In S e a r c h o f t h e B e lo v e d C o m m u n ity.docx

In S e a r c h o f t h e B e lo v e d
C o m m u n ity
b y R o b e r t L. R h o d e s , Jr.* **
a n d T re m a in e R e e s e *
T his A rticle describes th e process by w hich th e G eorgia
Appleseed
C e n te r for Law & J u s tic e (Georgia Appleseed) h a s
engaged G eorgians in
crucial conversations about critical issues concerning th e re la
tio n sh ip
am ong law enforcem ent officers a n d th e com m unity m
em bers th ey serve.
We also discuss how G eorgia A ppleseed is w orking to have th
e co n ten t
of th e se conversations foster change to law a n d policy
designed to
en h an ce police com m unity relations.
T his is a story h a lf told. As of th e d a te of publication of
th is Article,
th e fac t-g a th erin g a n d legal re se a rc h described below
will have been
com pleted a n d public advocacy for change will have
commenced. Time
will tell th e r e s t of th e story.
I. T h e C a l l
The lita n y of n am es is now sadly fa m iliar-M ic h a el
Brown, W alter

Scott, F reddie Gray, a n d S a n d ra B land. Less fam iliar
nam es b u t closer
to hom e in G eorgia a re N icholas Thom as of S m y rn a a n
d A nthony Hill
of DeK alb County. These rec e n t d e a th s following police
encounters w ith
com m unity m em bers—m ost often m en a n d wom en of
color—a n d th e
su b seq u e n t u n r e s t trag ically h ig h lig h t th e need for
action.
“B u t w h a t can we do?” This is th e question t h a t plagued
m any
concerned citizens, in cluding th e s ta ff of G eorgia A
ppleseed b eginning in
* Director of Projects, Georgia Appleseed Center for Law &
Justice. Emory University
(B.A., with honors, 1969); University of Virginia School of Law
(J.D., 1972). Member,
Georgia, Florida, and the District of Columbia Bars.
** Director of Community Operations & Affairs, Georgia
Appleseed Center for Law &
Justice. Albany State University (B.S., 2003); Georgia College
and State University
(M.P.A., 2005); Florida A & M University College of Law
(J.D., 2012). Member, Georgia
and Florida Bars.
617
618 MERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol. 67

the late summer of 2014. At least a partial answer came in a call
from
a Georgia mayor asking our organization to assist in a police
community
relations outreach in the mayor's community. Honored by th at
request
but recognizing the statewide scope of these issues, Georgia
Appleseed
decided to engage the community on a much broader scale.
Thus, in the spring of 2015, Georgia Appleseed began a process
designed to seek the views of Georgia community members—
law
enforcement personnel, prosecutors, defense lawyers,
neighborhood
associations, faith leaders, political leaders, nonprofits, and
others—both
to help in assessing the nature of police community relations in
our state
and to seek recommendations for changes to laws, policies, and
practices
th a t could improve or enhance them.
II. T h e o r y o f C h a n g e
Georgia Appleseed is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest
law
center with the mission to increase justice in Georgia through
law and
policy reform. We seek a Georgia where the voices of poor
people,
children, and marginalized people are heard and where
injustices th at
no one should endure are resolved. In this effort, we magnify
the
capacity of our very small organization by leveraging the

volunteer
services of lawyers and other professionals. Hundreds of
lawyers,
accountants, consultants, paraprofessionals, and support staff
have
donated thousands of hours to projects such as our multi-year
effort to
support a total rewrite of the Georgia Juvenile Code1 and our
in-depth
assessment of student discipline practices in Georgia's public
schools.
Georgia Appleseed works to resolve injustices through a theory
of
change th at focuses on collaborative advocacy.2 We employ a
three-
phase methodology by which we (1) investigate, (2)
disseminate, and (3)
advocate. In Phase 1, we engage with our pro bono partners in
comprehensive legal research and fact-finding stakeholder
interviews to
investigate and understand the law and policy issues at hand and
to
determine if change is necessary. In Phase 2, we disseminate
our
findings and recommendations through the publication and
broad
distribution of a detailed report. In Phase 3, we advocate for any
necessary systemic change at the state and local levels.
This Article summarizes our Phase 1 efforts focused on law
enforce-
ment community relations in Georgia.
1. O.C.G.A. ch. 15-11 (2015).
2. To learn more about Georgia Appleseed's theory of change,

see Ga. APPLESEED,
https://www.gaappleseed.org (last visited Mar. 7, 2016).
https://www.gaappleseed.org
2016] BELOVED COMMUNITY 619
III. S e t t i n g t h e G o a l s
Georgia Appleseed staff determined at the outset th a t the goal
of this
initiative should be to increase public confidence and tru st in
the
fairness of police interactions with community members and of
prosecutorial charging decisions without regard to race or
ethnicity.
Much has been written about the necessary elements of effective
policing
and how best to build positive, trusting relationships between
law
enforcement personnel and the members of the communities
they serve.
We quickly determined th a t a comprehensive assessment of
this highly
complex subject would be well beyond the scope of this
initiative.
We, therefore, set out to identify a limited number of critical
issue
areas th at have the potential to trigger crucial conversations
among
diverse segments of the Georgia community and could lead to
concrete
near-term action steps for law or policy reform. In identifying

these
critical issues, we were particularly influenced by very recent
analyses
carried out in direct response to the Ferguson, Missouri incident
and
several other highly publicized events th at followed shortly
thereafter.
For example, the United States Department of Justice carried
out a
comprehensive investigation of the Ferguson Police Department
and
issued a report in March 2015, which included a number of
recommenda-
tions for changes in policies and practices.3 More recently, the
Ferguson
Commission, an independent body appointed by the Governor of
Missouri, issued a detailed report and call to action.4 5
In December 2014, President Obama created the Task Force on
21st
Century Policing (Task Force). The Task Force held multiple
listening
sessions throughout the country and heard from over 100
individuals
from a wide variety of stakeholder groups. The Task Force
issued an
interim report in March 2015,® followed by a final version in
May,6
making dozens of recommendations, including the creation of a
National
Crime and Justice Task Force.7 Our review of these materials
reaf-
firmed the complexities associated with addressing this
challenge in a
3. Investigation o f the Ferguson Police Department, U.S.

DEP’T OF JUST. CIVIL RIGHTS
Drv. (Mar. 4, 2015), available at
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-relea
ses/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.
pdf.
4. Forward Through Ferguson—A Path Toward Racial Equality,
FORWARD THROUGH
FERGUSON (Oct. 14, 2015), available at
http://forwardthroughferguson.org/report/executi
ve-summary/clarifying-our-terms/.
5. Interim Report of The President's Task Force on 21st C
entury Policing (Mar. 2015),
available at
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pd
f.
6. Final Report of The President's Task Force on 21st Century
Policing (May 2015),
available at
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/TaskForce_FinalRepor
t.pdf.
7. Id. a t 7.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-relea
http://forwardthroughferguson.org/report/executi
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pd
f
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/TaskForce_FinalRepor
t.pdf

comprehensive manner, but our review also allowed us to
identify
important areas of law and policy th a t could serve as starting
points for
crafting at least some near-term reforms in Georgia.
IV. Critical Is s u e s
The issues we identified encompassed two broad areas of
concern.
First, what changes to law or policy would most likely improve
law
enforcement community relations in ways th a t would
significantly
reduce the likelihood of future encounters resulting in death or
severe
bodily harm to community members? These changes might be
viewed
as “preventive measures.” Second, what law or policy reforms
may be
necessary to assure th a t investigations and criminal charging
decisions
triggered by any such future incidents are fair and, as
importantly, are
perceived to be fair by the community?
A. Law Enforcement Community Relations
Our efforts on the “preventive measures” goal were focused on
four key
areas:
1. K ey P o lic ie s . It is important th a t law enforcement
agencies have
clear and comprehensive policies on m atters th a t involve
direct

engagement with the public. We, therefore, examined the extent
to
which the policies in place in Georgia address (a) use of deadly
force, (b)
stop, search, and arrest, and (c) engagement with vulnerable
populations
such as youth, the mentally ill, and the developmentally
disabled.
2. T r a in in g . The Task Force noted: “As our nation becomes
more
pluralistic and the scope of law enforcement's responsibilities
expands,
the need for expanded and more effective training has become
critical.”8
Critical areas for training include: “implicit bias and cultural
respon-
siveness, policing in a democratic society, procedural justice,
and
effective social interaction and tactical skills.”9 We evaluated
the
current training requirements for Georgia police officers to see
how they
address these critical areas of concern.
3. D a ta C o lle c tio n & T ra n sp a r e n c y . It is often said
th at you
measure what you care about, and you care about what you
measure.
Public policy should, whenever possible, be developed and
assessed based
on comprehensive, accurate data. We explored the extent to
which law
8. Id. at 3.
9. Id. at 4.

2016] B E L O V E D C O M M U N IT Y 621
enforcement agencies in Georgia collect and make available to
the public
demographic data on stops, frisks, searches, service of
summons, and
arrests, including but not limited to those resulting in death or
severe
bodily harm. We also examined whether law enforcement
agencies make
publically available data concerning the demographic
composition of
their departments.
4. Community Engagem ent & Outreach. The Task Force also
asserted th at law enforcement culture “should embrace a guard
ian—rath er than a warrior—mindset to build tru st and
legitimacy both
within agencies and with the public. ” 10 Community
engagement and
outreach are key elements in such an approach to policing. We
examined the extent to which police departments in Georgia
seek to
engage community members. We also considered whether
effective
mechanisms are in place to address citizen complaints
concerning police
activities.
B. Responding to Critical Encounters
Our second main area of inquiry focused on law enforcement
reaction

to future incidents of concern. We considered what law or
policy reforms
may be necessary to ensure th a t investigations and criminal
charging
decisions triggered by violent police encounters with
community
members are fair and also are perceived to be fair by the
community.
1. Investigation Responsibility. We examined the current law
and
practice in Georgia regarding the investigation of an incident of
concern
and asked whether there should be any change in current law or
policy
to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest arising out of a
law
enforcement agency participating in an investigation of the
actions of
one of its officers.
2. Making the Charging Decision. Similarly, we examined the
criminal charging decision-making process in Georgia th at
occurs
following the completion of an investigation. We evaluated
current law
and practice and asked whether any changes are in order to
avoid
potential conflict of interest concerns when a district attorney
makes the
decision whether to seek an indictment against a police officer
who is
employed by a department with which the district attorney
works
regularly. We also examined the special grand jury participation
rights

afforded peace officers in Georgia. * 11
10. Id. at 1.
11. See O.C.G.A. § 17-7-52 (2013); O.C.G.A. § 45-11-4 (2002
& Supp. 2015).
622 M ERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol. 67
3. Crucial Conversations. The Atlanta office of Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough LLP served as the lead pro bono law firm
on this
project.12 Several lawyers with the firm carried out the very
extensive
research necessary to evaluate the critical issue areas outlined
above.
This research effort was critical, not only to informing our
understanding
of the current legal and policy setting in Georgia but also
setting the
stage for our outreach to community stakeholders from around
the state.
We began the stakeholder interview process by identifying
community
members who could bring diverse perspectives to the issues
being
reviewed. Over 500 individuals across the state were contacted
by
Georgia Appleseed. The stakeholders were identified through
contact
with community and business leaders, faith based groups, law
enforce-
ment groups, attorneys, elected officials, universities, and by
recommen-

dations made by other stakeholders.
Georgia Appleseed created questionnaires to be used in the
stakehold-
er interviews. A survey professional reviewed those
questionnaires to
ensure th a t the questions were clear and as free of bias as
possible. Use
of the questionnaires in the interview process promoted
consistency and
allowed responses to be input into a searchable database.
Law firms donated the time of their lawyers, paralegals, and
other
administrative staff members to conduct the interviews.13 Most
interviewers participated in a one-hour training session
conducted by
Georgia Appleseed to ensure consistency in the process.
Ultimately, 140
interviews were conducted.
The stakeholder interviewees fell into one of two groups. The
“General
Public Group” consisted of elected officials, lawyers (including
the
criminal defense bar), and members of Georgia’s business,
nonprofit,
faith based, and educational organizations. There were almost
an equal
number of men and women in this group. Fifty percent of
stakeholders
in the General Public Group were African-American, forty
percent were
Caucasian, and ten percent were other minorities. Sixty percent
of the
stakeholders were located in Metro Atlanta counties, while forty

percent
were located in other locations around Georgia.
12. Georgia Appleseed gratefully acknowledges the major
contributions made by the
lawyers, paralegals, and staff from the Nelson Mullins firm
under the leadership of partner
Taylor Daly.
13. Nelson Mullins also provided significant leadership in
coordinating the interview
process. In addition, we acknowledge the special contributions
of the law firms of Alston
& Bird, Hunton & Williams LLP, Kilpatrick, Townsend &
Stockton LLP, and King &
Spalding LLP, and of the Atlanta Bar Association.
2016] BELOVED COMMUNITY 623
The second group was the “Law Enforcement Group,” which
consisted
of currently employed law enforcement officers and
administrators, law
enforcement association representatives, and current or former
prosecuting attorneys. Eighty-five percent of the stakeholders in
the
Law Enforcement Group were male; one-third of these
responders were
African-American, and two-thirds were Caucasian.
Approximately two-
thirds of the members of this group were located in Metro
Atlanta while
the others worked in various locations throughout Georgia.

While the stakeholders interviewed reflect a broad and diverse
group
of Georgia citizens from all over the state, the number of
participants
was not large enough to reflect a statistically significant
representation
of the views of all Georgians. That was not our intent. We
believe,
however, th a t this collection of views provides a solid starting
point for
evaluating possible law and policy changes.
The issues addressed in the interviews tracked the crucial
questions
identified above. Thus, interviewees provided their thoughts and
recommendations on actions th a t might be taken to improve
law
enforcement community relationships and to reduce the
likelihood of
future tragic encounters between law enforcement and
community
members. In addition, the stakeholders provided their views on
how law
enforcement should respond to incidents of concern in the
investigation
and charging processes.
The stakeholders provided valuable and candid comments about
what
is working well, and what could be improved, in community law
enforcement relations in Georgia. The individuals interviewed
held a
range of views on the issues. They expressed mixed opinions
regarding
the role and quality of services th a t law enforcement provides
regarding

police-involved incidents with citizens. Some stakeholders
expressed
high satisfaction with the state of community law enforcement
relation-
ships in Georgia, while others expressed dissatisfaction with th
at
relationship. Irrespective of their opinions on the state of the
relation-
ship, the majority of stakeholders expressed the view th a t
changes could
be made to improve the relationship.
4. Draft Report. The interviews were conducted from June
through
September 2015. In early October, Georgia Appleseed prepared
a draft
report. This document contained a detailed summary of the legal
research on the critical issues and summarized the views of the
stakeholders expressed in the crucial conversations interview
process.
In addition, the draft report offered preliminary findings and
recommen-
dations. The draft report was then circulated, on a confidential
basis,
to all participants in the interview process to obtain their input.
On
October 28, 2015, a stakeholder forum was held in Macon,
Georgia to
allow further discussion of the draft.
5. N ext Steps. As of the time of the preparation of this Article,

Georgia Appleseed is in the process of preparing the final report
and
recommendations and developing plans for Phase 2
dissemination, as
well as Phase 3 advocacy.
V. Co n c l u sio n : In S earch of th e Beloved Community
Georgia Appleseed undertook this effort because we believe th a
t all
Georgians should live in communities th at are safe and where
we engage
each other with the highest level of mutual dignity, respect, and
responsibility, without regard to race or ethnicity. Georgia
Appleseed
brings to this effort a firm commitment to objective, data driven
assessment, a deep respect for the extraordinarily difficult,
important,
and oftentimes dangerous service th a t law enforcement
personnel
provide to our society, and an abiding belief th at all of
Georgia’s citizens
must be afforded the rights to which they are entitled under
federal and
state constitutions.
The spirit of collaboration and receptivity to change reflected in
the
enthusiastic efforts of our volunteers and the willing
cooperation of
community stakeholders to engage in crucial conversations on
these
critical issues reminded us of the words th at Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr.
uttered sixty years ago:

But the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is
the
creation of the beloved community. It is this type of spirit and
this
type of love that can transform opposers into friends. It is this
type of
understanding goodwill that will transform the deep gloom of
the old
age into the exuberant gladness of the new age. It is this love
which
will bring about miracles in the hearts of men. 14
14. Dr. Martin Luther King, J r Facing the Challenge o f a New
Age, reproduced in The
Papers of Martin Luther King, J r., Vol. III-Birth of a N ew
Age, December 1955-
DECEMBER 1956 (Clayborn Carson et al., eds., 1997),
https://swap.stanford.edu/2014121
8223303/http://mlk-
kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol3/561203.0
00-Fa
cing_the_Challenge_of_a_New_Age_annual_address_at_the_fir
st_annual_Institute_on_
Nonviolence_and_Social_Change.htm
https://swap.stanford.edu/2014121
http://mlk-
kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol3/561203.0
00-Fa
Copyright of Mercer Law Review is the property of Mercer
University, Walter F. George
School of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Assessment 1 (1000 words) 40%
Does responsibility for ensuring citizen's wellbeing, in the face
of social risks, lie with private individuals or the state, or
both? (Carson and Kerr, 2017, p19). Include in your arguments
the personal and professional values you draw from in taking
your position.
Assessment Criteria
· Development of argument supported by literature (at least 5
academic references APA 6th edition - not websites)
· Critical analysis and originality.
· Grammar, structure, academic writing.
Must Use resources-
Carson, E. and Kerr, L. (2014) Chapter 2, Personal and
professional values in human services practice, in Australian
Social Policy and the Human Services. Cambridge University
Press
Jamrozik, A. (2009) ‘Social Policy in the “free market”
economy’, Chapter Two in Social Policy in the Post-Welfare
State: Australian society in a changing
world(3rd edition), Pearson Education, NSW.
Jamrozik, A. (2009) ‘Social Policy in Australia’, Chapter 4
in Social Policy in the Post-Welfare State: Australian society in
a changing world(3rd edition), Pearson Education, NSW.
Bessant, J., Watts, R., Dalton, T and Smyth, P. (2006)
‘Theorising social policy’ in Talking Policy: social policy in
Australia, Allen and Unwin, NSW.

Bradley E. Wright is associate profes-
sor of public management and policy in
the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies
at Georgia State University. His research
focuses on how employee attitudes and
behavior are infl uenced by the interaction
between characteristics of the employee
and their organizational work environment.
E-mail: [email protected]
Robert K. Christensen is associate
professor of public administration in the
Department of Public Administration and
Policy, School of Public and International
Affairs, at the University of Georgia. His
research focuses on prosocial and antisocial
motivations and behaviors in the public
and nonprofi t sectors. He is a current Lilly

Teaching Fellow at the University of
Georgia.
Kimberley Roussin Isett earned
a doctorate in management from the
University of Arizona in 2001. Her research
focuses on institutional pressures and
dynamics in implementing government serv-
ices, with a particular interest in the delivery
of services to vulnerable populations. To
date, she has been awarded just under $1
million in research grant money and has
worked with elected offi cials and policy
makers at all levels of government.
738 Public Administration Review • September | October 2013
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 73, Iss. 5, pp. 738–747. © 2013 by
The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12078.
Bradley E. Wright
Georgia State University
Robert K. Christensen
University of Georgia
Kimberley Roussin Isett
Georgia Institute of Technology
Researchers concerned with organizational change
have consistently emphasized the role that the work
environment plays in employee acceptance of change.
Underexamined in the public management literature,
however, is the role that employee values, particularly
public service motivation (PSM), may play in employee
acceptance of change. Some scholars have noted a positive
correlation between employee PSM and organizational
change eff orts; this article extends this work by attempt-
ing to isolate the mechanisms that explain this relation-
ship. Using data from a survey of employees in a city
undergoing a reorganization and reduction in workforce,
the authors fi nd that only employees who scored high on
a single dimension of PSM—self-sacrifi ce—were more
likely than others to support organizational change.
Rather than support changes for their potential to
improve public service, this fi nding suggests that employ-
ees with higher PSM may simply be less likely to resist
changes that might disadvantage them personally.
A lthough bureaucratic organizations are thought of as intrac-
table, the recent unprecedented
loss of more than 600,000
public sector jobs since the
2008 economic crash (Klein

2012) illustrates that change is
just as pervasive in the public
sector as in the private. For cur-
rent government employees, this
massive reduction in workforce
is changing workloads, substantive duties, as well as
perceptions about job security and effi cacy.
As we know from the extant literature on change, all
change is not created equal. Th ere is planned change
and unplanned change, discontinuity changes and
marginal changes, austerity changes and changes
driven by slack, internal change and external change,
and any combination of the above (and others) (cf.
Hall 2002; Tushman and Anderson 1986; Zaltman,
Duncan, and Holbek 1984). Each of these kinds of
changes can have diff erent processes and emphases
that aff ect the viability, scope, and extent of change
accomplished and sustained. Despite the myriad
permutations that change can take, one thing is for
certain: employee support for change is critical for
success (Bordia et al. 2004; Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio
2008; Isett et al. 2013; Isett, Morrissey, and Topping
2006; Kelman 2005; Saka 2003). But the factors that
might infl uence whether or how much employees
support change are likely to diff er depending on what
changes are made.
One factor that infl uences employee support for
change is the values that motivate employees to work
in the public sector in the fi rst place (Moynihan
and Pandey 2007; Naff and Crum 1999; Ritz and
Fernandez 2011). Employees with higher levels of
public service motivation (PSM) value the interests
and needs of others, particularly those of the broader

community (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999, 23).
Because of this, employee PSM
conceivably infl uences how
receptive one is to organiza-
tional change in public organi-
zations. While previous studies
suggest a positive correlation
between employee PSM and
employee commitment to
change, this article explicitly
tests the underlying mecha-
nisms that contribute to this
relationship.
Up until now, exploration of the relationship between
employee PSM and support for organizational change
has been limited. Current studies emphasize how the
specifi c content of the change may aff ect the public
and coincide with employees’ valuation of public serv-
ice. In particular, it has been suggested that employee
PSM may increase commitment to organizational
changes that are intended to improve the delivery of
public services (Moynihan and Pandey 2007; Naff
and Crum 1999). However, all changes in the public
Motivated to Adapt? Th e Role of Public Service Motivation
as Employees Face Organizational Change
While previous studies suggest
a positive correlation between
employee PSM and employee
commitment to change, this
article explicitly tests the under-
lying mechanisms that contrib-

ute to this relationship.
Motivated to Adapt? The Role of Public Service Motivation as
Employees Face Organizational Change 739
and (3) that PSM decreases employee resistance to
organizational
change (Ritz and Fernandez 2011).
Another variant of this theme suggests that employees with
higher
PSM are more likely to support organizational change, prima-
rily because of their direct commitment to changes that improve
public service provision and less because of their commitment
to the organization. Paarlberg and Lavigna (2010) conceptu-
ally outline a more direct theoretical link between public
service
values and organizational change. Noting research on the
positive
relationship between employee satisfaction, motivation, percep-
tions of organizational eff ectiveness, and organizational
changes
that benefi t citizens (Lee, Cayer, and Lan 2006; Paarlberg
2007),
they argue that organizational changes designed to benefi t
others
can be an eff ective tool to manage and satisfy employees’
motiva-
tions by “providing a face for employees’ public service values,
thereby translating abstract organizational goals into signifi
cant—
and very practical—action” (Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010, 714).
Consistent with the rationale that employees with high PSM will

favor changes that improve government services and benefi t the
public, Naff and Crum’s (1999) study of federal employees
found
that PSM was associated with more positive perceptions about
organizational changes stemming from the National
Performance
Review (NPR). In the same vein, albeit running the opposite
causal direction, Moynihan and Pandey (2007) found that
changes
can actually foster employee PSM, perhaps because the reforms
are
intended to reduce red tape and make government more respon-
sive to citizens.
To advance our understanding of the underly-
ing mechanisms at work in this relationship,
an investigation of the eff ects of diff erent
dimensions of PSM on employee commit-
ment to change is warranted. As noted earlier,
past scholars have suggested that employees
with higher PSM are more likely to support
organizational reforms because they perceive
that these reforms are consistent with the high
value they place on meaningful public service.
Th is rationale suggests that three of the four specifi c
dimensions
of PSM identifi ed by scholars (Kim et al. 2013; Perry 1996) are
particularly important: attraction to public service, commitment
to public values, and compassion. First, attraction to public
service
is important because it captures the individual’s general interest
in
participating in the public policy process and in activities for
com-
munity and social development. Second, the commitment to

public
values dimension is important because it refl ects an
individual’s
support for specifi c public values (equity, ethics, and the
interests
of future generations) that government programs are supposed
to
promote. A third dimension, compassion, represents the degree
to which the employee has an aff ective bond and identifi es
with
the constituents who are the intended benefi ciaries of
government
programs and services. In other words, PSM increases
commitment
to change because it makes employees more supportive of the
inter-
ests, values, or benefi ciaries that these changes are intended to
help
advance. Th us, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Employee attraction to public service is posi-
tively related to commitment to change.
sector are not driven by an improvement in services. Rather,
they
can be driven by the need to cut costs as well. Given the
emphasis
in the current literature, it is uncertain whether past theory and
fi ndings regarding PSM’s eff ect on employee support for
change
still hold when the changes are focused on cost cutting. In
addition
to the potential for losing their jobs or having to work harder
with
fewer employees, evidence suggests that government employees
often do not see the cost-cutting reforms as being very

successful
(Micheli 2012). Under such conditions, it is uncertain whether
past
theory and fi ndings regarding PSM’s eff ect on employee
support for
change still hold. In this article, we address this gap in the
literature
by testing whether PSM increases commitment to or mitigates
the
potential negative eff ects of austerity reforms. In doing so, we
build
on existing studies by suggesting and testing specifi c
mechanisms by
which PSM may infl uence employee commitment to change.
Public Service Motivation and Commitment to
Organizational Change
Employee commitment to change refers to the cognitive
dedication
that “binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary
for
the successful implementation of [planned] change”
(Herscovitch
and Meyer 2002, 475). While there are many antecedents of
com-
mitment to change (discussed in the next section), employee
values
have been found to play an important role in precipitating
resistance
(Hultman 1979) or willing internalization of change
implementa-
tion (Klein and Sorra 1996). Th is may be especially true in the
public sector, where employees’ altruistic values and desire to
serve
society make them more likely to support their organization’s
mis-

sions as a function of value congruence (Weiss
and Piderit 1999).
In this regard, certain employee values may
be of particular importance in public sector
organizations undergoing change. Defi ned as
“a general altruistic motivation to serve the
interests of a community of people” (Rainey
and Steinbauer 1999, 23), PSM may be
associated with employee support for organi-
zational changes in the public sector (Cerase
and Farinella 2009; Moynihan and Pandey 2007; Naff and
Crum
1999; Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010; Perry and Wise 1990; Ritz
and
Fernandez 2011). While scholars have explained this
relationship
in slightly diff erent ways, consistent across this work is a
common
emphasis on how the content of change may aff ect the public
and
coincide with employees’ valuation of public service. For
example,
in their original description of PSM, Perry and Wise (1990) sug-
gested that PSM could increase employee support for public
sector
innovation and reform as a function of increasing their interest
in
and commitment to an organization that provides public
services.
In other words, PSM would increase employee commitment to
the
organization; “committed employees are likely to engage in
spon-
taneous, innovative behaviors on behalf of the organization,
[and]

such employees are likely to facilitate an organization’s
adjustment
to contingencies” (Perry and Wise 1990, 371). While research
has
not directly tested this full causal sequence, empirical evidence
supports the notions (1) that PSM increases organizational com-
mitment (Castaing 2006; Cerase and Farinella 2009; Crewson
1997; Leisink and Steijn 2009; Vandenabeele 2009), (2) that
PSM
increases the positive perception of change (Naff and Crum
1999),
To advance our understanding
of the underlying mechanisms
at work in this relationship, an
investigation of the eff ects of
diff erent dimensions of PSM
on employee commitment to
change is warranted.
values are associated with a higher concern for others, they are
less inclined to evaluate information or actions in terms of their
own personal costs and benefi ts (Korsgaard,
Meglino, and Lester 1997). Such employees
may be less likely to resist organizational
change because they are less likely to worry
about how the changes will aff ect them per-
sonally. Employees with higher PSM, there-
fore, may not just be more likely to accept
change because of the benefi ts it may provide

others but also because they are less likely to
resist changes that might benefi t the organiza-
tion or its clients more than themselves.
Th is eff ect may be particularly important in
light of scholars’ suggestion that self-sacrifi ce
provides the underlying foundation of PSM (Kim and
Vandenabeele
2010; Koehler and Rainey 2008). Having compassion or public
values and interests is not enough; PSM also requires acting in
the
interests of others at the expense of self-interest. In fact, PSM
is
often discussed in terms of the time, money, and eff ort that
indi-
viduals give up to help others (e.g., Brewer 2003; Houston
2006),
including an individual’s willingness to substitute service to
others
for tangible personal rewards such as pay or status (Perry and
Wise
1990). Th us, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2: Employee self-sacrifi ce is positively related to
commitment to change.
Context and Commitment to Change
While the foregoing hypotheses emphasize the potential role
that
employees’ values may play in their acceptance of change,
consider-
able research already highlights the importance of work
environ-
ment and management practices in employee acceptance of
change

(Fernandez and Rainey 2006). Consistent with this literature,
we
expect that the conditions under which changes are made are
likely
to be more important than the values that an employee brings to
the job. If PSM is important, it must be able to explain
employee
commitment beyond what can be accounted for by these factors.
To
help isolate any potential eff ects of PSM on employee
commitment
to change, our study controls for a number of alternative
explana-
tions for employee commitment to change. A brief description
of
and justifi cation for each control variable is described next.
Communication about changes can provide important informa-
tion that helps reduce stress and anxiety stemming from
employ-
ees’ uncertainty about what specifi c changes will occur, how
the
changes will aff ect their jobs, and how they should respond to
the
changes (Miller and Monge 1985; Wanberg and Banas 2000).
Communicating accurate and timely information about planned
organizational change not only helps explain the need for
change
but also helps employees better understand how change is likely
to
specifi cally aff ect or, just as important, not aff ect them.
Employee participation in the pre-change process also provides
greater opportunity to communicate and learn more about the
changes but does so in a way that suggests that the employee
can actually infl uence what or how changes are made (Bordia

et al. 2004). Together, communication and participation expose
Hypothesis 1b: Employee commitment to public values is
positively related to commitment to change.
Hypothesis 1c: Employee compassion
is positively related to commitment to
change.
Th e ability of this causal mechanism to
explain the relationship between PSM and
positive support for change is limited because
it requires that employees see the changes as
benefi ting the organization or its clientele.
Unfortunately, such positive perceptions of
organizational change may be the exception
rather than the rule given the prevalence of
concerns that public management reforms
may lower the quality of government services and put the public
at greater risk (Battaglio and Condrey 2009; Boyne 2003; Haque
2001; Yang and Kassekert 2010). Not surprisingly, the fi ndings
of at
least one study fail to support the claim that PSM increases the
posi-
tive perception of change (Cerase and Farinella 2009).
Other studies have raised questions regarding the practical
signifi -
cance or eff ect size of PSM’s infl uence on employee attitudes
toward
change. While Naff and Crum (1999) found that PSM increased
the likelihood that employees would feel that the NPR had a
posi-
tive eff ect on improving public services, they also found that
few
federal employees (21 percent) reported feeling positive about

the
changes related to NPR, and, on average, even employees with
high
PSM did not hold very positive views. Th ese latter fi ndings
seem
more consistent with scholarly claims regarding the
pervasiveness of
employee resistance to change (Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio
2008).
Resistance to change could conceivably be even stronger among
employees with higher PSM when the change is driven more by
the need to reduce costs than the need to improve service
delivery
by making government more responsive to citizens and reducing
organizational red tape.
Given that the current explanation for why PSM may increase
employee support for organizational change requires the
tenuous
assumption that the employees trust the organization in which
they
work or that the proposed change is doing what is in the best
inter-
est of the public, we suggest an additional mechanism that
focuses
instead on the potential for PSM to reduce resistance to change.
Drawing from the logic of Lewin’s force fi eld analysis (1951),
cham-
pions of change are often more successful when they use
strategies to
reduce the resisting forces than strategies that strengthen the
driving
forces in favor of change.
Much of the literature focusing on organizational change
suggests

that change often fails because of employee resistance driven by
personal fears that the change will adversely aff ect them in
some
way (Coch and French 1948; Miller and Monge 1985; Wanberg
and Banas 2000). Employees often fear changes that might
result
in losing familiar or comfortable social dynamics, gaining addi-
tional, less desirable tasks, or even losing their job. Employees
with
higher PSM, however, are often thought of as being more
willing to
sacrifi ce their own interests and preferences for the benefi t of
society
(Perry and Wise 1990). Research suggests that when an
employee’s
Employees with higher PSM,
therefore, may not just be more
likely to accept change because
of the benefi ts it may provide
others but also because they
are less likely to resist changes
that might benefi t the organi-
zation or its clients more than
themselves.
Motivated to Adapt? The Role of Public Service Motivation as
Employees Face Organizational Change 741
survey of local government employees in the southeastern part
of
the United States. As a result of economic pressures and the

need to
cut costs, the city proposed a series of what it referred to as “fi
scal
austerity measures” that included permanently eliminating
nearly
30 full-time positions (primarily positions vacant because of
hiring
freezes and early retirement incentives) and restructuring to
reduce
the number of departments from 15 to 8. Th is reorganization
proposed to change reporting relationships and duties and, in
some
cases, even require physical relocations as the city reduced
costs by
consolidating all city employees into two buildings. In addition
to
these changes, the city announced that there would be no wage
or
step increases for a second consecutive year and changed its
health
insurance coverage to require higher deductibles and employee
contributions. Th e changes were formally proposed at a city
council
meeting in April, approved in May, and proposed to begin in
July of
the same calendar year.
Th e survey was conducted by sending a questionnaire to all
city
employees in June 2010, as the city began to implement a
planned
reorganization of services and departments. To help limit the
pos-
sibility that employees’ responses do not refl ect their true
attitudes
and opinions, the survey was conducted anonymously and by a

neutral third party so that the employees would be less
concerned
that their managers would identify or react to their individual
responses. Also, to guard against the possibility of post hoc
rationali-
zation, the survey was conducted only a couple of months after
the
changes were formally proposed, a month after they were
approved,
and—depending on when the respondent returned the survey—
one
to two weeks before the implementation began.1
Employees with city e-mail addresses were asked to participate
in an
online survey by e-mail, while those without e-mail addresses
were
given printed surveys to complete and mail directly to the
research
team. From this, a total of 449 usable surveys were received
(245
completed online and 204 received in the mail), for an estimated
response rate of 44 percent. Demographics for the survey
respond-
ents are reported in table 1.
Measures
Each study variable was measured using items from established
measures. For example, to assess the dependent variable,
employee
commitment to change, we used fi ve items developed by
Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) to measure when an employee wants to act in
sup-
port of the change because of his or her belief in the inherent
benefi ts

of the change. In line with the theoretical underpinnings of
hypoth-
eses 1a–1c, aff ective commitment to change exists when the
change
is desired by the employee because it improves his or her job,
the
ability to achieve organizational goals, or the services provided
to the
clientele. Of the three types of employee commitment identifi
ed by
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002),2 aff ective commitment to
change has
received the most research attention (Wright and Isett 2012) and
has
been found to be associated with lower employee turnover
intentions
(Neves 2009; Raff erty and Restubog 2010), higher job
satisfaction
(Raff erty and Restubog 2010), and an increase in employee
behaviors
that champion or cooperate with change (Herscovitch and Meyer
2002; Meyer et al. 2007).
To test the hypotheses regarding the underlying mechanisms
that
drive the relationship between PSM and change support, each of
employees to information that can dispel any unnecessary
concerns
or incorrect information about the rationale for or eff ects of the
change (Bordia et al. 2006), as well as support employees’ need
for competence and autonomy. Th us, it is not surprising that so
many studies have found that communication of change-related
information and employee participation in the design or nature
of
the change can improve employee attitudes toward, and success-

ful implementation of, change (Armenakis et al. 2007; Conway
and Monks 2008; Jimmieson, Terry, and Callan 2004; Miller
and
Monge 1985; Raff erty and Griffi n 2006; Raff erty and
Restubog
2010; Wanberg and Banas 2000).
We control for two other aspects of the work environment that
are important to acceptance of change. First, social support
during
times of change can shape how well employees cope with and
com-
mit to change (Shaw et al. 1993). Second, the salience or
personal
impact of the changes on an employee and their work
environment
is likely to aff ect personal commitment to change. Employees
who
are more directly aff ected by change will likely experience
greater
stress (Ashford 1988) and reduce their acceptance of change.
In addition to controlling for the environmental conditions that
might infl uence employee commitment to change, we also
control
for a number of employee characteristics, including gender,
salary,
employment status (full time or part time), and two proxy
measures
of organizational level (salary and whether the respondent
super-
vised other employees).
Th e theoretical rationale for three additional characteristics
may be
especially compelling. First, we control for employee job

satisfac-
tion, even though the exact relationship between job satisfaction
and employee commitment to change is still being determined.
While some have found that commitment to change increases
job
satisfaction by reducing stress in the job (Raff erty and
Restubog
2010), others have noted that job satisfaction decreases commit-
ment to change because employees who are more satisfi ed
before
the changes have the most to lose as changes commence (Ritz
and
Fernandez 2011). To this, we add a third possibility that job
satisfac-
tion may actually increase commitment to change because
employ-
ees who are more satisfi ed with their jobs are more likely to be
committed to their organizations (Meyer et al. 2002), and, as
noted
earlier, organizational commitment can, in turn, foster
adaptability
and openness to change (Denhardt 1993; Perry and Wise 1990).
Similarly, we control for organizational tenure as an alternative
explanation of employee commitment to change because
employ-
ees with longer employment relationships may be more likely to
have well-developed psychological contracts that not only could
be violated by change but also could be more resistant to change
(Rousseau 2001). Finally, we control for employee change-
related
self-effi cacy, as employee commitment to change has been
found to
be infl uenced by the employees’ personal beliefs regarding
their abil-
ity to handle the proposed changes and to function well in their

jobs
despite the changes (Wanberg and Banas 2000).
Methods and Analysis
Data
To investigate the relationship between public service values
and
public employee acceptance of change, we used data from a
2010
newly developed measure (Kim et al. 2013) and the importance
of
testing the eff ects of all four dimensions (Kim and
Vandenabeele
2010), we chose to include the compassion measure in our
analyses.
As discussed earlier, we attempted to isolate the eff ects of PSM
on employee commitment to change by controlling for a number
of common antecedents of employee support for organizational
change. Estimates of each of the control variables previously
discussed were produced using established measures. Social
sup-
port for change, the appropriateness of change-related informa-
tion, employee change self-effi cacy, and degree of
participation
in change were measured using items adapted from Wanberg
and
Banas (2000).3 We also controlled for the salience of the
change
for the individual by using a single item adapted from Kelman
(2005) and for employee job satisfaction using fi ve items

devel-
oped to assess general job satisfaction (Agho, Mueller, and
Price
1993).
Responses for all questionnaire items were recorded using a fi
ve-
point Likert scale (ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly
agree”). Th e item wording for each measure is provided in the
appendix. Th e means, standard deviations, and reliabilities
(Cronbach’s alpha in parentheses, where applicable) for each
measure are reported in table 2.4
Empirical Results
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a series of ordinary least
squares multiple regression models testing the relationship
between
PSM and aff ective commitment to change after controlling for
common antecedents for change. Th e results are reported in
table 3.
In the fi rst model, we looked only at the eff ects of the control
variables not directly related to PSM or the change process. Th
is
controls-only model, driven primarily by employee job
satisfaction
and salary, explained 13 percent of the variation in employee
com-
mitment to change. In the second model, we added change-
related
factors to the controls and were able to explain 42 percent of
the
variation in employee commitment to change. Employees who
felt more adequately informed about and involved in the
changes
were more likely to commit to the organizational reform.

Similarly,
employees were more likely to be committed to change when
they
were more confi dent about their ability to handle change and
satis-
fi ed in general with their jobs. Not all of our results were
consistent
the four dimensions of PSM was measured using a newly
revised
four-item measure developed and validated for use in samples in
the United States and several other countries (Kim et al. 2013).
Th e bivariate correlations (table 2) between the measures of the
four dimensions suggested that they were highly related
(ranging
from .61 to .68), as one would expect given that they represent
diff erent aspects of the same concept; they were also relatively
distinct, as no two dimensions shared greater than 46.2 percent
…
Managing Successful Organizational
Change in the Public Sector
C
an governmental organizations change?
Reform initiatives have swept through
governments in the United States and overseas,
again and again bringing news about eff orts to reinvent,
transform, or reform government agencies ( Barzelay

2001; Kettl 2000; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000; Stillman
1999 ). Curiously, however, this recurrent theme of
change in government agencies has not induced a high
volume of articles that explicitly address the topic in
public administration journals. Th ere are prominent
exceptions to this observation (e.g., Bryson and
Anderson 2000; Chackerian and Mavima 2000; Mani
1995; Wise 2002 ) and journal articles about topics
related to organizational change (e.g., Berman and
Wang 2000; Brudney and Wright 2002; Hood and
Peters 2004 ). Articles reporting research and theory with
titles containing “ organizational change ” and with that
theme as a focal topic, however, appear with much less
regularity in public administration journals than in
research journals focusing on general management and
organization theory.
In that literature on organization theory, Van de Ven
and Poole (1995) report a count of one million articles

relating to organizational change. Th is vast body of
work abounds with complexities, including multiple
and confl icting theories and research fi ndings and a
good bit of inconclusiveness. Th is complexity presents
a challenge to public administrators and public admin-
istration researchers alike. To respond to that chal-
lenge, the full version of this article, which is available
on PAR ’ s Web site ( www.aspanet.org ), provides an
overview of the vast literature on organizational
change — a review demonstrating its complexity but
also bringing some needed order to the literature.
Here, the analysis identifi es points of consensus among
researchers on what are commonly called organiza-
tional transformations : initiatives involving large-scale,
planned, strategic, and administrative change
(Abramson and Lawrence 2001; Kotter 1995 ). Th ese
points serve as testable propositions for researchers to
examine in future research and as major considerations

for leaders of change initiatives in public organizations.
Theories of Organizational Change
in Public Organizations
Th e variety of theoretical perspectives summarized in
the online version of this article presents a rather con-
fusing picture, but it provides insights into the nature
of organizational change, and in particular, the causes
of change and the role of managers in the change pro-
cess. Some of the theories downplay the signifi cance
of human agency as a source of change (e.g.,
DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Hannan and Freeman
1984 ; Scott 2003). Conversely, other theories view
managers ’ purposeful action as driving change (e.g.,
Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Pfeff er and Salancik
1978 ), although environmental, cognitive, and
resource constraints place limits on such action
(Van de Ven and Poole 1995).
Th ese major theoretical perspectives illustrate
researchers ’ confl icting views about the causes of

change in organizations, especially the capacity of
managers to bring about change. Despite the confl icts
among theorists, however, a signifi cant body of
research indicates that managers frequently do make
change happen in their organizations (Armenakis,
Harris, and Feild 1999; Burke 2002; Judson 1991;
Kotter 1995 , 1996; Yukl 2002 ). Public sector studies
also off er evidence of the critical role that public
managers play in bringing about organizational
change (e.g., Abramson and Lawrence 2001;
Bingham and Wise 1996; Borins 2000; Doig and
Hargrove 1990 ; Hennessey 1998; Kemp, Funk,
and Eadie 1993).
Noting that managers can eff ect change tells us little,
however, about whether an intended change actually
occurs and about the best strategies for eff ecting
change. Fortunately, a stream of research exists that
contains various models and frameworks, many of

them loosely based on Lewin ’ s (1947) steps or phases
of change. Th ese studies describe the process of imple-
menting change within organizations and point to
factors contributing to success (e.g., Armenakis,
Harris, and Feild 1999; Bingham and Wise 1996 ;
Sergio Fernandez is an assistant profes-
sor in the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University.
His research focuses on public manage-
ment, with an emphasis on privatization
and contracting for services, public sector
leadership, and organizational change. His
research has appeared in the Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory ,
Public Performance and Management
Review , Review of Public Personnel
Administration , and Public Administration
Review .
E-mail: [email protected] .
Hal G. Rainey is the Alumni Foundation
Distinguished Professor in the School of

Public and International Affairs at the
University of Georgia. His research concen-
trates on organizations and management in
government, with an emphasis on perfor-
mance, change, leadership, incentives,
privatization, and comparisons of govern-
mental management to management in the
business and nonprofi t sectors. The third
edition of his book Understanding and
Managing Public Organizations was
published in 2003. He was recently elected
a fellow of the National Academy of Public
Administration.
E-mail: [email protected] .
Theory to
Practice
168 Public Adminisration Review • March | April 2006
Sergio Fernandez
Indiana University
Hal G . Rainey

University of Georgia
Burke 2002; Greiner 1967; Kotter 1995 , 1996;
Rainey and Rainey 1986; Th ompson and Fulla 2001 ).
Despite some diff erences in these models and frame-
works, one fi nds remarkable similarities among
them, as well as empirical studies supporting them
( Armenakis and Bedeian 1999 ). One can discern from
this body of research a consensus that change leaders
and change participants should pay special attention
to eight factors, each off ering propositions suitable
for further testing and refi nement in future research.
Th e full online version of this article presents a more
elaborate and detailed propositional inventory; this
shorter version emphasizes the most general proposi-
tions identifi ed.
Because it draws on points of consensus among re-
searchers and experienced observers, the set of factors

discussed here resembles, but diff ers in signifi cant
ways from, some other frameworks (e.g., Kotter
1996). Some experts portray the change process as a
linear progression through successive stages repre-
sented by the factors discussed here (e.g., Armenakis,
Harris, and Feild 1999; Greiner 1967; Kotter 1995 ).
Th e process, however, rarely unfolds in such a simple
linear fashion ( Amis, Slack, and Hinings 2004 ; Van de
Ven 1993). Th e eight factors and propositions that are
discussed in the following sections can infl uence the
outcome of change initiatives at diff erent points of the
process. Moreover, researchers have generally treated
these determinants of eff ective implementation of or-
ganizational change as having additive eff ects. Th e
present analysis, in contrast, treats each determinant
as potentially contributing to the successful imple-
mentation of change — or making implementation
smoother — by adding to the eff ects of the other fac-

tors. Finally, despite what some practitioners might
see as the commonsense nature of these factors and
propositions, examples cited below — as well as many
other studies and examples — indicate that change
leaders very often ignore, overlook, or underestimate
them ( Kotter 1995, 1996 ).
Factor 1: Ensure the Need
Managerial leaders must verify and persuasively com-
municate the need for change. Research indicates that
the implementation of planned change generally
requires that leaders verify the need for change and
persuade other members of the organization and
important external stakeholders that it is necessary
(Armenakis, Harris, and Feild 1999; Burke 2002;
Judson 1991; Kotter 1995; Laurent 2003; Nadler and
Nadler 1998 ). Th e process of convincing individuals
of the need for change often begins with crafting a
compelling vision for it. A vision presents a picture or
image of the future that is easy to communicate and

that organizational members fi nd appealing ( Kotter
1995 ); it provides overall direction for the change
process and serves as the foundation from which to
develop specifi c strategies for arriving at a future
end state.
Some research on private organizations indicates that
it is easier to convince individuals of the need for
change when leaders craft a vision that off ers the hope
of relief from stress or discomfort (Kets de Vries and
Balazs 1999). Nadler and Nadler (1998) even suggest
implanting dissatisfaction with the current state of
aff airs in order to get members of the organization to
embrace change. To convince individuals of the need
for and desirability of change and to begin the process
of “ unfreezing ” the organization, Armenakis, Harris,
and Feild (1999) suggest employing eff ective written
and oral communication and forms of active partici-
pation among employees.

Th e public-management literature contains evidence
of the importance of determining the need for
change and persuasively communicating it through a
continuing process of exchange with as many stake-
holders and participants as possible (Abramson and
Lawrence 2001; Rossotti 2005; Young 2001 ). For
instance, Kemp, Funk, and Eadie (1993) and
Bingham and Wise (1996) conclude that successful
implementation of new programs depends on top
management ’ s ability to disseminate information
about the change and convince employees of the
urgency of change. Denhardt and Denhardt (1999)
describe how eff ective local government managers
verify the need for change through “ listening and
learning ” and then communicate those needs in
ways that build support for change. Researchers have
also noted public sector leaders ’ eff orts to take
advantage of mandates, political windows of oppor-

tunity, and external infl uences to verify and
communicate the need for change (Abramson and
Lawrence 2001; Harokopus 2001; Lambright 2001;
Rossotti 2005 ).
Factor 2: Provide a Plan
Managerial leaders must develop a course of action or
strategy for implementing change. Convincing the
members of an organization of the need for change is
obviously not enough to bring about actual change.
Th e new idea or vision must be transformed into a
course of action or strategy with goals and a plan for
achieving it (Abramson and Lawrence 2001; Carnall
1995; Judson 1991; Kotter 1995; Lambright 2001;
Nadler and Nadler 1998; Young 2001 ). Th is strategy
serves as a road map for the organization, off ering
direction on how to arrive at the preferred end state,
identifying obstacles, and proposing measures for
overcoming those obstacles. As Kotter (1995)

explains, the basic elements of the vision should be
organized into a strategy for achieving that vision so
that the transformation does not disintegrate into a
set of unrelated and confusing directives and
activities.
Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public
Sector 169
Two aspects of a course of action that appear crucial
for organizational change in the public sector include
the clarity or degree of specifi city of the strategy and
the extent to which the strategy rests on sound causal
theory. Policy implementation analysts have long
noted the importance of clear, specifi c policy goals
and coherent causal thinking about the linkage be-
tween the initiative to be implemented and the de-
sired outcomes (Bishop and Jones 1993; Grizzle and
Pettijohn 2002; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989; Meier
and McFarlane 1995 ). Specifi c goals help ensure that

the measures implemented in the fi eld correspond
with the formal policy by limiting the ability of imple-
menting offi cials to change the policy objectives and
providing a standard of accountability. As Bingham
and Wise (1996) and Meyers and Dillon (1999) dis-
covered, policy ambiguity can sow confusion, allowing
public managers to reinterpret the policy and imple-
ment it in a fashion that brings about few of the
changes that policy makers intended (see also
Montjoy and O ’ Toole 1979). Finally, a mandate for
change based on sound causal theory helps eliminate
inconsistent or confl icting directives that can under-
mine eff orts to implement change. Rossotti (2005)
shows how he and others leading major organizational
changes at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) set
forth a clear, well-conceived, well-organized plan for
the change process.
Factor 3: Build Internal Support for Change

and Overcome Resistance
Managerial leaders must build internal support for
change and reduce resistance to it through widespread
participation in the change process and other means.
Students of major organizational changes typically
report that successful leaders understand that change
involves a political process of developing and nurtur-
ing support from major stakeholders and organiza-
tional members. Individuals in organizations resist
change for a variety of reasons (Kets de Vries and
Balazs 1999) — for example, some ideas for change
are simply ill conceived, unjustifi ed, or pose harmful
consequences for members of the organization. Even
assuming a well-justifi ed and well-planned change
initiative, however, leaders must build internal
support and overcome resistance.
How can they do so? Several researchers have observed
that a crisis, shock, or strong external challenge to the
organization can help reduce resistance to change. Van de

Ven (1993) explains that because individuals are highly
adaptable to gradually emerging conditions, a shock or
stimulus of signifi cant magnitude is typically required for
them to accept change as inevitable. In a similar vein,
Kotter warns managers against the risk of “ playing it too
safe ” and noted that “ when the urgency rate is not
pumped up enough, the transformation process cannot
succeed ” (1995, 60). He even observed that in a few of
the most successful cases of organizational change, the
leadership manufactured crises (see also Laurent 2003;
Th ompson and Fulla 2001 ).
For many decades, social scientists have emphasized the
value of eff ective and ethical participation, as well as
other means, in supporting group and organizational
change and in lowering resistance to it (Coch and French
1948; Lewin 1947 ). More recently, experts have further
explored ways of reducing resistance to change. Judson
(1991) identifi es a variety of tactics that managers can

employ to minimize resistance to change, including
threats and compulsion, criticism, persuasion, induce-
ments and rewards, compromises and bargaining, guar-
antees against personal loss (e.g., off ering job security or
retraining to employees), psychological support, em-
ployee participation, ceremonies and other eff orts to
build loyalty, recognition of the appropriateness and le-
gitimacy of past practices, and gradual and fl exible im-
plementation of change. With the exception of threats,
compulsion, and criticism, which can have counterpro-
ductive eff ects and further increase resistance, he argues
that these approaches can be eff ective at reducing resis-
tance to change (see also Kets de Vries and Balazs 1999).
A “ dual approach ” that creates pride in the organization ’ s
history and past success while arguing for a new way
of doing things seems also to be eff ective at reducing
resistance to change.
Th e scope of participation is also important. Wide-

spread participation in the change process is perhaps
the most frequently cited approach to overcoming
resistance to change (e.g., Abramson and Lawrence
2001; Young 2001 ). Many scholars who focus on pri-
vate organizations have asserted that planned change
requires extensive participation by members at mul-
tiple levels of the organization during all stages of im-
plementation ( Bunker and Alban 1997; Greiner 1967;
Johnson and Leavitt 2001; Nadler and Nadler 1998;
Pasmore 1994 ). Th e literature indicates that involving
organizational members helps reduce barriers to
change by creating psychological ownership, promot-
ing the dissemination of critical information, and en-
couraging employee feedback for fi ne-tuning the
change during implementation.
Participation presents a particularly important contin-
gency in the public sector. As Warwick (1975) asserts,
career civil servants, who are allegedly motivated by

caution and security, can use the frequent turnover
among top political appointees to their advantage by
simply resisting new initiatives until a new adminis-
tration comes into power. However, their participa-
tion in the stages of change can help reduce this kind
of resistance. Rossotti (2005) , for instance, recounts a
continuous process of meetings with all types of stake-
holders — frontline employees, union leaders, taxpay-
ers and taxpayer groups, managers, Treasury
Department executives, members of Congress, and
others (see also Denhardt and Denhardt 1999; Poister
170 Public Administration Review • March | April 2006
and Streib 1999 ). Goldsmith (1999 , 68ff ), too, de-
scribes how employee “ empowerment ” played a key
role in his change eff orts as mayor of Indianapolis.
Interestingly, Kelman ’ s (2005) analysis of the federal pro-
curement reform process suggests that one should avoid

overestimating change resistance. A signifi cant number of
employees welcomed reforms, and their support needed
only to be “ unleashed. ” Buttressing Kelman ’ s point,
Th ompson and Sanders ’ s (1997) analysis of change
within the Veterans Benefi ts Administration suggests that
success may require bottom-up participatory elements,
such as delegating decision making to middle manage-
ment and granting frontline workers greater discretion
to implement changes. Th ey note, however, that top
management still must play a critical role by encouraging
and rewarding innovation and expressing support for the
change. Successful implementation of organizational
change, therefore, often resembles a hybrid combining
elements of lower-level participation and direction from
top management.
Even widespread participation, however, does not off er
a magic bullet for overcoming resistance to change
( Shareef 1994 ). Bruhn, Zajac, and Al-Kazemi (2001)

advise that participation should be widespread and span
all phases of the change process, but they stress that
leaders must take participation seriously, commit time
and eff ort to it, and manage it properly. Th e failure to
do so can be counterproductive, leading to wasted time,
morale, and resources (see also Quinn 2000). Bryson
and Anderson (2000) make a similar observation in
their analysis of large-group methods used to diagnose
problems and implement changes in organizations.
Factor 4: Ensure Top-Management
Support and Commitment
An individual or group within the organization
should champion the cause for change. Top-
management support and commitment to change play
an especially crucial role in success (Burke 2002;
Carnall 1995; Greiner 1967; Johnson and Leavitt
2001; Kotter 1995; Nadler and Nadler 1998; Yukl
2002 ). Some studies of organizational change stress
the importance of having a single change agent or

“ idea champion ” lead the transformation. An idea
champion is a highly respected individual who main-
tains momentum and commitment to change, often
taking personal risks in the process (Kanter 1983).
Policy-implementation scholars have off ered evidence
of how a skillful and strategically placed leader or
“ fi xer ” can successfully coordinate the behavior of
disparate actors and overcome obstacles by leveraging
close personal ties and pursuing informal avenues of
infl uence ( Bardach 1977; O ’ Toole 1989 ).
Other authors have stressed the need to have a guid-
ing coalition to support the change. A guiding coali-
tion is a group of individuals who lend legitimacy to
the eff ort and marshal the resources and emotional
support required to induce organizational members to
change ( Carnall 1995 ; Kets de Vries and Balazs 1999;
Kotter 1995; Yukl 2002 ). Kotter asserts that one or
two managers often launch organizational renewal

eff orts, but “ whenever some minimum mass is not
achieved early in the eff ort, nothing much worthwhile
happens ” (1995, 62).
Whether it occurs in the form of a single change agent
or a guiding coalition, considerable evidence indicates
that top-management support and commitment play
an essential role in successful change in the public sec-
tor (Abramson and Lawrence 2001; Berman and
Wang 2000; Bingham and Wise 1996; Denhardt and
Denhardt 1999; Harokopus 2001 ; Hennessey 1998;
Kemp, Funk, and Eadie 1993; Lambright 2001;
Laurent 2003; Rainey and Rainey 1986; Th ompson
and Fulla 2001; Young 2001 ). Barzelay ’ s (2001) analy-
sis of New Public Management reforms in various
nations, for instance, reports that Aucoin (1990) at-
tributes the failure of these reforms in Canada to a
lack of support from cabinet ministers, who simply
did not care much about the reforms.

Finally, in the public sector, top-management support
for change often requires the cooperation of top-level
career civil servants in addition to politically ap-
pointed executives. Moreover, the need for leadership
continuity and stability raises particular challenges in
the public sector because of the frequent and rapid
turnover of many executives in government agencies
compared to business executives. Th is may explain
why, contrary to stereotype, many signifi cant changes
in government need to be — and have been — led
by career civil servants ( Holzer and Callahan
1998 ).
Factor 5: Build External Support
Managerial leaders must develop support from political
overseers and key external stakeholders. Organizational
change in the public sector also depends on the degree
of support from political overseers and other key exter-
nal stakeholders. Th e impact of these actors on the out-

come of change eff orts stems in part from their ability
to impose statutory changes and control the fl ow of
vital resources to public organizations. Political over-
seers can infl uence the outcome of planned change by
creating and conveying a vision that explains the need
for change, as well as by selecting political appointees
who are sympathetic to the change and have the knowl-
edge and skills required for managing the transforma-
tion. As Golembiewski (1985) suggests, attaining
support from governmental authorities and political
actors involves serious challenges, given the constraints
imposed by the political context in which public orga-
nizations operate. Public agencies often have multiple
political masters pursuing diff erent objectives, and
politically appointed executives often have very weak
Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public
Sector 171
relationships with career civil servants. Despite these

challenges, public managers implementing change in
their organizations must display skill in obtaining
support from powerful external actors.
Public policy scholars have observed the impact of sup-
port from political overseers or sovereigns on the out-
come of policy implementation ( Goggin et al. 1990;
Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989 ). Th ey are now joined
by more recent studies of public sector reform that have
begun to stress the importance of external political sup-
port ( Berman and Wang 2000 ; de Lancer Julnes and
Holzer 2001; Wallin 1997 ). Berry, Chackerian, and
Wechsler (1999) note that the governor ’ s high level of
commitment and support for particular reforms in
Florida had a substantial infl uence on the degree of im-
plementation (see also Chackerian and Mavima 2000 ).
Changes that could have been implemented quickly
and cost-eff ectively seemed to generate more support
from elected offi cials than those with higher implemen-

tation costs and those requiring much more eff ort and
time to implement.
Support from other key external stakeholders fi gures
prominently in successful change eff orts (Abramson and
Lawrence 2001; Denhardt and Denhardt 1999;
Harokopus 2001; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989;
Rossotti 2005; Wallin 1997 ). Th ompson and Fulla
(2001) conclude that the interest group environment
acted as an important determinant of agency adoption of
National Performance Review (NPR) reforms, with
strong interest group opposition to an agency ’ s NPR
reforms constraining change. Conversely, Weissert and
Goggin (2002) found that proceeding to implementa-
tion without garnering the support of interest groups can
speed up the implementation process, albeit at the cost
of dissatisfaction and criticism.
Factor 6: Provide Resources
Successful change usually requires suffi cient resources

to support the process. A fairly consistent fi nding in
the literature is that change is not cheap or without
trade-off s. Planned organizational change involves a
redeployment or redirection of scarce organizational
resources toward a host of new activities, including
developing a plan or strategy for implementing the
change, communicating the need for change, training
employees, developing new processes and practices,
restructuring and reorganizing the organization, and
testing and experimenting with innovations (see
Burke 2002; Mink et al. 1993; Nadler and Nadler
1998 ). Failure to provide adequate resources in sup-
port of a planned change leads to feeble implementa-
tion eff orts, higher levels of interpersonal stress, and
even neglect of core organizational activities and func-
tions. Boyne ’ s (2003) review of research, for example,
found that “ resources ” is one of the important factors
for improving public services (and hence, bringing

about change). Rossotti (2005) heavily invested
resources in major changes at the IRS and expressed
regret that he had not sought at the outset stronger
assurances of budgetary support for the reforms from
Treasury Department offi cials.
Policy implementation scholars have long recognized
this need for adequate resources to implement policy
changes ( Goggin et al. 1990; Matland 1995;
Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989 ; Montjoy and O ’ Toole
1979). Ample funding is necessary to staff implement-
ing agencies and to provide them with the administra-
tive and technical capacity to ensure that they achieve
statutory objectives. Similarly, students of recent ad-
ministrative reforms have observed that resource scar-
city can hinder organizational changes (Berry,
Chackerian, and Wechsler 1999; Bingham and Wise
1996; Chackerian and Mavima 2000 ; Kemp, Funk,
and Eadie 1993).

As Chackerian and Mavima (2000) discovered in their
analysis of government reform in Florida, resource
munifi cence becomes even more complex when mul-
tiple organizational changes are implemented as part
of a comprehensive reform agenda. Th e authors found
that multiple organizational changes interact with one
another, causing synergies and trade-off s. For example,
the pursuit of multiple changes that demand modest
amounts of similar resources can lead to synergies,
increasing the likelihood that all changes will be im-
plemented successfully. Th e pursuit of multiple
changes that require large amounts of similar re-
sources, on the other hand, tends to result in trade-
off s. Trade-off s, in turn, result in winners and losers,
with low-cost changes taking precedence over or even
displacing more costly ones.
Factor 7: Institutionalize Change
Managers and employees must eff ectively institution-
alize and embed changes. To make change enduring,

members of the organization must incorporate the
new policies or innovations into their daily routines.
Virtually all organizational changes involve changes in
the behavior of organizational members. Employees
must learn and routinize these behaviors in the short
term, and leaders must institutionalize them over the
long haul so that new patterns of behavior displace
old ones (Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano 2001;
Greiner 1967; Kotter 1995; Lewin 1947 ).
Doing so, however, is not easy. Armenakis, Harris, and
Feild (1999) have developed a model for reinforcing
and institutionalizing change. According to the
model, leaders can modify formal structures, proce-
dures, and human resource management practices;
employ rites and ceremonies; diff use the innovation
through trial runs and pilot projects; collect data to
track …

20 Are You Ready for Change?
Are You Ready for Change?
What The Community Expects from Its Police
By: Commander Mike Hallinan, Irvine Police Department
Commander Mike Hallinan currently serves as University Area
Commander with Irvine
Police Department. He has 27 years of experience and holds a
Bachelor of Art’s Degree
in sociology and a Master of Science in administration of
justice and security. He is a
graduate of the California POST’s Sherman Block Leadership
Institute, the LAPD WestPoint
Leadership Program, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police Law Enforcement
Business Fellowship, the Senior Management Institute of
Police, and the Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training Command College. He
has prior police experience
with the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department and the Los
Angeles Police Department.
Imagine having a job where every decision
you make is captured on high-definition video,
from multiple angles, and can be scrutinized in slow
motion over-and-over again by your supervisor and,
in some cases, by the public through the news media
and social media. What happens when mistakes are
made? Even with all the advances in technology
there is still room for human error. Humans make
mistakes every day. Mistakes can cause distrust and
resentment that last for years. When more mistakes
are made, the problem is compounded exponentially.

The phenomenon occurs in law enforcement.
Police work is subject to human error like any other job, but
mistakes
and even perceived mistakes in this profession can lead to
significant problems. It
does not matter if the mistake was made by a police officer in a
local department,
the neighboring police agency or one across the country. It is
interesting that as a
profession, we do not share each other’s successes, but are
judged together by our
failures and missteps. More than ever, the scrutiny the law
enforcement profession
faces is tremendous and can ripple across the entire country.
Together we must
work to restore confidence and trust, legitimacy, and fulfill
societies’ expectations
of the police.
The following pages will examine several factors associated
with the
growing distrust of police officers by the public, and how the
law enforcement
community can reverse and regain trust and legitimacy. Ziad K.
Abdelmour,
president of Blackhawk Partners, Inc., a New York private
equity firm said that
“trust is earned, respect is given, and loyalty is demonstrated
and betrayal of any
one of those is to lose all three.” In this same vein, the police
need to understand
that trust, respect and loyalty have eroded and simply
evaporated similar to the
proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. However, all is not
lost; there is good news
in efforts to rebuild trust in the police. Law enforcement leaders
are beginning to

embrace new police training models. They are also reinvesting
in the principles of
The Journal of California Law Enforcement 21
Community Oriented Policing, but not by merely stenciling
patrol vehicles with
the motto “In Partnership with the Community.”
A Profession in Crisis
The evening news is plagued with stories portraying distrust of
the police,
racial inequalities, excessive police force and community
divide. A recent Harvard
University study showed that half of the youth in the United
States and 80 percent
of African Americans distrust the police (Martin, 2015).
Technology has played a significant role to rapidly change all
phases of
law enforcement. Much like instant replay in sports, cell phone
video of police
interactions is uploaded to the Internet and dissected in the
media, in forums, and
on social media. Social media’s speed of information can have a
major impact on
the perception of police and shift public support in a moment.
This phenomenon
must be understood and addressed to ensure public trust does
not deteriorate.
Transforming police to be effective in their communities
requires
significant effort and collaboration. This transformation will
require committed
leaders who foster a collaborative approach. When

organizational factors are
considered (such as motivational levels, department culture,
community support,
demographics, economics, political factors, labor issues and the
availability of
resources), community support stands out as the biggest
challenge. The division
between the police and the public can take significant amounts
of effort to bridge;
especially in communities where significant police incidents
have occurred.
The difficulty is that many of the social problems of America
have been
relegated to the police, who are now forced to finding creative
methods to handle
the massive disinvestments in mental health care, social
services for the homeless
and disadvantaged, and substances abusers. The Washington
Post recently released
an analysis of 462 police shooting deaths in the United States
that occurred in the
first six months of 2015. More than one-fourth of those deaths
involved individuals
distraught and in emotional or mental crisis (Lowery, et al.
2015). The nature and
frequency of these lethal encounters is one area ripe for change.
On average, police in the United States kill 920 individuals per
year
(Martin, 2015). More than half of police agencies nationally
involved in deadly
encounters this year have not provided officers training in
dealing with the mentally
ill. An analysis of police tactics used revealed officers made
volatile situations even
more dangerous (Lowery, et al. 2015). When law enforcement
fails to understand

they are dealing with an individual in crisis, the outcome might
be a deadly use of
force that is legally and morally ethical. However, deadly use of
force could be avoided
by utilizing alternative tactics. “Words instead of guns,
questions instead of orders,
patience instead of immediate action.” (Police Executive
Research Forum, 2012).
Implications on the Future of Policing
Law enforcement has developed over time to reflect the ever
changing
environment, the social values and expectations of a
community, and technological
and other advances (Gascon and Manheimer, 2013). From the
time Sir Robert
22
Peel created the London Metropolitan Police force, the
principles of policing
have remained constant. The environment in which the police
operate, though,
is constantly changing and can experience dramatic shifts from
a single incident.
Protecting life and property, maintaining order, and enforcing
the law are now
challenged by ever-changing social expectations, technology,
the increased
sophistication of crime, the economy, and severe budget cuts
that funded many
social programs. Modern policing is far more complex than
responding to radio
calls for service and making arrests. Understanding the changes

that can affect the
services provided in the future is vital to the service provided
by law enforcement
today (Accenture, 2013).
The most important changes likely to affect law enforcement
organizations
are improving police functions and being able to meet the
demanding social
expectations. Police agencies are expected to be more proactive
rather than
reactive; getting involved in the substance of policing by
improving relationships
with the community. Today, most police agencies implement
some type of
community oriented and problem oriented policing program
(Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2014). However, the traditional approaches must be
delivered differently.
It means ensuring police officers understand this mission and
have a plan when
they go in service each shift.
Examining the ways in which law enforcement officers are
providing
service to the community is required to meet future challenges.
Law enforcement
organizations must constantly look for new ways of doing
business, utilizing
innovative ideas and being resourceful. Understandably, what
works in one
community might not be appropriate in another.
Garnering and maintaining public trust, promoting
transparency, and
working in partnership with the community to solve mutual
problems is more than
a tagline – it is the keystone of contemporary policing.
Successful organizations

understand these priorities and understand the pivotal role
community caretaking
has in achieving these goals. We cannot build trust, if we are
not willing to realize
the importance in non-traditional police activities. Law
enforcement organizations
must ensure their officers understand these priorities and adopt
this as a
foundation to their policing plan. In part, rebuilding a
foundation of trust begins
with training recruits and in-service police officers with a
Creative Problem-Solving
Model developed by Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
and embracing the
“Six Pillars” of policing.
On December 18, 2014, President Barack Obama established
the
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. President
Obama charged the
Task Force “with identifying best practices and offering
recommendations on how
policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while
building public
trust.” It’s not by mistake that “Building Trust and Legitimacy”
is the first of the
Six Pillars of the Task Force. “Promoting trust and ensuring
legitimacy through
procedural justice transparency, accountability, and honest
recognition of past
and present obstacles.” (United States Department of Justice,
2015). With this
in mind, the community expects and deserves competence,
patience, respect,

responsiveness and creative problem-solving delivered with care
and compassion.
Police and Sheriff’s departments should adopt procedural
justice as the guiding
principle for internal and external policies and practices to
guide their interactions
with the citizens they serve (United States Department of
Justice, 2015). Police
legitimacy and procedural justice involves:
• Treating people with dignity and respect
• Making decisions fairly, based on facts, not illegitimate
factors such as race
• Giving people a “voice,” a chance to tell their side of the story
• Explaining your actions
• Acting in a manner that encourages community members to
believe that they
will be treated with goodwill in the future
For law enforcement to meet future challenges, the police must
be able
to connect to the community and fulfill their expectations; even
when those
expectations are in providing non-traditional police services.
Law enforcement
must embrace social, operational, cultural, technological and
organizational
change. Studies have shown that citizen expectations are rising
around crime
reporting, emergency response effectiveness, citizen care, and
public safety and
public involvement in policing (Accenture, 2013).

New Police Training Models for Both In-Service and Academy
Recruits
Law enforcement officers are trained to rush into an event and
become
immediate problem solvers, sometimes creating their own
emergency by failing to
properly evaluate the situation. The Police Executive Research
Forum conducted
extensive research on the De-Escalation and Minimizing Use of
Force Incidents.
Many of their outcomes can be adopted and incorporated into a
creative problem-
solving model. Adopting this model will provide officers with
alternative options
when responding to force situations rather than rushing into the
scene. Scenario
training is the key and will allow officers to work through
issues before facing them
in the field during a real situation. The main points from
PERF’s study are:
• Slowing the situation down and getting a supervisor to the
scene can reduce
the chances of violence.
• Establishing crisis intervention teams and partnerships with
mental health
officials can result in more effective handling of encounters
with individuals
in crisis.
• Proactive work to identify “frequent customers” and provide
early intervention
to help avoid crisis situations.
• Hands on law enforcement training so officers recognize real

threats posed
by individuals with mental illness to elevate the anxiety officers
feel about
the situation.
• Avoiding overreliance on weapons, such as the Taser, as
opposed to hands-on
tactics and verbal skills.
• Training officers in “tactical disengagement.”
• Placing the mentally ill into a custody environment does not
solve the problem
and only exacerbates the problem. It burdens the jail and court
systems, places
23
24
custody officers in predicaments when they do not have the
appropriate
training to deal with the mentally ill, and causes problems in
society when
they are released.
In sum, law enforcement officers must be provided the
necessary training
to develop the skills to handle these difficult situations.
Academy Training: Balance Curriculum to Teach Both
Guardian and Warrior
Models
Changing the culture and attitude of police work from the

beginning of a recruit’s
career from the traditional “Us vs. Them” to collaborative
partnerships. Changing
police culture must start from the beginning during academy
training and resonate
throughout the entire department. Recruits are conditioned early
on in the police
academy with saying like, “Prepare for the best, but expect the
worst.” It is the
“warrior vs. guardian” debate. During every scenario at the
police academy, recruits
nervously wait for something bad to happen so they can
immediately react with
force to defend themselves.
Instead, officers should be trained early on to ensure that every
contact
with the public is an opportunity for law enforcement to make a
lasting impression
through the delivery of stellar service. We must remember that
law enforcement
officers are public servants and should demonstrate genuine
care and compassion,
competence, patience, respect, responsiveness and creative
problem-solving with
every individual they have contact.
Being a “guardian” does not make a person weak. To the
contrary, a
guardian is a protector of the community and has earned the
level of trust, respect
and confidence in not only the individual officer, but the
officer’s organization and
profession. “In Plato’s vision of a perfect society — in a
republic that honors the
core of democracy — the greatest amount of power is given to
those called the
Guardians. Only those with the most impeccable character are

chosen to bear the
responsibility of protecting the democracy.” (Rahr and Rice,
2015)
Building Trust in a Community: A Policing Plan for 2016 and
Beyond
One of the principal challenges for a police department is
evaluating their
mission, vision, and values and determining if they are in line
with the expectations
of the community. This is a philosophical challenge. As the
expectations of the
community change, so might the mission of the police
department. Ensuring
officers understand and embrace the departments’ mission,
vision, and values
statements are at the very core of the policing plan. Next,
leaders should be
providing personnel with training, direction, support and
understanding, and
confirming they have a plan in place when they go out into the
community. When
they leave the station, do they turn right or left? And more
importantly, do they
know why? The policing plan involves the following:
• Responding to radio calls for service is a primary
responsibility. Officers
must understand they have a responsibility for a timely
response; which
is professional, caring, helpful, patient, understanding,
competent and

knowledgeable. Every action an officer takes will leave a
lasting impression,
regardless if it is positive or negative. It will impact not only
how you are
personally perceived, but also how the organization and the
profession you
represent are perceived (Hamel, 2014).
• Officers must have a patrol plan based on the understanding of
crime, traffic
and quality of life issues unique to the policing area they are
patrolling.
Providing up-to-date crime analytics and important information
each day
at briefing is critical to this step. This allows officers to
understand where
problems are and crime is occurring so they can focus their time
in effort in
those specific areas when they are not responding to radio calls.
• Community Oriented Policing (COP) is a policing philosophy
that incorporates
partnerships and problem-solving techniques to solve
community problems.
Officers must have a firm understanding of COP and integrate
this philosophy
into long-term collaborate problem solving. This cannot be
accomplished
unless officers know they have management support in their
decision making.
Each day, officers routinely respond to incidents involving
crisis and chaos
and community requests may seem unreasonable. Officers must

be able to
make problem-solving decision that, even if unorthodox or
unconventional,
are able to solve the problem.
• Spending five minutes each shift to deliberately and
purposefully engage
the community and build mutual trust is critical. Imagine how
mutual
trust and support can be compounded exponentially if every
officer
did this each shift. Supervision and management must also learn
what
their officers’ passion and goals are and then support their
personnel in
accomplishing them. We must earn the trust of the community
every day!
Every policing organization is different, but ensuring officers
have a
policing plan in place before they go out into the community is
critical.
In 2012, the Police Executive Research Forum conducted a
study on the
Future of Policing and identified numerous technological
advances in policing.
These included: engaging the community, predicting and
improving services
through analytics, enhancing collaboration with the entire
community (business,
schools, religious institutions, special groups, etc.), optimizing
ways of working
through technology, and empowering the line level officer
through education and
training (PERF, 2014).
Leveraging technology in all aspects of policing for efficiency,

transparency,
trust and competence is an opportunity for law enforcement
organizations to be
more effective and connect to the communities in which they
serve. Technology
is rapidly changing, which will change the manner in which
policing services are
delivered. Law enforcement personnel must continue to develop
so they can
efficiently and effectively provide a range of services to the
community.
Conclusion
It is going to take a collaborative approach and significant
effort to regain
public support and trust in many communities. This is
especially true in areas
25
The Journal of California Law Enforcement 26 26
that have experienced significant police incidents. Supporting
personnel, providing the
necessary training and equipment, and ensuring they have a
policing plan in place is
imperative. The community demands their police serve with
professionalism and legitimacy
in every encounter. Building and fostering trust within a
community requires competence,
patience, respect, responsiveness and creative problem-solving
delivered with care and
compassion.

In S e a r c h o f t h e B e lo v e d C o m m u n ity.docx

In S e a r c h o f t h e B e lo v e d C o m m u n ity.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to In S e a r c h o f t h e B e lo v e d C o m m u n ity.docx

Similar to In S e a r c h o f t h e B e lo v e d C o m m u n ity.docx (13)

More from terirasco

More from terirasco (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

In S e a r c h o f t h e B e lo v e d C o m m u n ity.docx