It is almost a given that all organizations, public services included, must and ought to undergo some progressive changes as time passes by. Any organizations that seem to remain static and resistant to change are often left behind in the conundrum of the development path and ultimately risk been non contributors to the overall development process. I want to briefly discuss an area that is associated with the choices organizations make in deciding when to change and even the need for that change in relation to organizational role and integrity.
Public services, like all other organizations including those in the private sector, are guided by their missions, visions and strategic plans as adopted mainly to merge the short and long term integrity and role of the organization. The combined interelations of these aspects overtime develop and entrench very basic organizational values that are in themselves the guardians of organizational integrity and role identity. Over the years there have been quite a number of processes adopted by various public organizations, as their choices of changing with the times, responding to customer needs, upgrading their organizational identity, and finding their productive and market niche and general re-branding for one or the other reason. The basic question we often de-emphasis in all these change processes is how the choices we make redefine our organizational values and our long term role and integrity.
I argue that, much as change is necessary and often inevitable, the choice of what to change and why is inherently embedded in the organizationís value system and to the extent that any changes in these values has a long term bearing on the organizationís role and integrity. I maintain that some public organizations tend to emphasise the short term gains of change even when there is a serious disjuncture with the critical long term role and integrity of the organization. In this scenario, public organizations will have tempered with the synergy between value systems as guiding patterns and landscape for change, particularly as these values define what the organizationís long term reason for existence is. Put differently any change that is pursued must speak to the values of the organization first and then be aligned to deliberate processes to re-orient the role and integrity of the organization. Some organizations are too quick to adopt new methods, systems and processes that directly require that they must as well change their values and long term attachment to established roles and organizational integrity and yet officially they are not committed to changing their long term mission and vision and their implications on the very values and roles that would now be indirectly tempered with.
Any change puts to question the organizational leadershipís ability and resolve to defend institutional integrity, largely measured by the organizationís persistence to protect and zealously guard its distinctive values, competences and role. This is the ultimate basis for any change in any organization, a determination of whether or not there is first a need for tempering with existing institutional integrity, distinctive values, competences and known and entrenched organizational role. Any organizational change, however cosmetic, that is not a direct outpost of these considerations is bound to create organizational constipation and long term vulnerability, largely on account of loss of values which will lead to loss of integrity and derailment from the organizationís role and mandate. This has and continues to be one of the greatest challenges public organizations have to deal with and, I want to believe that some times leadership in organizations is least prepared for this potentially destructive change demands.
But why should we bother talking of values as key threads of organizational survival? Let me point out that public organizationsí institutional integrity is characteriscally vulnerable when values are tenuous or insecure from either external pressure or when there are cases or special inner weakness that act to insufficiently deal with and manage any processes of change, particularly the determination of the need for this or that particular type of change, as determined and related to the long term relevance of such change to established values and cherished integrity. In establishing organizations, different functional units and groups of professionals are put in place where group responsibility is not only fixed but often taken for granted and an assumption of shared values is also implied. The top level leadership and management groups are functionally the ìcustodians of policyî and the inner individual and group activities presumably channel policy initiation and drive towards the organizations role and mandate, guided by what has overtime been the organizationís values and resultant institutional integrity.
One way of understanding the character and content of public organizational change is to identify the group that is responsible for the protection of the organizational values and we often accept this consciously as ìthe professionalsî. This group is largely going to be a function of the top leadershipís qualities and the extent to which they relate their own philosophical outlook to the organizationís long term instituional integrity and adherence to openess and transparent conduct of organizational functions as they relate to any change processes. Two types of scenarios are likely to emerge, one is the committed leadership that wants and drives activites based and anchored by the value system and intent on protecting the organizationís institutional integrity and commitment to long term sustainable role clarity. This type of leadership will often be transparent and inclusive of those ìprofessional groupsî, as they exist in the organization and seek their participation. It is then easy to succesfully find a positive link between not only short and long term organizational outlooks, but it provides the basis for clarifying organizational change and its relevance to institutional integrity and protection of values.
The second possible scenario is of leadership that has no regard for organizational values and largely derailed by short term individual gains and has total lack of leadership qualities required to be the open and transparent decision maker. Organizational change here is more like fashion; anything new goes, even when the long term implications would hurt the organization. In short, change should not be adopted as fashion; it must be linked to its long term impact on institutional integrity, competencies, values and roles.
*Molaodi teaches Public Administration at the University of Botswana
