Many change management models are vague in regards to the vision development phase of

change. Warrick (1976) describes the before-change phase as “the diagnostic phase”. This

phase is also referred to in terms of transformational leadership as “developing the change

vision” (McShane et al, 2013). Warrick (1976) argues that this diagnostic phase is the most

important of all change phases, preceding the “intervention” or “stabilization” phases, the

diagnostic phase begins with understanding what needs to change. The diagnostic phase is

recognised as critically important yet there is little guidance available within literature around

how to do it.

Existing models and methods for change management

Perhaps the best known change theorist, Kotter describes eight steps to transforming

organisations. The first three steps - establishing urgency, forming a guiding coalition, and

creating the vision (Kotter, 2007) - are early in the change process, but all are sequenced after

the inception of a change concept. A critical perspective against “establishing urgency” is

that there is an assumption by this model that change is urgent, and it is the role of

management to inform employees that it is urgent because they are unknowing (Bridgman,

2016). From an alternative perspective to Kotter’s management-centric view of change -

managers could seek bottom-up input from staff about what changes are indeed urgent. And

by collaborating with staff, making them the information providers about urgent change

needs, the “coalition of support” would be built during a diagnosis phase. Or are staff really

too busy in their daily roles to conceptualise urgent change needs that only a leading manager

can conceive? This alternative perspective to Kotter is speculative about methods that may

Boone 8
be used by leaders to collect change need information. Engaging discussion with the

participating CEs about how change needs are assessed was clearly important.

Another change management model, the MARS model (McShane, 2013) - Motivation,

Ability, Role perceptions, and Situational factors - provides guidance around diffusing

change after the vision has already been established. This is useless for the inception of

change.

Alternatively, the Action Research Process (Whitney and Schau, 1998) does provide a

process step around diagnostics for change need.

Figure A. Action Research Model (Whitney and Schau, 1998)

The process is unclear for the “gathering data” element of the diagnosis phase and change

leaders must still design their own methods of change inception.

The 4-D Model - Appreciative Enquiry Approach (Barret and Cooperrider, 1990) frames

change inception around a positive focus on opportunities rather than a traditional problem

focus.

Figure B. The 4-D Model - Appreciative Enquiry Approach (Barret and Cooperrider, 1990)

The 4-D model does offer some structure to formulating change inception however it fails to

recognise certain realities such as political pressures that may trump the model’s stages, or

Boone 9
the vast complexity of understanding the “what is” and “what might be” that may exist with

complex public service organisations. And “engaging dialogue” is cliché. If there is a lack of

shared perspective around organisational change needs, then there can only be a dialogue of

cross purposes. A useful model is adaptable, however the 4-D model is simply not clear

enough.

Understanding the organisation’s mission and values

Many change management models begin with understanding or defining the organisation’s

mission. Brookes (2014) for example, describes a first step to change initiatives as defining

the institutional mission and suggests that leaders must promote institutional values to

increase the benefit of public interests.

Another supporter of aligning change with organisation mission, Ostroff (2006) sets out five

principles of public sector change management, step 1 being “Improve performance against

agency mission”. Ostroff suggests that organisational mission is easily blurred or lost as

political priorities shift and agency leaders come and go. Ostroff claims that even in the best

of situations, mission is subject to varying interpretations. Does the mission statement of any

public service organisation not involve some variation of delivering efficient effective

services for the benefit of society? There may be various spins on this concept representing a

local flavour or unique organisational circumstances, but filtering the elaborative dressings of

any public service organisation mission would result in a fairly generic “public good” motive.

Therefore, is the organisational mission as critical as Ostroff suggests when forming change

inception concepts, or is the generic organisational mission a given?

Focus questions for data collection

The following research questions were developed to stimulate interview discussion on the

topic of the elusiveness of understanding organisational change needs.

Boone 10
a) What challenge or influencing pressures have been experienced with the diagnostic

phase of change inception?

b) What methods do you use to collect information about the change needs of your

organisation?

c) How urgent are the change needs of your organisation, and how do you know this?

d) Is change inception commonly rooted in a fundamental connection to

organisational mission?

Variable perceptions of change need

Perceiving change management with bias would suggest that there is a truthful objective

method or process by which to follow in order to deliver successful change. I would argue

that change management understanding is merely a set of subjective perceptions. There is no

bias, only variable perceptions of truth.

Understanding, what is change?

The very meaning of change is vague. Therefore, with widespread interpretation of what

change means there must be widespread variability in the perceptions of change. A brief list

of change-describing metaphors, for example, provides insight into the variance of how

change is understood and perceived. Pettigrew et al (2001) describes the concept of

“continuous change” where change is an ongoing, evolving and cumulative process. Sinclair

(2014) describes change as a dance where intuition and the emotional climate of the

organisation formulate the emergent patterns of change more than management influence.

Abrahamson (2004) uses the analogy of comparing the organisation to a car’s engine and

suggests that leaders must know “how the motor is running”, hot, cold, too fast or slow.

Fundamentally, do leaders describe change differently?

Boone 11
Change possibilities vs benefits of stability

There is a dominance in change management literature that change is inevitable, desirable

and/or manageable (Sturdy and Grey, 2003). A critical perspective of this view follows.

Is change inevitable? Perhaps, about 2,500 years ago Heraclitus claimed “the only thing

constant is change”. However, in terms of managing an organisation some argue, Burchell

and Kolb (2006) for example, that a period of stability must occur or even be maintained.

Whether change is desirable is surely dependent on perspective. And in regard to

manageable, proportionately high failure rates suggest otherwise. Sturdy and Grey and many

others suggest that change is manageable. The numbers simply argue the contrary, that

successful change management is unlikely. Does this imply that there is an inflated

perception of managerial power and control over change compared with reality?

Viewing change as inevitable and manageable leads to organisational change being perceived

as essential to success. If some circumstances call for maintaining stability or avoiding

change, then can stability needs of an organisation be overlooked by leaders trained to look

for constant change needs? Sturdy and Grey (2003) argue that when change is perceived as

necessary then it defaults to being perceived as good, as opposed to alternative no-change

options. Too much change is clearly not good. Abrahamson (2004) warns of change chaos

evoked by leaders changing for the sake of change.

Perceiving change needs or stability needs of an organisation is perception based on

individual views. Individual character traits therefore, must have influence on perceptive

tendencies of how organisational needs are perceived.

Individual character traits of public sector leaders

Numerous sources, for example Hogan et al (1994), Mumford et al (2000) or McShane et al

(2013), can be drawn upon to define individual characteristics that make good leaders. For

example, leaders are seen as being charismatic, competent, authentic, ethical, and

Boone 12
transformational. There are known personality risks in leaders also. To mention a few

known risks - narcissism, being more perceptive to personal needs over the organisation’s,

vision formation reflecting personal needs over the organisation’s, being too bold or chasing

a vision too far out of reach, or denial of flawed vision (Conger, 1990).

Individual experience and expertise certainly have a role in a leader’s inception of change.

Creative leaders have long been recognized as institution builders that fashion organisations

through enduring values (Brookes, 2014) and inspire staff to deliver the organisation’s

mission. However, I challenge this notion that leaders possess the driving power to deliver

organisation mission, they are merely one cog in the wheel (albeit a highly visible and

important cog). t’Hart (2011) is critical of the notion of ultimate CEO power where it is

remarked “we cannot simply equate successful leadership with successful political, policy, or

organisational outcomes. It is difficult to demonstrate unequivocally that a CEO’s

performance affects business performance [including public organisational performance]:

there are simply too many intervening factors to make straightforward and strong causal

connection plausible.”

Ostroff (2006) describes a typical limitation of successful public-sector leaders that often

result in their placement at the executive level of bureaucratic organisations. It is in the

nature of bureaucrats to respect barriers. Change leaders use their crafts to find ways over or

around barriers. Change leaders do not abide by change resistance barriers like many typical

bureaucrats, they lead through barriers.

I challenge the common idealistic language used to describe change leadership, “lead through

barriers” is emotive, but what if the barriers are complex, unknown and what if leading

through them involves supporting emergent change rather than directing a planned change?

In fact, is “leading through” simply a superficial phrase that is vague in meaning to begin

Boone 13
with? Can leaders be credited with the success of an organisation with multiple cultural

influences?

Public service organisations are complex. Often new leaders enter with an experience base

that is limited to particular aspects of the organisation but not the whole. Leaders, therefore

are limited in their change inception capability to focus on what they know, which may or

may not be the area of change need for the organisation.

How do various leaders describe themselves when thinking of strengths and weaknesses

briefly examined above? Are they aware?

From character traits stems preference for change models. Change is commonly referred to

in two types, planned or emergent. Which do public service leaders prefer and is there

correlation between individual character type and organisational circumstances?

Preference for emergent change facilitator or planned change designer?

Sinclair (2014) describes the creativity and knowledge creation values of emergent change.

This ties into the concept described by Alves (2013) where service delivery innovation is

derived from collaboration and co-creation with the organisation and the customer. The

relating principle in these two articles is that leaders are facilitators of successful change, not

designers. Leaders who are not supportive of change, in policy, management practice, or in

charismatic embodiment of the change are known to contribute to change failures (Kaplan et

al, 1991), therefore it seems appropriate that change inception should be founded more in

seeking opportunities to support emergent, collaborative change rather than a rational process

of observing, diagnosing and fixing problems with planned change. Will the participating

CEs in this study concur?

Focus questions for data collection

The following research questions were developed to stimulate interview discussion on the

topic of variable perceptions of change needs:

Boone 14
e) What does organisational change mean?

f) Is change good?

g) Is defining what not to change an important part of change management?

h) How much power or control do you have to evoke change?

i) How does the experience you bring to your role help, or hinder the organisation’s

change needs?

j) Is your change thinking founded in emergent change facilitation or planned

changed leadership?

Influencing factors on the change inception process

Political reality

The realities of political influence cannot be ignored in public service organisations. With a

new CEO there may be political pressures arising from a change agenda that was present

before their presence in the organisation. Change inception potential may be flexible and

based on CEO vision, or limited in scope by external or pre-existing demands for change.

At the officer level the Chief Executive may encounter a number of situational challenges

arising from political leaders with different agendas. Politically, the intent of change may

exist before the CEO even begins the job which may heavily influence the inception of

change. Pandy and Wright (2006) suggest that political influence can have an effect of

increasing organisational goal ambiguity which can only deter a CEs endeavours to follow a

change inception process founded in clarity of purpose.

Are they ready for change?

As with the previously noted car motor analogy of Abrahamson (2004) that suggests periodic

staff surveys should be undertaken to gauge whether the motor is running well – it is

Boone 15
commonly accepted that engagement is a valuable metric to gauge the health of an

organisation (McKinsey & Company, 2016). Engagement surveys could be aimed at

understanding the organisation’s capacity for further change in the context of risks associated

with a previous overload of change initiatives leaving behind change related burnout or

chaos.

If an organisation’s change needs are related to residual dysfunction left over from a previous

change failure, Ford and Ford (2009) describe the value in listening to the resistant feedback

of employees who are the experts in the organisation’s operations. A failed change may

actually be a step in the right direction if the feedback is reacted upon productively.

Service delivery innovation

Performance in the public sector is typically low (De Waal, 2010). Organisational innovation

is the only way to deliver on expectations to do things better.

Enabling innovation can be contradicting in bureaucratic public service organisations where

free thinking may not be culturally common or even acceptable. Collm and Schedler (2014)

claim that to accomplish organisational innovation organisations need to ensure connectivity

between established communication streams and alternative communication streams that are

deviant, or high performing non-conforming. Kalargiros and Manning (2015) describe the

same concept about valuing creative thinking which they label as divergent thinking,

“moving outwards from a problem in many directions and thinking without boundaries”.

Encouraging connections with deviant communications streams is made more difficult by

maintaining a politically acceptable image and the typical dominance of bureaucratic

hierarchy in public service organisations discourages deviators.

Sources pertaining to service-based innovation are vague in regards to methods around how

to deliver service delivery innovation. Consistent with change management literature in

general, idealistic language is common when it comes to service innovation literature. For

Boone 16
example, “improving the image of the organisation”, or “boosting the responsiveness of

services provided to meet citizen needs” (Alves, 2013), or “describing a balance between

administration, stability and predictability on one hand, and leadership, change and

innovation on the other” (Daglio et al, 2015) offer little guidance on how to improve service

delivery functions. What does service delivery innovation really mean to the CEs

participating in this study?

Focus questions for data collection

The following research questions were developed to stimulate interview discussion on the

topic of influencing factors on the change inception process:

k) What does service delivery innovation mean to you? Is this a fundamental

objective of change in your organisation?

l) Is the employee feedback of previous change failure valuable to the existing

change needs of the organisation?

m) Has political influence instigated change that in your view preceded other

necessary changes?

n) Are your staff change resilient? How can the aptitude for change be gauged?

Research Design

Methodology

Fundamental to any study’s methodology is the paradigm in which beliefs are basic in the

sense that they must be accepted simply on faith, however well argued, where there is no way

to establish their ultimate truth (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). The interpretivist paradigm is

based on naturalistic approach of data collection such as interviews and observations.

Boone 17
Research undertaken within an interpretivist paradigm usually has meaning emerge towards

the end of the research process which was true in this case where the concluding framework

was derived at the end of the study.

An interpretivist paradigm and phenomenological methodology has guided this study as

knowledge was sought by deducing theory based on the subjective experiences shared by the

interviewees.

Method

An inductive approach starts with observations and theories are proposed towards the end of

the research process. Inductive research involves the search for pattern from observation and

the development of explanations – theories – for those patterns (Dudovskiy, 2016). This

study employed inductive reasoning based on learning from the experiences of the

interviewed CEs.

Technique

The interviewees

Data collection was undertaken by interviewing seven CEOs and one tier-two executive of

public service organisations in New Zealand ranging from small local government, to large

central government agencies.

Each of these CEs had less than four year tenures in their roles. There is an assumption that

new CEOs will typically be faced with challenges which encompass understanding the

change needs of their organisations and be thinking actively about organisational change

needs.

For the purposes of limiting the scope of this research a limitation was originally envisaged to

restrict the samples to local government organisations, Regional, City, or District Councils.

Through contact networks opportunities arose to include two central government

Boone 18
organisations. These two central government samples were included although they were

somewhat of an anomaly, however commonalities existed and became a useful element of the

study as meanings emerged late in the inductive process.

No Ministry representation was included in the study. Parliamentary government

organisations, if included in the samples would have further expanded the scope of study

which was purposefully limited.

The CEOs interviewed represented a range from large to small public service organisations

with a wide range of service delivery functions. This number of interviews, with the

diversity in scale and scope of the organisations involved provided a suitable cross section of

public service organisations in New Zealand.

The interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted where the list of focus questions for data

collection derived from the literature review were asked of each interviewee and

supplementary, or probing follow-up questions were asked when appropriate to stimulate

more in-depth discussion. The interviewees were free to articulate additional information,

beyond the focus questions, as they saw fit. This was encouraged with the intent that any

extra information provided could show unanticipated trends.

Results

This section summarises the findings of the first part of the core research question, how do

public service leaders describe their experiences of change inception. The previously noted

research themes proved to be valid channels to focus the collection of the interview data.

That is, with each interview the three research themes provided stimulation on a range of

discussion topics related to change inception thinking. Below is a summary of all collected

interview data categorised into the three research themes.

Boone 19
Study results - the elusiveness of understanding organisational change
needs

All CEs were involved with leading their organisations through a significant change process

relatively soon after, or at least within a few months of beginning in their roles. All were

relatively quick to act on change diagnosis and subsequent changes in their organisations.

One CE had arranged an external consultancy to arrive and begin assessing change needs on

day one in the role of CE.

The participating CEs identified a wide range of influences and challenges with diagnosing

change needs. Remarks were common about the diversity and complexity of services that

their organisations were involved with and the difficulty that comes with understanding that

complexity.

Many of the responses were centred around change implementation rather than change need

diagnosis, for example entrenched culture, poor awareness of stakeholder perspective, staff

being unaware of change needs, other powerful leaders within the organisation that were

creating a type of competing federation within, and the legacy of the previous CEO were

some of the comments more relevant to change implementation. One CE remarked about the

difference in perception between himself compared to the rest of the organisation’s view. His

view was that the change process had been rather slow and insignificant whereas the majority

of the organisation felt that the change process had been rapid and high impact.

Responses that were clearly related to diagnosing change needs included comments about

budget reductions instigating change need, the Council (or Board) being unclear or overly

assertive, and mistrust or being provided inaccurate information from unsupportive staff.

One CE remarked about their personal preference to lead the organisation through

widespread change and a challenge during diagnosis was to reduce the actual diagnosis focus

to a more realistic, achievable scope. Only one interviewee noted the obvious, that a

Boone 20
challenge was learning the new role and the organisation whilst simultaneously considering

change needs.

Every CE described some type of model based thinking. References to models included the

work of others like, City Vitals statistical frameworks, Edward Glasear’s Triumph of the City,

or the New Zealand State Services Commission’s Performance Improvement Framework.

And in some cases the CE’s descriptions of model based thinking eluded to self-created,

basic models, such as casting organisational perspective into three lenses - actual, governance

and staff, or thinking of the organisation in three dimensions – people, projects and financial.

Talking with people and gaining a subjective “feel” for the change needs was a common

response from most of the CEs when asked about methods for collecting information. Nearly

all of the CEs remarked about the importance of not dictating change too quickly without

listening to people first. There were two exceptions however, one referred only to external

advice and one other referred to a restructure that had begun within two months of becoming

CEO and noted that “staff weren’t that involved. I went out with my drivers and asked staff,

do you have anything to add to this?” In the latter case staff were desperate for change to

occur according to this CE.

There was a common emphasis on the importance of utilising technology to create

opportunities for staff and customers to provide feedback, for example one organisation set

up a web site dedicated to the change project that was designed for mobile devices so staff

could gather information about the change process anytime, anywhere. The same participant

referred to a technology based method of disseminating change project information by means

of regular open access conference calls where the CE and other members of the change

project team would allow all staff to listen to their meetings.

There were two CEs that noted the value of creating opportunities for various personality

types, introverted and extroverted, to feel comfortable offering change related information,

Boone 21
for example workshop scenarios are good for the extroverted and there was an anonymous

voting system established to allow introverted participation with change topics.

Many referred to external advice about change needs as being valuable. However, there was

more than one caution noted by the CEs about overreliance on external advice. One stressed

that the value of external advice is more relevant when fresh perspective is needed which is

often not the case with a new CE who has fresh perspective of their own. Another noted that

there is a common over valuing of consultant advice that could be derived, to some extent

with better quality, if the same tasks were handled internally.

All referred to some form of considering technical or financial information to inform their

views, obviously the significance of the factual element of information cannot be disregarded.

In general, there was a common approach to balance quantitative and qualitative methods for

gathering information about the organisations.

In regards to change urgency one response noted the opportunity to act on change when new

in a CEO role, people expect it, and therefore change resilience and acceptance is high.

There were balanced responses to the question of how change urgency is assessed. One CE

remarked about weighing up both technical metrics and the more intuitive measures like

sensing stress and bad external relationships with important stakeholders. Most referred to a

perspective of change urgency that was dependent upon external considerations more so than

internal indicators. One response noted a desperate situation where good staff were on the

verge of leaving. Two interviewees responded with a sense of no involvement with

establishing urgency, these two remarked that the Council will determine the urgency of

change, and another noted that external advice had determined whether change was needed.

There were many remarks about an overall organisational need to connect with the customer

better and a consensus view that this was an urgent need.

Boone 22
The question about change vision being connected to organisational mission was quite

diverse in response data. Responses ranged from absolutely affirmative to highly doubtful

whether there was direct connection to change vision and organisational mission. In one case

the CE noted, yes, but clarified that the organisation’s mission was not clear so they were in

the process of redefining that too, to match the direction of the change already underway.

There was one acknowledgement that sometimes changes occur that are driven by external

factors, for example health and safety legislation, in which case these changes should at least

be consistent with organisational mission but not necessarily directly connected.

Study results - variable perceptions of change needs

Articulating the definition of change involved a consistency across all interviewee responses.

In some way each response emphasised the importance of culture or a connection to the

organisation’s story of “what we’re here for”, or “the why”. Most diminished the importance

of rearranging structural positions within the organisation. There were multiple expressions

relating to organisational change as a continuum, an evolutionary journey that was never

complete. These expressions referred to cyclical change and some noted that periods of

change followed by periods of consolidation as the process required for receiving benefits of

successful change.

Responses varied when reflecting on whether change is good. More than one response was

cautious and avoided any definitive answers with vague statements like, “change is good only

if it is good”, or “change is good, but not for change’s sake. Change has to really be for a

purpose.” Some responses were strongly affirmative with answers like, “Always, absolutely

yes”. And some were circumspect on the topic representing an appreciation for care and

caution around change, for example, “I do think change can be good. There are costs to

change, generally organisations go backward before they go forward”, or “Yes, not always.

But it’s inevitable, staying still is not an option so you’ve got to make it good.”

Boone 23
Upon the subject of change being inevitable these statements were made, “we’ll stop

changing when people stop wanting better services”, or “I’ve always liked this phrase, the

evolutionary imperative is change or die.” One CE said, “Organisations have to change

continually because the environment they operate in is always changing. In public or private

organisations this is always true.” And another CE said, “It’s inevitable, if you don’t change

you die, you become irrelevant and you disappear, this is true in the public or the private

sectors.” There was some discussion about change being a cyclical pattern of external

disturbance, organisational response, consolidation of changes, falling behind, and then

further change.

Every interviewee was supportive of the notion that understanding what not to change is very

important. One CE said, “you’ve got to work hard to recognise what’s good, people want to

feel like the good stuff is valued and will continue to be valued. People have a stake in that.

It’s human respect to acknowledge that.” All CEs supported a clear sense of where the

organisation is headed, and a clear sense of where it’s not. One CE described their tendency

to always challenge strategies by answering the questions around operationalising the

strategy – what are the tangible things to do? And if the operational aspects of the change

cannot be determined, then perhaps the strategy is actually pointing towards something that

should not be changed.

Perceptions of the level of power and control to evoke change were widely varied. Some

expressed their power and control as being quite limited due to the real power lying with the

staff and the fact that an individual leader’s power is futile if the staff don’t follow, “you have

to win people’s hearts and minds first.” Other views refuted the importance of staff buy-in

with statements such as, “I don’t know if you need people to want it, you can lure them across

the line. They may not even need to understand it. You can be told what and why the

changes are happening and still not buy in or understand it.”

Boone 24
Some noted the significance of political constraints and their perception that the Board, or

Council has the real power so bringing them along and addressing any change aversion that

may be present is fundamentally important and then staff communication comes next. Others

remarked about absolute responsibility which they described as having the most power and

control, above anyone else in the organisation and if something needed to change, or if staff

needed to be persuaded to follow then no one else had greater likelihood of success, therefore

the ultimate power and responsibility lies with the CE position to direct the tools and people

that can be deployed to deliver change. “A change in mind-set and behaviour can’t be

forced. At the same time no one else can do it apart from the CE. The CE is the catalyst, but

if you don’t have majority of people behind you, it won’t happen.”

Each had a personal response to the question about experience and limitations that they bring

to the role. All responses were confident and positive and nearly all avoided describing

limitations. Fresh perspective was valued by the CEs that were appointed from outside the

organisation and, conversely in-house experience was valued by the CEs that had been

promoted from a tier two position within.

An abundance of change management experience was consistently valued by all. In some

cases specific character traits were referenced, such as, “Knowing this is perhaps the most

important thing. As a CE you are the single biggest driver of culture.” High ethical values

were consistently important, for example, “There’s an important human factor in this.

People crave honesty and I try to give them that.” One account of personal experience was

remarked about an appropriate caution of change management style, “In terms of hindering

an organisations change needs, if you come from a background of managing lots of change

processes then you come to think that change is your management style. I think that is

actually a shortcoming. They think they’ve got to change things because that’s their style.

Boone 25
Some leaders are really good at creating or managing change, some are good at supporting

them and creating confidence and sometimes managers don’t have both of those skills.”

Responses to the question relating to emergent change facilitation or planned change

leadership style engaged the most diverse discussion of all response topics. There were quite

balanced views, for example, “A healthy culture will allow people at all levels to look for

ways to innovate the ways they do their jobs. However, you’ve also got to be a bit weary that

not all change is good, sometimes bright ideas aren’t very bright. You’ve got to temper

people’s enthusiasm with a bit of reality at times.” There were responses vested in perceived

leadership wisdom, “Ultimately you want to build a team that you can give away the power.

All good leaders are empowering, as opposed to controlling.” One response was clearly

focused on planned change with little acknowledgement of any role of emergent change at all

and these comments were linked to remarks about a deliberate attempt to stabilise the

organisation after a previous, disastrous change failure. Certain CEs remarked about the

value of hybridising both styles, for example a planned change was devised and

communicated to staff as an emergent change stimulant and then through the creation of

multiple opportunities for staff to become involved and provide input into the change process

certain changes that were not envisaged by the original plan began to emerge.

Study results - influencing factors on the change inception process

Questioning the meaning of service delivery innovation sparked many thoughtful responses.

One very concise definition of service delivery innovation was offered, “it’s redefining the

problem.” Other innovation comments included, “When I think of innovation I think of how

we enable collaboration with external stakeholders to achieve our desired outcomes. To

achieve more through collaborative partnerships than we could otherwise achieve on our

own is a fundamental part of our strategy.” Some presented very business minded

responses, “Essentially, it’s can you deliver the same service for less money? Is innovation

Boone 26
fundamental to change, Yes, always.” Two responses were clearly focused on the

improvement of the customer experience as a core definition of service delivery innovation

and both of these regarded this to be fundamental to change inception.

One CE held a broader view of service delivery innovation in their response which described

the organisation being aware of the external environment to the extent that all innovations

within the organisation should enable service beneficiaries to take advantage of various

technological or other external opportunities rather than hanging on to outdated

organisational behaviours that may disable public advantage by disabling advancement in

various aspects of services or service experiences.

Previous change failure was consistently perceived as a valuable learning tool that would

increase the likelihood of success for upcoming change. There were multiple remarks about

a balance of fresh perspective and retention of institutional knowledge to retain change

failure memory, “I’m a firm believer that you need a mix of new people with fresh

perspectives, and people that have been around and have lots of institutional knowledge.”

One response advocated for a cautious approach to change failure feedback, “Change failure

feedback is important but the people who are inclined to tell you are the “glass half empty”

people. But I always respect when people say, that was terrible and it would have been

better if – those people are gold.”

Respondents provided a very diverse range of data to the question of whether political

influence instigated change that was, in the CE’s view, not necessary. Responses ranged

from, “yes, everyday” to “not that I’ve experienced in this organisation”.

Staff’s resilience to change was often cited by respondents as being directly related to

engagement, for example, “I think aptitude for change is correlated with engagement.”

Being accustomed to change was also regarded as a contributor to change resilience by more

than one respondent, “If people are used to change then they can handle it better. Change is

Boone 27
really challenging in organisations that have not experienced much change.” Change

resilience was regarded by one to be based largely on perspective, that is the level of change

resilience perceived by some during a change process is related to the subjective level of

change significance which is held in their perspective, “I found this organisation a bit not

resilient to change. In my experience this change has been slow and rather small, but if you

ask the staff they’d say that there’s been massive change.”

Key Findings and discussion

The second part of the research question is the focus of this section, what can be learned?

After synthesis of the interview data, the literature review findings and my own critical

thinking this study has produced a framework that highlights key areas of consideration to

guide change inception. The derived framework is shown below in model form and the

numbered elements of the model are described in detail afterwards.

A multi-focus framework for change inception thinking

Boone 28
1 – Mission and sub-mission

There must always be consistency with organisational mission when thinking about change.

And if the mission is not clear, then building mission clarity is one aspect of needed change.

There is some sense in specialising the mission with a more precise target as often

organisational missions are broad reaching and aspirational. A sub-mission can be more

achievable and add clarity of purpose for the change ambitions more pointedly than a generic

mission statement. A guiding organisational mission, or a sub-mission specific to the change

endeavours should serve as a policy for change inception thinking.

2 – Intuition and natural subjectivity

Where change inception thinking begins a useful reminder to abide by is this - intuition rules.

Intuition is a natural psychological process that cannot be avoided or deterred – but it can be

used wisely and unwisely. So the path of change inception thinking begins with unavoidable

psychology, intuitive nous.

There is some explanation needed why an emphasis of intuition sits up front in the

framework.

As with all individuals, self-perception of a CE is seldom the same as the perception that

others hold for the CE. There were several comments from the interviews expressing that

taking time to diagnose change need was important. And yet many also described their

experiences of realising quite quickly what changes were needed and began implementing

significant organisational changes. A typical CE’s perception of the speed and the

significance of organisational change is relative and given the high performing characteristics

of individuals that hold CE positions, a CE’s perception of speed and significance of change

will nearly always hold higher tolerances than ordinary staff – those that hold content not

being in the top job. CEs run a risk of thinking in visionary terms that exceed organisational

Boone 29
capability of achievement. Sometimes a reality check may be needed on aspirational vision

for organisational direction, otherwise will anyone take it seriously?

When actually asked about challenges that related to diagnosing change needs many CEs

were quick to identify challenges with change implementation factors. Many CEs remarked

about the intuitive, subjective element of assessing change needs. Referring to change

implementation challenges when asked about diagnosis challenges is perhaps an indicator

that there is a common tendency for CEs to rely on the emotive facilities of the mind, or the

“fast” part of the brain (Kahnemen, 2011) to conclude the intuitive elements of change need.

This indicates that diagnosing change needs is somewhat spontaneously reactive, similar to

the theory that when interviewing someone for a job your mind is made up within five

minutes about whether you want to hire them – and then you spend the remainder of the

interview confirming the notions that were nearly instantaneously established. As CE with

the power to hold the ultimate view of an organisation, there is risk that a precipitous view

could be formed and then the organisation, following the mind of the CE, will revert to

devising methods to implement changes that were quickly decided as high need based on the

subjective intuition of the CE’s mind.

The value of an intuition savvy perspective was held in high regard by most CEs in this

study. Intuition and judgment rest on extensive experience and knowledge (Simon, 1987), I

take this as truth. However, in public service organisations where the range of services is

complex it stands to reason that even vast experience and knowledge will be limited relative

to the complexity in range of organisational functions. So, CEs must proceed with extreme

caution when resting on their intuition, for their experience and knowledge may be diverting

their attention from the real areas of need within the organisation, or even worse their

intuition may result in misdiagnosis of the actual change needs because they can only see and

understand things with which they are already familiar.

Boone 30
3 -Intuition testers, creating successful information gathering

There appeared to be three common methods used by the interviewed leaders for collecting

information in order to inform their change need perspective. These were assessing staff

perceptions, getting external advice, and assessing “the facts” which I use to describe the data

driven or financial information.

Staff perception was emphasised by most of the CEs as the most important tool to establish

and test their own intuitive perspectives of change needs. The key to reliable intuition

testing, like all good decision making, is collecting good information with which to form a

view. And during the process perhaps new considerations, or improvements to the intuitive

perspective will be achieved.

Collecting information to challenge subjective intuition requires being creative to enable

information collection in a variety of ways.

What are staff saying?

Without followers, what is a leader? A new CE must found their change diagnosis thinking

in how to engage staff to help identify what needs to change. And along the way the aim is to

win their hearts and minds by diagnosing change needs together. During this collaborative

process of bringing staff into an engaged setting of change diagnosis there should be some

focus on what not to change. This will recognise the good work that was there before the

change and set out the building blocks of the new way.

With people, it is important to accommodate various personality types. It is also important to

ensure that the audience providing information is well informed of the challenges and

objectives so that they understand what is being asked of them when offering their views. I

particularly liked the reference to an all-access (not all participating) conference call where

staff could simply listen in on the CE’s change inception project team meetings. This would

Boone 31
have been very effective in disseminating information, aligning thinking, and informing staff

so they became more capable of providing feedback information that was actually needed.

Assessing the facts is no easy task.

This is an important facet of change need diagnosis responsibility that lies with a CE role,

however the skillset is much broader than an individual CE could ever possess. Actually a

CE will nearly always rely upon numerous experts, financial officers, asset managers,

economists, sustainability experts, and others for advice. Therefore, this aspect of

information collection nearly defaults to the same practice as collecting information from

people in general, only at more of a one-to-one setting instead of one-to-many as with all

staff – listening is the real skill of a good CE.

External advice

External advice may be valuable if particular skill sets are needed, fresh perspective on

internal affairs or customer surveys for instance. The value that can be added by external

advice may be indicated by the level of quality information received from the other phase 3

elements of the model. If information is inconclusive to establish change urgency in other

phase 3 areas, then external advice may be beneficial. If conclusive information is robust and

forthcoming, why bother with consultants?

Knowing what people are saying also includes the customer perspective. It is rare that in-

house expertise to survey external customer perspective exists so this likely may be a

consultancy package of work to provide advice about the customer perception.

Political environment

What are the politicians saying? Is the political view in-line with the perception of change

needs based on the CE’s intuition? Or does the CE have some work to do to get aligned

politically. Justifying any potential change against a strong organisational mission, or sub-

mission, should avert any political difficulties.

Boone 32
4 – Organisational perspective and change urgency assessment

The comments about connecting to the customer are centred on an “outside-in” organisational

perspective, or seeing the organisation from the eyes of the customer. More than one CE

noted the value in creating and maintaining an outside-in culture. The outside-in view is

likely the main determinant in how urgent change is needed because the satisfaction of

customers, or their dissatisfaction will determine whether change is urgent.

Interestingly, there were some contradictory comments relating to the outside-in perspective

where the CEs described an important need for external environment scanning, or forecasting

future needs that will be placed on the organisation. This was for the purpose of identifying

change needs or for enabling communities to take advantage of external opportunities rather

than disabling opportunities that could lead to public benefit – supporting electric car

recharge stations for example.

Clearly there is a need for operational staff to see things from the customer’s perspective in

order to hold service deliveries to a high standard, yet there is also a need to maintain an

inside-out perspective at some level in the organisation. This leads to an interesting concept

which is a bipartisan perspective of a healthy organisation - every staff member should

maintain an outside-in perspective in order to adapt service deliveries to customer

expectations. However for the CE and perhaps the executive team, while being aware of the

outside-in view, it is important to also have an inside-out perspective in order to lead

effectively. In this sense “lead effectively” means, knowing where the organisation sits on

the cycle of an evolutionary continuum of change – external change, internal response,

fulfilment of external demands, further external change – can only be accurate with an acute

sense of an inside-out perspective.

CEs must ask themselves, where should we be in response to the external environment?

Shall we focus on core deliveries and do them well, consolidate the benefits of previous

Boone 33
change? Maybe only minor changes are needed to meet an external shift in expectations. Or

in drastic times maybe a revolutionary transformation is required.

Innovation in public service is, in part, redefining the problems and enabling customer

abilities to take advantage of a rapidly changing external environment. Public service leaders

must keep an inside-out perspective to recognise where these opportunities may be externally

and then be ready to swing their organisations into enabling mode rather than a preventing

mode to ensure that opportunities for societal benefit are acted upon.

5 - What not to change? The equally important question.

Two fundamental reasons exist for not changing elements of an organisation – one, no need;

or two, no ability to operationalise the conceived changes.

If there is no need for change in a particular area of an organisation, then obviously

instigating change would be meaningless. Remember the common adage, “if it’s not broken,

don’t fix it.” I do not wish to be flippant towards the difficulties that may be involved with

determining something is indeed, not broken.

If change vision involves a barrier between concept and action in operations, then there is a

problem. Perhaps the scope is too big or misdirected. Even culture change, although

somewhat intangible will have operational targets in business functions and organisational

behaviours if there is a real delivery possibility. In such case, maybe change is better to be

managed with facilitated emergent change, rewarding those who lead towards desired

outcomes, rather than a planned change management intervention.

6 - Scope, timing, pitch, culture and structure – what success looks like?

Would anyone argue that a perfect organisation exists? I doubt it. Therefore, change in some

form is always needed. At least at a small level, change will always be happening in any

organisation. There is an accepted reality that new CEOs will look to “make their mark” on

leading the organisation closer to perfection. If change is inevitable and people expect a new

Boone 34
CE to be considering change then the question is absolved - is change needed? Yes, it is.

The scope of change is all that remains to define. The information collection and assessment

of circumstances in the previous steps of the framework will provide detail about whether big

or small scale change is appropriate.

An importance to avoid change chaos or fatigue, also described by Abrahamson (2004), was

expressed in some way by multiple CEs in this study. If a period of consolidation is

recognised as the stage that change delivers benefit, then certainly at some point on the

organisation’s evolutionary continuum large scale change is not good. This was contradicted

by all CEs who held the view that change is good. The perspective of change always being

good is a relative term, relative to a qualifier that sometimes big changes are needed and

other times only small, incremental change is appropriate. An interesting linkage to this

concept are the CE’s comments relating to the “why” or the “organisation’s story of what

we’re here for”. In this lies the answer to whether significant or minor change should be the

scope of change inception. If the organisation strongly understands the “why”, then

consolidate strengths and fine tune the delivery of “what we’re here for” – only small change

is needed. If there is a disconnect with the “why”, then a more significant change is justified

in the scope of change inception thinking, and the important aspects of change will likely be

of a cultural nature rather than structural. Change needs relating to “how” things are done

will likely be addressed with structural change.

Importantly, at this step in the framework there should be an understanding of what

successful organisational culture looks like. Much of the detail around culture will be

circumstantial and very difficult to define in framework modelling.

Structural change is only a means to an end. Can the desired sub-mission be achieved with

the existing structure? If not, structure change may be in order. And by no means should re-

Boone 35
structure be underestimated, it is no easy question, is there an optimal structure to deliver the

desired outcomes and promote the desired culture?

7 – Refinement of change vision

At this stage a particular quote from one of the CEs is appropriate, “sometimes bright ideas

aren’t very bright”. Communicate back to staff what you have been told by staff and what

else has been discovered during the change diagnosis process. There is great value in this

step to reinforce the change messaging with simple communications such as - this is why

change is needed, this is what staff said needs to change, as CE this is what I think needs to

change, and this is what we’re going to do.

There must be willingness to modify the change vision if compelling reasons arise. Maybe

something has not yet been considered. However, I argue that everything in this paragraph is

subject to this disclaimer - this approach may be appropriate for collaborative change vision

creation but in cases of total organisational transformation, or a “burning platform” situation

of change urgency, the CE may need to act without this step of final testing. If it comes

down to now or never, now is better.

8 - Final quality check & change diagnosis completion

Before change inception is complete another round of sensibility testing is appropriate. There

are four questions in the final steps of the framework for final quality assurance before

change implementation begins, is CE ownership well positioned, is there political support, is

the change vision going to deliver the sub-mission and is it consistent with organisational

mission, can steps be actioned quickly?

Own every aspect of change, you’re the CE

The CE is not only a catalyst for change but also a conduit between political persuasion and

change implementation, and an artful crafter of change leadership. Every situation is

different, of course, therefore the catalyst role, the conduit role, and the crafter role will vary

Boone 36
depending on the organisation’s situation and circumstances. The important point is that the

CE position is the ultimate manager of these three roles and the art will be to position the

organisation for success with the acceptance of total responsibility. There is no one else with

more power to pull the correct levers. There is a common acceptance that a supporting

coalition (Kotter, 2007) is needed, however as one CE said during the interviews, “as CE you

are the biggest driver of culture.”

Political

This step may or may not be needed depending on the level of support gauged earlier in the

framework process. If political support is wavering early in the change diagnosis process,

revisiting the political powers of the organisation, building the necessary relationships and

ensuring buy-in at a political level is critical. By all means, the politicians should feel like

they are in control whether they are or not.

Mission test

Is inception thinking consistent with mission? And is the sub-mission, why we are doing this

change precisely clear? These must both be yes, otherwise there is no unified vision and

successful change is unlikely.

Act now?

Immediately before the completion of the change inception process there must be identifiable

actions to take at the beginning of change implementation. If these actions are not clear, then

the diagnosis phase is not complete. Once actions are clear and the change inception process

is complete, act quickly.

Limitations and credibility

The product of this research is intended to assist future leaders of public service organisations

with sensible methods to guide the change inception process.

Boone 37
As with any framework, certain elements may be more useful than others depending on

circumstances. This framework has been produced after a small set of interviews and does

not propose to be a comprehensive set of considerations for deciding what to change in any

public service organisation. It is however, a useful starting place to organise the mind in

terms of change inception thinking.

It is difficult to determine a level of credibility for the application of this framework as it has

not yet been tested. The best test for credibility of this study will be further research aimed at

refining a model for change inception thinking. The participating public service leaders will

be encouraged to provide critical feedback based on their perspectives of whether the

findings of this study are credible and valuable to be applied in New Zealand public service

organisations.

Conclusion

Change in organisations is happening at some level, always. A responsibility of management

is to make the most of it. In this study I did not aspire to understand the complexities of

service delivery functions of public service organisations or to define a model for

improvement of any particular services. I sought the experience and perceptions of leaders

based on their understanding of their organisations in order to understand myself how leaders

decide what to change.

It may be easy to fall into the trap of considering that change is cyclical where periodic

change is a natural, nearly scheduled process. We know that the rate of change is faster now

than ever before, technologically and socially, and as a result so is the evolutionary path of

businesses and public service delivery. This modern rate of change in the external

environment logically implies that past models of change expectancy cannot be relied upon to

predict phases of future change. In fact, I argue that in modern times change predictability

must nearly be improvisational to keep up with the level of unpredictability in the external

Boone 38
environment. Therefore, the ways of change inception thinking and the methods applied to

decision making around what to change are continually changing themselves.

This study produced a framework for change inception thinking based on relevant literature

and the experiences of many public service leaders.

Obviously, every organisation and every CE is different. Therefore, any framework to

describe a good practice method for change inception thinking would be flawed unless there

is a fundamental acknowledgment that some componentry of the framework will be

applicable and some will not. Therein lies the art of leadership, not only deciding what to

change, but defining how to think about what to change. The framework produced by this

study is meant to assist leaders and ultimately provide societies with better public services.

References
Alves, H. (2013). Co-creation and innovation in public services. Service Industries Journal, 33(7/8), 671-682.
doi:10.1080/02642069.2013.740468
Abrahamson, E. (2004) Avoiding Repetitive Change Syndrome. MIT Sloan Management Review. Winter 2004.
Barth-Farkas, F., Vera, A. (2014) "Power and transformational leadership in public organisations",International Journal of
Leadership in Public Services, Vol. 10 Iss: 4, pp.217 - 232
Barret, F.J., Cooperrider, D.L. (1990) Generative metaphor Intervention: a New Approach for Working with Systems
Divided by Conflict and Caught in Defensive Perception. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. Vol.26, 229.
Bridgman, T (2016) Personal communication, 4 July 2016
Brookes, S. (2014). Is selfless leadership an impossible ideal for public leaders? The International Journal of Leadership in
Public Services, 10(4), 200. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/docview/1633961276?accountid=14782
Burchell, N., Kolb, D. (2006) Stability and change for sustainability. University of Auckland Business Review, v.8, No.2
Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E & McDonald, R. (2015) What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 2015,
44-53.
Cohen D, Crabtree B. (2006) The Interpretivist Paradigm. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Qualitative Research
Guidelines Project. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeInte-3516.html
Collm, A., & Schedler, K. (2014). Strategies for Introducing Organisational Innovation to Public Service
Organisations. Public Management Review, 16(1), 140-161. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.822528
Conger, J.A. (1990), “The dark side of leadership”, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 44-55.
Daglio, M.; Gerson D.; Kitchen H. (2015) Building Organisational Capacity for Public Sector Innovation, Background Paper
prepared for the OECD Conference “Innovating the Public Sector: from Ideas to Impact”, Paris, 12-13 November 2014.
Retrieved 25 June 2016, 18:30 from http://www.oecd.org/innovating-the-public-sector/Background-report.pdf
Davis, J., Flutter, C., Keenan, P., and Roediger, A. (2012) A Practical Guide to Change in the Public Sector. BCG
Perspectives. June 27, 2012. Retrieved from
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/public_sector_change_management_practical_guide_to_change_in_public
_sector/ 25 June 2016, 18:15
De Waal, A.A. (2010) Achieving High Performance in the Public Sector - What Needs to Be Done? Center for
Organisational Performance. Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, September 2010, pp. 81-103

Boone 39
Dudovskiy, J. (2016) Research Methodology. Retrieved from http://research-methodology.net/research-
philosophy/phenomenology/
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Decoding Resistance to Change. Harvard Business Review, 87(4), 99-103.
Grant Thornton Australia Ltd (2014) Transforming the Public Sector - The role of the CFO in driving change. October 2014.
Retrieved 26 June 2016 from http://www.grantthornton.co.nz/Assets/documents/pubSeminars/transforming-the-public-
sector.pdf
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. Handbook of Qualititative Research. Sage
California, 1994.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership, effectiveness and personality. American
Psychologist, 49, 493–504.
Kalargiros, M.,E., & Manning, M.,R. (2015) Divergent Thinking and Brainstorming in Perspective: Implications for
Organization Change and Innovation. Research in Organizational Change and Development. Published online: 29 Jun 2015;
293-327. Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620150000023007
Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Kaplan, R. E., Drath, W. H., & Kofodimos, J. R. (1991). Beyond ambition: How driven managers can lead better and live
better. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J.P. (2007) Leading Change – Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, January: 96-103.
McKinsey & Company (2016) Public Sector Practice Organizational Health Index (OHI) Using ‘Organizational Health’ to
build and sustain performance . Retrieved from
file:///G:/Biz%20Research/sources/McKinzey%20engagement%20OHI%20public%20sector.pdf
McShane, S., Olekalns, M., Travaglione, T. (2013) Organisational Behaviour. McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Limited
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing
world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11–35.
Ostroff, F. (2006) Change Mangement in Government. Harvard Business Review. May 2006. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2006/05/change-management-in-government. 22 June 2016, 15:30.
Pandey, S. K., & Wright, B. E. (2006). Connecting the Dots in Public Management: Political Environment, Organisational
Goal Ambiguity, and the Public Manager's Role Ambiguity. Journal Of Public Administration Research & Theory, 16(4),
511-532. doi:10.1093/jopart/muj006
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001), “Studying organisational changeand development: challenges
for future research”, The Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 697-713.
Simon, H.,A. (1987) Making Management Decisions: The Role of Intuition and Emotion. The Academy of Management
Executive (1987-1989) Vol. 1, No. 1 (Feb., 1987), pp. 57-64
Simpson, P., & Beeby, M. (1993). Facilitating public sector organisational culture change through the processes of
transformational leadership: A study integrating strategic options development and analysis with the cultural values survey.
Management Education and Development, 24(4), 316. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/docview/223633530?accountid=14782
Sinclair, F.M.M. (2014),"Dancing in the dark: creativity, knowledge creation and (emergent)organisational change", Journal
of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp. 344 - 361
Sturdy, A., & Grey, C. (2003). Beneath and beyond organisational change management: Exploring
alternatives. Organisation, 10(4), 651-662. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/docview/218617574?accountid=14782
‘t Hart, P. (2011) Evaluating public leadership: towards an assessment framework, Public Money and Management, 31:5,
323-330
Warrick, D. (1976). Applying OD to the Public Sector. Public Personnel Management, 5(3), 186.
Whitney, D., Schau, C. (1998) Appreciative Inquiry: An Innovative Process for Organisation Change. Employment
Relations Today. Vol. 11-21

Boone 40